Tag: CHIP

  • A Novice’s Look at Sidus Space SIDU [Web App]

    A Novice’s Look at Sidus Space

    Posing a Simple Question About Commercial Chips in a Radiation-Filled World

    Important Disclaimer

    This is not financial advice. I am a complete novice at this type of research. I hold degrees in Engineering Physics (B.S.) and Electrical & Electronics Engineering (M.S.), but my conclusions could be entirely wrong. I have previously bought and sold securities in both Sidus Space (SIDU) and Draganfly (DPRO). This report is for informational purposes only and represents my personal line of questioning. Do your own research. I am not responsible for any financial gains or losses.

    The Central Conflict

    Sidus Space, a company working on space and defense technology, has announced the use of NVIDIA’s Jetson platform for its on-orbit AI processing. This raises a fundamental question about equipment survivability in space. Let’s look at the two conflicting sides of this story.

    Side A: The Company’s Claim

    Sidus Space states its LizzieSat™ satellites use AI for “next-generation intelligence solutions” and touts its “AI-driven on-orbit capabilities.”

    “Sidus Space … announced the successful on-orbit operation of its Automatic Identification System (AIS) sensor onboard LizzieSat®-3… advancing the company’s strategy to fuse multi-sensor satellite data with onboard artificial intelligence…” – Sidus Space Press Release, Sep 10, 2025

    Side B: The Technical Reality

    The processor at the heart of their AI strategy, the NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX, is a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) component. It was never designed or intended for use in space.

    “The NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX System-on-Module (SoM) is unequivocally not a radiation-hardened device… Its official product documentation makes no claims regarding its suitability for aerospace or radiation environments…” – An Engineering Assessment of the NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX

    Hardened vs. Tolerant: What’s the Difference?

    To understand the risk, we need to know the key terminology. “Radiation Hardened” and “Radiation Tolerant” sound similar, but they represent fundamentally different engineering philosophies and levels of reliability.

    Built for Purpose

    These components are intentionally designed from the ground up to survive the harsh radiation of space. This involves specialized manufacturing processes (like Silicon-on-Insulator), redundant circuit designs, and materials that resist radiation damage. The manufacturer provides a guaranteed performance specification (e.g., will survive up to 100 krad(Si)).

    A Staggering Difference in Resilience

    Independent testing reveals the gap between the Jetson Orin NX’s tolerance and the guaranteed resilience of true rad-hard chips. The metric here is Total Ionizing Dose (TID), measured in krad(Si). A higher number means better protection.

    Processor Head-to-Head

    Here’s how the commercial Jetson Orin NX stacks up against two processors actually designed for the rigors of space. Note the trade-off: immense performance for unguaranteed reliability.

    Metric NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX BAE Systems RAD5545 Frontgrade Gaisler GR740
    Type COTS (Commercial) Rad-Hard by Design Rad-Hard by Design
    AI Performance Up to 100 TOPS N/A N/A
    TID Rating ~37-39 krad(Si) (Tested) 100 krad(Si) (Guaranteed) 300 krad(Si) (Guaranteed)
    Destructive Latchup Not Immune (Requires external protection) Latchup Immune (Guaranteed) Latchup Immune (Guaranteed)
    Manufacturer Stance Not intended for space Designed for SpaceVPX QML-V Certified for space

    So, How Do You Square the Two?

    On one hand, we have a company making exciting claims about AI in space. On the other, the hardware enabling these claims appears fundamentally unsuited for the operating environment without significant, undisclosed, and expensive mitigation strategies (like advanced shielding or complex watchdog systems).

    Is this the “New Space” paradigm of accepting higher risk for higher performance? Or is it a critical vulnerability being overlooked? As a novice, I don’t have the answer. But the question seems worth asking.

    About This Report

    My skepticism stems partly from past experiences with related companies and underwriters like Think Equity and H.C. Wainwright, particularly with Draganfly (DPRO). The pattern of dilution and bold claims warrants careful scrutiny.

    Report Published: October 7, 2025.

    (more…)
  • Healthcare Provisions Within the “Big Beautiful Bill”: Exacerbating Failed Policies

    The comprehensive legislation, dubbed by some the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB), includes a substantial set of provisions pertaining to healthcare. These proposals aim to reform Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and other health-related sectors. However, rather than offering genuine solutions, these healthcare sections largely entrench and expand failed federal programs. Market-based and state-level solutions are the appropriate path forward; continuing with the current trajectory will only worsen our $37 trillion national debt and further degrade our healthcare system.

    Medicaid and CHIP: Entrenching a Failed System

    A significant portion of the bill addresses Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), programs that have demonstrably failed to deliver efficient, fiscally responsible healthcare.

    • Enrollment and Eligibility: Provisions imposing moratoriums on recent rules for Medicaid/CHIP enrollment (Sec. 44101, 44102), while citing concerns over states’ ability to remove ineligible enrollees, tinker at the edges of a fundamentally broken system. Robust income verification, streamlined through tax data, is essential, but this addresses symptoms, not the core disease of these programs. The argument that the delayed rules could weaken verification standards only underscores the inherent vulnerability to fraud and improper payments within these federal structures.
    • The mandate for states to improve enrollee address information and participate in a federal system to prevent multi-state enrollment by 2029 (Sec. 44103) is a minor, albeit logical, measure within a system that requires wholesale replacement.
    • Quarterly screenings against the Death Master File (Sec. 44104) and enhanced provider screening (Sec. 44105, 44106) are basic anti-fraud measures that should have been rigorously implemented decades ago, and their inclusion now highlights past failures.
    • Increasing eligibility redeterminations to every six months (Sec. 44108) will inevitably create more bureaucracy, not genuine integrity, within these failed expansion programs. Stringent initial enrollment criteria are necessary, but the programs themselves are the problem.
    • Proposed revisions to home equity limits for Medicaid long-term care (Sec. 44109) are an egregious component of a system that forces asset depletion. The link between Medicaid and long-term care services must be severed entirely.
    • Prohibiting Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for individuals without verified immigration status (Sec. 44110) is a necessary, though insufficient, step toward fiscal discipline.
    • Conversely, efforts to “streamline” enrollment for out-of-state providers (Sec. 44302) are a pathway to inefficient contracting and cronyism, typical of bloated federal programs.
    • Spending and Program Integrity:
    • The removal of the good faith waiver for certain erroneous excess Medicaid payments (Sec. 44107) is an admission of the rampant improper payments that plague the system, reinforcing the argument that Medicaid must be abolished.
    • Modifying retroactive Medicaid/CHIP coverage (Sec. 44122) is a trivial adjustment.
    • Federal intervention in pharmacy payments (Sec. 44123, 44124) is an unacceptable overreach. Free markets, not government dictates, ensure fair pharmacy pricing.
    • The prohibition of federal Medicaid/CHIP funding for gender transition procedures (Sec. 44125, Sec. 112030) is correct; such funding has no place at the federal level and should be entirely a private matter, with no exceptions for federal dollars.
    • Prohibiting federal payments to “prohibited entities” in family planning (Sec. 44126) is a sound policy; such funding decisions should be eliminated from public coffers altogether.
    • Sunsetting increased FMAP for new Medicaid expansion states (Sec. 44131) and imposing a moratorium on new provider taxes (Sec. 44132) are welcome, as no new taxes should support these failing programs.
    • Revising payments for state-directed Medicaid based on Medicare rates (Sec. 44133) perpetuates federal price-fixing. Medicaid must be dismantled, replaced by a system focused on transparently priced emergency and preventative services, potentially leveraging innovations like robotic-assisted procedures to reduce costs and liability.
    • Mandating Medicaid community engagement requirements (Sec. 44141) is a gross federal intrusion into matters that are exclusively state or local concerns.
    • Modifying cost-sharing for Medicaid expansion individuals (Sec. 44142) is merely propping up a failed expansion of a failed program using flawed metrics like the federal poverty line. The entire edifice needs to be replaced with free-market solutions.
    (more…)