Why, is it a custom-built radiation-hardened space-grade version of an original iPad? Because heck yeah you should keep that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NASA Mars Perseverance Rover Uses Same PowerPC Chipset Found in 1998 G3 iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Didn't page through all comments to see if anyone mentioned this, but a bit of self exploring on what CPU's were being used on landing day and found the G3 cpu already (same as Curiosity Rover, so nothing new there), but also found that Ingenuity (The helicopter) is powered by....
A Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor (2014 vintage tech, 4 core, 32bit). I assume that was chosen due to weight, and because the helicopter is essentially a "disposable" mission used to test feasibility, rather than the rover which has aUranium Plutonium-238 battery that will last 14 years and we hope the CPU in it lasts as long.
I tried to find any x86 processors on Mars (in any capacity), and I couldn't find any, but they certainly could be some in instruments, and just not the primary cpus.
A Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor (2014 vintage tech, 4 core, 32bit). I assume that was chosen due to weight, and because the helicopter is essentially a "disposable" mission used to test feasibility, rather than the rover which has a
I tried to find any x86 processors on Mars (in any capacity), and I couldn't find any, but they certainly could be some in instruments, and just not the primary cpus.
We'll see how long the Ingenuity Helicopter lasts... It's a Qualcomm Snapdragon 801. Relatively modern, and certainly not shielded in the same way as the RAD750, but also perhaps not an off-the-shelf part either. I could not find anything more specific than the processor type, but very interested to see how it holds up.
Couldn't you fit multiple modern processors in the same or less space though? Ridiculously more computing power (even just using say M1 efficiency cores) with backup chips on board. When sending something to Mars I assume every ounce and every millimeter and every watt maters, I'm a little surprised they're using chips this old and this inefficient. I get that they have to be reliable, but is it really impossible to put together a reliable modern chip?
Headline should have read "NASA Mars Perseverance Rover Uses Same IBM and Motorola PowerPC Chipset Found in 1998 G3 iMac". The PowerPC 7xx is a family of third generation 32-bit PowerPC microprocessors designed and manufactured by IBM and Motorola. Apple at the time did not have the hardware expertise.
It takes time. And it’s harder to make small transistors as immune to cosmic rays as big transistors. And modern chips aren’t really any smaller or lighter than older chips - most of the weight and size is the package, and the package will be the same size in any case, in order to incorporate more shielding and improve vibration resistance.
The only real advantage of a modern chip, given that the old chip meets the performance requirements, is power. But if the solar arrays can charge the batteries fast enough to power the reliable chip, not much point taking the risk of using a newer untested chip.
Not as uncommon as you may think. The aviation industry is similar, because of the long development time. Used to be a saying, the aircraft is obsolete when it leaves the drawing board. You can’t develop a system when the industry is moving so fast.
NASA's Perseverance rover, which recently made history landing on the surface of Mars, is powered by the same processor used in an iMac more than 23 years old.
As reported by NewScientist (via Gizmodo), the rover includes the PowerPC 750 processor, the same chip used in the G3 iMac in 1998.
The main chipset is the same; however, there are differences between the version of the processor shipped in a consumer computer and the one exploring space. The processor in the rover is built to withstand temperatures between -67 and 257 degrees Fahrenheit (−55 and 125 degrees Celsius) and comes with an added $200,000 price tag.
The PowerPC 750 processor was ahead of the game for its time, featuring a single-core, 233MHz processor, 6 million transistors (compared to today's 16 billion in a single chip), and based on 32-bit architecture.
Apple used PowerPC chips in Mac computers until it transitioned to Intel in 2005. Right now, Apple's going through a similar change, moving away from Intel to deploy its own custom Apple silicon in Macs.
Article Link: NASA Mars Perseverance Rover Uses Same PowerPC Chipset Found in 1998 G3 iMac
Great Story ! This family of processors is still alive and well and being delivered today in the form of IBM Power9, with Power10 scheduled for release this year. Incredibly enough, even today, POWER is rated #1 in reliability !! Peace gang !
NASA's Perseverance rover, which recently made history landing on the surface of Mars, is powered by the same processor used in an iMac more than 23 years old.
As reported by NewScientist (via Gizmodo), the rover includes the PowerPC 750 processor, the same chip used in the G3 iMac in 1998.
The main chipset is the same; however, there are differences between the version of the processor shipped in a consumer computer and the one exploring space. The processor in the rover is built to withstand temperatures between -67 and 257 degrees Fahrenheit (−55 and 125 degrees Celsius) and comes with an added $200,000 price tag.
The PowerPC 750 processor was ahead of the game for its time, featuring a single-core, 233MHz processor, 6 million transistors (compared to today's 16 billion in a single chip), and based on 32-bit architecture.
Apple used PowerPC chips in Mac computers until it transitioned to Intel in 2005. Right now, Apple's going through a similar change, moving away from Intel to deploy its own custom Apple silicon in Macs.
Article Link: NASA Mars Perseverance Rover Uses Same PowerPC Chipset Found in 1998 G3 iMac
This is the chip they are using:
en.wikipedia.org
Manufactured by BAE Systems, 110–200MHz, 1 core, 150–250nm.
It might not be the only chip on the Perseverance. It's plenty sufficient for vehicle control, I imagine, but maybe they have specialized chips for image processing, communications, etc.
RAD750 - Wikipedia
Manufactured by BAE Systems, 110–200MHz, 1 core, 150–250nm.
It might not be the only chip on the Perseverance. It's plenty sufficient for vehicle control, I imagine, but maybe they have specialized chips for image processing, communications, etc.
It also has 256MB of memory and a 2GB drive:
mars.nasa.gov
Perseverance Rover Components - NASA Science
The Mars 2020 rover, Perseverance, is based on the Mars Science Laboratory's Curiosity rover configuration, with an added science and technology toolbox. An important difference is that Perseverance can sample and cache minerals.
mars.nasa.gov
I know! I thought of looking on ebay to see if I could find one.
Several years ago I did found a government auction site that had old cameras from Apollo missions, and other stuff. There was a gas chromatography machine that caught my eye. But tons of stuff. Old instrument consoles with no instruments. Carts and, well, just tons of 'crap'. All kinds of stuff. And I didn't bookmark the website. Dang it! I could OWN IT ALL!!!
I posted that upstream, but thanks for keeping it current in the thread.This is the chip they are using:
RAD750 - Wikipedia
Manufactured by BAE Systems, 110–200MHz, 1 core, 150–250nm.
It might not be the only chip on the Perseverance. It's plenty sufficient for vehicle control, I imagine, but maybe they have specialized chips for image processing, communications, etc.
How much do you think it would cost to build an i7 on a rad-hard CMOS process, validate operational reliability, and then space qualify both the processor and the rest of the components on the board? You can't just use commercial capacitors, power transistors, or even lead-free solder on a board that has to work in space. How much do you think it would cost to custom package modern CPUs in a redundant architecture with automated redundancy?
It's a lot more than buying a $200k flight-proven solution that does everything your rover needs, that's for sure.
You can experiment with such things (see cubesats and the Ingenuity helicopter) but you don't risk a billion dollar nuclear powered rover because it would be cooler to have it run an off the shelf i7 for a week before it and all your spares died.
I'm not impressed. I would've been impressed if it was the same chip used in my Radio Shack TRS-80.
Interesting. My 2005 Mac mini G4 had 512 MB memory and a 140 MB hard drive. Pretty close for the memory and disk space.It also has 256MB of memory and a 2GB drive:
Perseverance Rover Components - NASA Science
The Mars 2020 rover, Perseverance, is based on the Mars Science Laboratory's Curiosity rover configuration, with an added science and technology toolbox. An important difference is that Perseverance can sample and cache minerals.
Not that I think an out of the box Mac mini would be reasonable for a Mars mission (or any other space mission), but interesting to see the main specs (processor, memory and disk space) aren't too different.
There have been several space craft that have used a rad-hardened 8085 processor, which is a close family member to the Z80 used in the TRS-80, but I think that’s about as close as it comes.
I recall a discussion a few years back about the camera launching on a spacecraft, the price was quoted as something like $500,000 and people were up in arms thinking NASA could just spend $300 for an off the shelf Canon or Nikon and save a ton of cash.
People have no clue how violent launch is: g-forces, vibration, sound levels.
In six minutes the device goes from surface temps, 85°F down to maybe -200°F. With visibility to the Sun the component temperatures can soar quite high again.
Then the thing has to survive re-entry at Mars and constant heating cooling cycles of day/night.
There's no repair shop 20 miles away you can just drop the thing off with when it stops working. It has to be reliable, predictable, survivable, and needs to be recoverable when it crashes (safe mode).
I'm amazed we do these things with as little money as we do for NASA. As I understand it the entire Perseverence mission from inception to end is under $3 billon. For rough comparison, the F-35 program cost around $400 billion and the thing never leaves the atmosphere and gets constant maintenance and upgrades.
People have no clue how violent launch is: g-forces, vibration, sound levels.
In six minutes the device goes from surface temps, 85°F down to maybe -200°F. With visibility to the Sun the component temperatures can soar quite high again.
Then the thing has to survive re-entry at Mars and constant heating cooling cycles of day/night.
There's no repair shop 20 miles away you can just drop the thing off with when it stops working. It has to be reliable, predictable, survivable, and needs to be recoverable when it crashes (safe mode).
I'm amazed we do these things with as little money as we do for NASA. As I understand it the entire Perseverence mission from inception to end is under $3 billon. For rough comparison, the F-35 program cost around $400 billion and the thing never leaves the atmosphere and gets constant maintenance and upgrades.
Last edited: