How many petaflops does it take to land on the moon? What does Artemis need with an Aitken?The Martian: Does...
How to get trace to get a cylinder when I rotate a rectangle?
Expressing an implication as ILP where each implication term comprises a chain of boolean ORs
What happened to the HDEV ISS Experiment? Is it over?
Why should a self-financing strategy be previsible?
Breaker Mapping Questions
3D cryptic featuring Mao, Stalin and Simba's uncle
Why is getting a PhD may be considered as "financially irresponsible" by some people?
How much does Commander Data weigh?
Beginner to guitar playing - where should I begin?
Unity - Uses for NativeArray
How do I remap "å" to type "å"?
Router on a stick not connecting 2 different VLANs
How many lines of code does the original TeX contain?
50-move rule: only the last 50 or any consecutive 50?
To what extent should we fear giving offense?
Dealing with stress in coding interviews
Why error propagation in CBC mode encryption affect two blocks?
What's special ammo in Destiny 2?
What is the best way to solve this 6x6 sudoku?
Why is the UK so stuck on the "backstop" when their leadership seems to think that no border will be needed in Northern Ireland?
How many birds in the bush?
Talk interpreter
How to say "I only speak one which is English." in French?
Why did my folder names end up like this, and how can I fix this using a script?
How many petaflops does it take to land on the moon? What does Artemis need with an Aitken?
The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers?What does NASA plan to do with the world's largest quantum computer?Re-entry DynamicsWhat (actually) is a 1:1 resonance, and is 2016 HO3 in one with the Earth?Could momentum transfer be practical (e.g., for orbital insertion at Pluto)?How many orbits will it take for Santa to deliver all the presents?Timing shadows from the Kuiper belt! Any news? Did it work?The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers?What's up with the “Apollo” computer on the ISS? How is it being used?Will NASA put astronauts into a polar lunar orbit? If so, how?Does Lightsail-2 take significant advantage of the Oberth effect?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
All of the top five answers to The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers? are essentially "no, orbital mechanics isn't rocket science". Okay I have used some artistic license there, but these days even laptops do gigaflops, and that's not even counting the GPU; optimizing trajectories like a flight from Earth to the Moon are not likely going to need supercomputers as near as I can tell.
So I was surprised to read the following:
- Techspot: HPE builds supercomputer for NASA, aimed at future moon missions
Aitken will consist of 1,150 nodes, with each node using two 20-core second generation Intel Xeon Scalable processors and Mellonox InfiniBand interconnects. Total numbers for Aitken come to 46,080 cores and 221TB of memory across 1,150 nodes for 3.69 petaflops of theoretical peak performance.
Aitken will reside at NASA Ames' new modular supercomputing facility, which had its grand opening last Thursday. The new facility is based on a Modular Data Center (MDC) design, and can accommodate 16 modules, with Aitken claiming the first. Aitken will aid in landing astronauts on the South Pole region of the moon by 2024, as part of NASA's Artemis program.
- Engadget: NASA's new moon-landing supercomputer is more powerful and more eco-friendly
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and engineers from across the country, including on projects like developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our sun. The job at the top of the priority list will be running modeling and simulations of the entry, decent and landing to the moon for the Artemis project.
Question: Does the "modeling and simulations of the entry, decent and landing to the moon" really need 46,000+ cores, 3.69 petaflops and 221 TB of memory?
What does "entry" even mean when landing on the Moon?
orbital-mechanics computing computer
asked 10 hours ago
uhohuhoh
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
All of the top five answers to The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers? are essentially "no, orbital mechanics isn't rocket science". Okay I have used some artistic license there, but these days even laptops do gigaflops, and that's not even counting the GPU; optimizing trajectories like a flight from Earth to the Moon are not likely going to need supercomputers as near as I can tell.
So I was surprised to read the following:
- Techspot: HPE builds supercomputer for NASA, aimed at future moon missions
Aitken will consist of 1,150 nodes, with each node using two 20-core second generation Intel Xeon Scalable processors and Mellonox InfiniBand interconnects. Total numbers for Aitken come to 46,080 cores and 221TB of memory across 1,150 nodes for 3.69 petaflops of theoretical peak performance.
Aitken will reside at NASA Ames' new modular supercomputing facility, which had its grand opening last Thursday. The new facility is based on a Modular Data Center (MDC) design, and can accommodate 16 modules, with Aitken claiming the first. Aitken will aid in landing astronauts on the South Pole region of the moon by 2024, as part of NASA's Artemis program.
- Engadget: NASA's new moon-landing supercomputer is more powerful and more eco-friendly
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and engineers from across the country, including on projects like developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our sun. The job at the top of the priority list will be running modeling and simulations of the entry, decent and landing to the moon for the Artemis project.
Question: Does the "modeling and simulations of the entry, decent and landing to the moon" really need 46,000+ cores, 3.69 petaflops and 221 TB of memory?
What does "entry" even mean when landing on the Moon?
orbital-mechanics computing computer
asked 10 hours ago
uhohuhoh
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
If you're modelling the behaviour of the spacecraft structure (vibration, for instance) you could easily consume all that CPU
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I hope entry does not mean an atmospheric entry to the Moon. Maybe an entry into a lunar orbit.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
They may simulate 46000 variations of the trajectory from the cape in Florida to the south Pole of the Moon at once in less than a minute. Finding the optimal launch window by calculating the trajectory every 15 minutes within a full year would need 35040 variants.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Leaked image of Aitken simulation: fictionphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/…
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In response to the question in the title, landing on the Moon doesn't require floating-point math.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
All of the top five answers to The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers? are essentially "no, orbital mechanics isn't rocket science". Okay I have used some artistic license there, but these days even laptops do gigaflops, and that's not even counting the GPU; optimizing trajectories like a flight from Earth to the Moon are not likely going to need supercomputers as near as I can tell.
So I was surprised to read the following:
- Techspot: HPE builds supercomputer for NASA, aimed at future moon missions
Aitken will consist of 1,150 nodes, with each node using two 20-core second generation Intel Xeon Scalable processors and Mellonox InfiniBand interconnects. Total numbers for Aitken come to 46,080 cores and 221TB of memory across 1,150 nodes for 3.69 petaflops of theoretical peak performance.
Aitken will reside at NASA Ames' new modular supercomputing facility, which had its grand opening last Thursday. The new facility is based on a Modular Data Center (MDC) design, and can accommodate 16 modules, with Aitken claiming the first. Aitken will aid in landing astronauts on the South Pole region of the moon by 2024, as part of NASA's Artemis program.
- Engadget: NASA's new moon-landing supercomputer is more powerful and more eco-friendly
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and engineers from across the country, including on projects like developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our sun. The job at the top of the priority list will be running modeling and simulations of the entry, decent and landing to the moon for the Artemis project.
Question: Does the "modeling and simulations of the entry, decent and landing to the moon" really need 46,000+ cores, 3.69 petaflops and 221 TB of memory?
What does "entry" even mean when landing on the Moon?
orbital-mechanics computing computer
asked 10 hours ago
uhohuhoh
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
$endgroup$
All of the top five answers to The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers? are essentially "no, orbital mechanics isn't rocket science". Okay I have used some artistic license there, but these days even laptops do gigaflops, and that's not even counting the GPU; optimizing trajectories like a flight from Earth to the Moon are not likely going to need supercomputers as near as I can tell.
So I was surprised to read the following:
- Techspot: HPE builds supercomputer for NASA, aimed at future moon missions
Aitken will consist of 1,150 nodes, with each node using two 20-core second generation Intel Xeon Scalable processors and Mellonox InfiniBand interconnects. Total numbers for Aitken come to 46,080 cores and 221TB of memory across 1,150 nodes for 3.69 petaflops of theoretical peak performance.
Aitken will reside at NASA Ames' new modular supercomputing facility, which had its grand opening last Thursday. The new facility is based on a Modular Data Center (MDC) design, and can accommodate 16 modules, with Aitken claiming the first. Aitken will aid in landing astronauts on the South Pole region of the moon by 2024, as part of NASA's Artemis program.
- Engadget: NASA's new moon-landing supercomputer is more powerful and more eco-friendly
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and engineers from across the country, including on projects like developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our sun. The job at the top of the priority list will be running modeling and simulations of the entry, decent and landing to the moon for the Artemis project.
Question: Does the "modeling and simulations of the entry, decent and landing to the moon" really need 46,000+ cores, 3.69 petaflops and 221 TB of memory?
What does "entry" even mean when landing on the Moon?
orbital-mechanics computing computer
orbital-mechanics computing computer
asked 10 hours ago
uhohuhoh
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
asked 10 hours ago
uhohuhoh
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
edited 8 hours ago
uhoh
asked 10 hours ago
uhohuhoh
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
asked 10 hours ago
uhohuhoh
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
asked 10 hours ago
uhohuhoh
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
50.7k23 gold badges200 silver badges655 bronze badges
3
$begingroup$
If you're modelling the behaviour of the spacecraft structure (vibration, for instance) you could easily consume all that CPU
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I hope entry does not mean an atmospheric entry to the Moon. Maybe an entry into a lunar orbit.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
They may simulate 46000 variations of the trajectory from the cape in Florida to the south Pole of the Moon at once in less than a minute. Finding the optimal launch window by calculating the trajectory every 15 minutes within a full year would need 35040 variants.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Leaked image of Aitken simulation: fictionphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/…
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In response to the question in the title, landing on the Moon doesn't require floating-point math.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
3
$begingroup$
If you're modelling the behaviour of the spacecraft structure (vibration, for instance) you could easily consume all that CPU
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I hope entry does not mean an atmospheric entry to the Moon. Maybe an entry into a lunar orbit.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
They may simulate 46000 variations of the trajectory from the cape in Florida to the south Pole of the Moon at once in less than a minute. Finding the optimal launch window by calculating the trajectory every 15 minutes within a full year would need 35040 variants.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Leaked image of Aitken simulation: fictionphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/…
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In response to the question in the title, landing on the Moon doesn't require floating-point math.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
If you're modelling the behaviour of the spacecraft structure (vibration, for instance) you could easily consume all that CPU
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you're modelling the behaviour of the spacecraft structure (vibration, for instance) you could easily consume all that CPU
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I hope entry does not mean an atmospheric entry to the Moon. Maybe an entry into a lunar orbit.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I hope entry does not mean an atmospheric entry to the Moon. Maybe an entry into a lunar orbit.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
They may simulate 46000 variations of the trajectory from the cape in Florida to the south Pole of the Moon at once in less than a minute. Finding the optimal launch window by calculating the trajectory every 15 minutes within a full year would need 35040 variants.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
They may simulate 46000 variations of the trajectory from the cape in Florida to the south Pole of the Moon at once in less than a minute. Finding the optimal launch window by calculating the trajectory every 15 minutes within a full year would need 35040 variants.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Leaked image of Aitken simulation: fictionphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/…
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Leaked image of Aitken simulation: fictionphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/…
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
In response to the question in the title, landing on the Moon doesn't require floating-point math.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
In response to the question in the title, landing on the Moon doesn't require floating-point math.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First of all, it can require a lot of computer power to compute trajectories if they involve multiple gravitational slinghots to reduce fuel usage. This isn't because computing each segment is hard but because the search space is at least potentially exponential in the number of gravitational slingshots. I am pretty sure that this is what the thing in The Martian referred to. (There may be clever tricks for reducing the search space which I don't know about.)
However an Earth-Moon trajectory probably doesn't include a lot of slingshots!
But computing trajectories is not all of spaceflight: it's not even most of it. For instance, you might very well want know how your design behaves in the atmosphere, for instance, or how your engines behave under load, or what vibrational modes are going to be a problem in the structure of your vehicle and how you can minimise mass while not having the thing suffer from pogo or some other unfortunate vibration still less fail altogether. Is the thing strong enough to withstand impacts of various kinds – how does your fancy material fail when its hit by bits of foam, say? And there are many, many other engineering questions you need answers to.
You can solve these problems in several ways:
- over-engineer the thing so that you are really pretty confident that it will not suffer from any of the above;
- build lots of experimental things, fly them and see what goes wrong, refining the design successively;
- build models of the thing, in a computer, and simulate their behaviour.
The last of these is hugely cheaper than the first two: it lets you explore a huge number of options, and results in something which may be close to optimal, without having to physically build lots of experimental vehicles & bits of them.
So you buy (time on) an HPC system, and do that.
answered 6 hours ago
tfbtfb
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
All that computing power is not dedicated to the Artemis project. As you quote in the body of your question,
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and
engineers from across the country, including on projects like
developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our
sun.
Not all of this computing power is used for the Artemis project, so it's clear you don't need all of it to simulate a moon landing. Without knowing more about the actual simulations they're running, it's near-impossible to say how much computing power is actually needed. Heck, I can fire up Kerbal Space Program on my 5-year old laptop and simulate a moon landing, but I have to assume NASA's simulations are a bit more detailed than that.
answered 10 hours ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The problem with "Not all of this computing power is used..." is that it includes "zero of this computing power is used". I think a good answer should explain if Artemis needs some reasonable fraction, like 5% or 20%, or not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38379%2fhow-many-petaflops-does-it-take-to-land-on-the-moon-what-does-artemis-need-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First of all, it can require a lot of computer power to compute trajectories if they involve multiple gravitational slinghots to reduce fuel usage. This isn't because computing each segment is hard but because the search space is at least potentially exponential in the number of gravitational slingshots. I am pretty sure that this is what the thing in The Martian referred to. (There may be clever tricks for reducing the search space which I don't know about.)
However an Earth-Moon trajectory probably doesn't include a lot of slingshots!
But computing trajectories is not all of spaceflight: it's not even most of it. For instance, you might very well want know how your design behaves in the atmosphere, for instance, or how your engines behave under load, or what vibrational modes are going to be a problem in the structure of your vehicle and how you can minimise mass while not having the thing suffer from pogo or some other unfortunate vibration still less fail altogether. Is the thing strong enough to withstand impacts of various kinds – how does your fancy material fail when its hit by bits of foam, say? And there are many, many other engineering questions you need answers to.
You can solve these problems in several ways:
- over-engineer the thing so that you are really pretty confident that it will not suffer from any of the above;
- build lots of experimental things, fly them and see what goes wrong, refining the design successively;
- build models of the thing, in a computer, and simulate their behaviour.
The last of these is hugely cheaper than the first two: it lets you explore a huge number of options, and results in something which may be close to optimal, without having to physically build lots of experimental vehicles & bits of them.
So you buy (time on) an HPC system, and do that.
answered 6 hours ago
tfbtfb
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First of all, it can require a lot of computer power to compute trajectories if they involve multiple gravitational slinghots to reduce fuel usage. This isn't because computing each segment is hard but because the search space is at least potentially exponential in the number of gravitational slingshots. I am pretty sure that this is what the thing in The Martian referred to. (There may be clever tricks for reducing the search space which I don't know about.)
However an Earth-Moon trajectory probably doesn't include a lot of slingshots!
But computing trajectories is not all of spaceflight: it's not even most of it. For instance, you might very well want know how your design behaves in the atmosphere, for instance, or how your engines behave under load, or what vibrational modes are going to be a problem in the structure of your vehicle and how you can minimise mass while not having the thing suffer from pogo or some other unfortunate vibration still less fail altogether. Is the thing strong enough to withstand impacts of various kinds – how does your fancy material fail when its hit by bits of foam, say? And there are many, many other engineering questions you need answers to.
You can solve these problems in several ways:
- over-engineer the thing so that you are really pretty confident that it will not suffer from any of the above;
- build lots of experimental things, fly them and see what goes wrong, refining the design successively;
- build models of the thing, in a computer, and simulate their behaviour.
The last of these is hugely cheaper than the first two: it lets you explore a huge number of options, and results in something which may be close to optimal, without having to physically build lots of experimental vehicles & bits of them.
So you buy (time on) an HPC system, and do that.
answered 6 hours ago
tfbtfb
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First of all, it can require a lot of computer power to compute trajectories if they involve multiple gravitational slinghots to reduce fuel usage. This isn't because computing each segment is hard but because the search space is at least potentially exponential in the number of gravitational slingshots. I am pretty sure that this is what the thing in The Martian referred to. (There may be clever tricks for reducing the search space which I don't know about.)
However an Earth-Moon trajectory probably doesn't include a lot of slingshots!
But computing trajectories is not all of spaceflight: it's not even most of it. For instance, you might very well want know how your design behaves in the atmosphere, for instance, or how your engines behave under load, or what vibrational modes are going to be a problem in the structure of your vehicle and how you can minimise mass while not having the thing suffer from pogo or some other unfortunate vibration still less fail altogether. Is the thing strong enough to withstand impacts of various kinds – how does your fancy material fail when its hit by bits of foam, say? And there are many, many other engineering questions you need answers to.
You can solve these problems in several ways:
- over-engineer the thing so that you are really pretty confident that it will not suffer from any of the above;
- build lots of experimental things, fly them and see what goes wrong, refining the design successively;
- build models of the thing, in a computer, and simulate their behaviour.
The last of these is hugely cheaper than the first two: it lets you explore a huge number of options, and results in something which may be close to optimal, without having to physically build lots of experimental vehicles & bits of them.
So you buy (time on) an HPC system, and do that.
answered 6 hours ago
tfbtfb
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
$endgroup$
First of all, it can require a lot of computer power to compute trajectories if they involve multiple gravitational slinghots to reduce fuel usage. This isn't because computing each segment is hard but because the search space is at least potentially exponential in the number of gravitational slingshots. I am pretty sure that this is what the thing in The Martian referred to. (There may be clever tricks for reducing the search space which I don't know about.)
However an Earth-Moon trajectory probably doesn't include a lot of slingshots!
But computing trajectories is not all of spaceflight: it's not even most of it. For instance, you might very well want know how your design behaves in the atmosphere, for instance, or how your engines behave under load, or what vibrational modes are going to be a problem in the structure of your vehicle and how you can minimise mass while not having the thing suffer from pogo or some other unfortunate vibration still less fail altogether. Is the thing strong enough to withstand impacts of various kinds – how does your fancy material fail when its hit by bits of foam, say? And there are many, many other engineering questions you need answers to.
You can solve these problems in several ways:
- over-engineer the thing so that you are really pretty confident that it will not suffer from any of the above;
- build lots of experimental things, fly them and see what goes wrong, refining the design successively;
- build models of the thing, in a computer, and simulate their behaviour.
The last of these is hugely cheaper than the first two: it lets you explore a huge number of options, and results in something which may be close to optimal, without having to physically build lots of experimental vehicles & bits of them.
So you buy (time on) an HPC system, and do that.
answered 6 hours ago
tfbtfb
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
tfbtfb
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
tfbtfb
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
tfbtfb
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
6662 silver badges6 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
All that computing power is not dedicated to the Artemis project. As you quote in the body of your question,
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and
engineers from across the country, including on projects like
developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our
sun.
Not all of this computing power is used for the Artemis project, so it's clear you don't need all of it to simulate a moon landing. Without knowing more about the actual simulations they're running, it's near-impossible to say how much computing power is actually needed. Heck, I can fire up Kerbal Space Program on my 5-year old laptop and simulate a moon landing, but I have to assume NASA's simulations are a bit more detailed than that.
answered 10 hours ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The problem with "Not all of this computing power is used..." is that it includes "zero of this computing power is used". I think a good answer should explain if Artemis needs some reasonable fraction, like 5% or 20%, or not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
All that computing power is not dedicated to the Artemis project. As you quote in the body of your question,
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and
engineers from across the country, including on projects like
developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our
sun.
Not all of this computing power is used for the Artemis project, so it's clear you don't need all of it to simulate a moon landing. Without knowing more about the actual simulations they're running, it's near-impossible to say how much computing power is actually needed. Heck, I can fire up Kerbal Space Program on my 5-year old laptop and simulate a moon landing, but I have to assume NASA's simulations are a bit more detailed than that.
answered 10 hours ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The problem with "Not all of this computing power is used..." is that it includes "zero of this computing power is used". I think a good answer should explain if Artemis needs some reasonable fraction, like 5% or 20%, or not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
All that computing power is not dedicated to the Artemis project. As you quote in the body of your question,
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and
engineers from across the country, including on projects like
developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our
sun.
Not all of this computing power is used for the Artemis project, so it's clear you don't need all of it to simulate a moon landing. Without knowing more about the actual simulations they're running, it's near-impossible to say how much computing power is actually needed. Heck, I can fire up Kerbal Space Program on my 5-year old laptop and simulate a moon landing, but I have to assume NASA's simulations are a bit more detailed than that.
answered 10 hours ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
$endgroup$
All that computing power is not dedicated to the Artemis project. As you quote in the body of your question,
The new supercomputer will be used by more than 1,500 scientists and
engineers from across the country, including on projects like
developing a more efficient quadcopter or simulating the inside of our
sun.
Not all of this computing power is used for the Artemis project, so it's clear you don't need all of it to simulate a moon landing. Without knowing more about the actual simulations they're running, it's near-impossible to say how much computing power is actually needed. Heck, I can fire up Kerbal Space Program on my 5-year old laptop and simulate a moon landing, but I have to assume NASA's simulations are a bit more detailed than that.
answered 10 hours ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
answered 10 hours ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
answered 10 hours ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
2311 silver badge5 bronze badges
$begingroup$
The problem with "Not all of this computing power is used..." is that it includes "zero of this computing power is used". I think a good answer should explain if Artemis needs some reasonable fraction, like 5% or 20%, or not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem with "Not all of this computing power is used..." is that it includes "zero of this computing power is used". I think a good answer should explain if Artemis needs some reasonable fraction, like 5% or 20%, or not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with "Not all of this computing power is used..." is that it includes "zero of this computing power is used". I think a good answer should explain if Artemis needs some reasonable fraction, like 5% or 20%, or not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with "Not all of this computing power is used..." is that it includes "zero of this computing power is used". I think a good answer should explain if Artemis needs some reasonable fraction, like 5% or 20%, or not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38379%2fhow-many-petaflops-does-it-take-to-land-on-the-moon-what-does-artemis-need-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
If you're modelling the behaviour of the spacecraft structure (vibration, for instance) you could easily consume all that CPU
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I hope entry does not mean an atmospheric entry to the Moon. Maybe an entry into a lunar orbit.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
They may simulate 46000 variations of the trajectory from the cape in Florida to the south Pole of the Moon at once in less than a minute. Finding the optimal launch window by calculating the trajectory every 15 minutes within a full year would need 35040 variants.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Leaked image of Aitken simulation: fictionphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/…
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In response to the question in the title, landing on the Moon doesn't require floating-point math.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago