Slashdot Mirror


Space Station BSOD

Lostman writes: "CNN has an article that details a computer glitch that has occured at the international space station. The problem disrupted all communication from the command computers on the station. Although NASA knows that this was because an onboard server had crashed, the cause of this was not immediately known." See also space.com, the BBC, or NASA's status update. NASA is using Windows for most of their computing functions, as mentioned here.

14 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What really happened by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 5
    [...]shake the ISS around until the US system thought it was out of control and went into what is called Free Drift Mode.

    Great...so the ISS is really a giant pinball machine with one of the flippers locked up, so we need to get it to go "TILT" and shut down so we can reset it? :-)


    ---
  2. What really happened, and FUD even by /.ers by boarder · · Score: 5
    First off, Windows almost definitely did not cause the crash; /. personnel are the only people saying that. It was a hardware failure in all likelyhood occuring the the US control module (probably in the Command and Control MDMs). I can't believe the kind of reporting going on here; it reads like a M$ FUD press release. Blue Screen of Death my ass!?!

    What really happened is the US control module computers stopped responding to any inputs from the ground. They weren't able to control the station or tell it to shutdown or anything. Their plan to fix it (last I heard) was to have the Russian control module move and shake the ISS around until the US system thought it was out of control and went into what is called Free Drift Mode. In this mode, it can be completely controlled by the Russian module and we can debug the system and bring it back online.

    --
    IANAL, but I play one on /.
  3. Re:Bad form, Slashdot... by anticypher · · Score: 5

    There's *nothing* in the CNN article ... implying that Windows is the reason for the server crash

    Micro~1.oft spent a lot of time, energy and money to ensure that their OSes were dominant on the ISS. They have spent millions of $$$ just to place a few hundred copies on the ISS, in the space flight centre, and in the russian control centres. The reason for this massive cost was to use the ISS as a giant marketing tool, and they even created a whole marketing campaign around it.

    Windoze is not the only OS on the ISS, but it is dominant. There are some *nixes running critical communication processes, such as the main link from the station to ground points, and these have not had many problems at all.

    When the M$ servers started crashing, the whole micr~1.oft in space campaign was put on hold. If you read the logs created by the station crew, they are pretty upset having to spend entire days trying to fix micr~1.oft problems. NASA has a direct line into the best and brightest engineers at M$, but even they are clueless as to why certain processes hang, why backups fail to happen, why entire directories are blown away with no trace, or why new patches cause driver conflicts.

    Since the Register article highlighting the ISS problems in the logs, micr~1.oft has been putting pressure on NASA to redact all mention of micr~1.oft. Certainly someone has been archiving copies of the logs since they appeared, so they can diff them later and see when NASA bows to micr~1.oft pressure.

    As you noticed, none of the mainstream reporting now mentions micr~1.oft by name, that is due to a pressure campaign by one of the largest advertising bugdets in the US. But when the logs are posted for these events, you will notice a great many references to the machines running micr~1.oft, even if the name of OS is redacted out. If you do a little research, you will see these machines are running either DoS or windoze.

    the AC

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
  4. Happy Funtime Conspiracy Corner by RollingThunder · · Score: 5

    Not that I believe this at all, but it occured to me and I figure it's amusing enough to share.

    CNN:
    A delay in the departure of Endeavour could mean a delay in the launch of space tourist Dennis Tito aboard a Russian Soyuz craft. Tito was scheduled to lift off on Saturday, but that mission would have to be delayed if the computer problem is not corrected, NASA spokesman Doug Peterson told Reuters.

    "Sorry, Dennis. That darn computer system crashed again, we just can't let ya launch right now. We figure it'll be fixed by... oh... October." <sotto voce: Frank, have you finished the bluescreen plan for Friday yet?>

  5. Re:Deep link by jbridge21 · · Score: 5

    It is specifically Solaris x86 running on a laptop.
    -----

  6. Re:Bad form, Slashdot... by hardcode · · Score: 5

    Try http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/18540.html to find out NASAs' rebuttal of that Register story. Seems it's not only /. that froths at the mouth at the thought of bashing IBM and Microsoft.

    hc

  7. Re:Assembly language on ISS by revbob · · Score: 5
    You were either misinformed or you misunderstood what your interviewer said.

    Real time software for mission critical systems is written in Ada. That's a no-brainer. If there is any assembler, it's tiny, of severely limited scope, and meticulously tested. In fact, having worked with some very low level networking code for ISS (in Ada), I doubt there's any assembler in there at all.

    As to the 386's, they're rad hardened and known reliable. And, unlike the home computer I bought a couple of months ago that's state of the art, whether I need state of the art or not, the jobs these CPUs had to do simply didn't require anything faster than a 386, even given a hefty allowance of spare cycles and memory for future growth.

    We bought what we needed (in space, rad hardening is not optional) and we didn't buy what we didn't need. That's not $400 hammers, that's the definition of responsible stewardship of the public's money.

  8. Bad form, Slashdot... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5

    I'm no fan of Windows... frankly, I use Linux whenever I get the chance. And it's great that Slashdot is evangelical about my favorite OS. But that's no excuse for bad reporting. There's *nothing* in the CNN article (or any of the others, for that matter) implying that Windows is the reason for the server crash. Implying that it is related (with the little tagline "NASA is using Windows for most of their computing functions"... why add this, except to add sensationalism to the article?), is just bad, bad form. If any other publication did this, I'm sure people here would be complaining about poor journalism, bias, etc, etc, et al, ad nauseum. Frankly, I think that little line should be removed, and the post should be allowed to stand on it's own. Please, don't put these little editorial comments into the stories. There's no need. All it does is damage Slashdot's (already shakey) credibility.

    1. Re:Bad form, Slashdot... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5
      I totally agree. Slashdot posts stories with the author's opinion thrown in. However, an opinion is one thing... warping the facts, implying something that's not true... that's entirely another. The comment (and the title of the story) implies that Windows was the reason for the crash... however, not even NASA knows why the crash occured. Now, if we'd had a confirmation that, yes, Windows caused the problem, and then we had a little MS bashing comment in the story, well, so be it. Or if the title of the story was "Severe server crash on ISS", and the comment was something like "I wonder if Windows had anything to do with it...", that'd be fine, too. But this isn't the case... the author tried to imply causation when there is no proof of it. That's irresponsible.

      Now, I've been around Slashdot for a long time, as well... like you, before the Andover buy-out. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to be objective. The author fscked up here. I'm not saying /. should praise M$... frankly, M$ has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. I simply think that Slashdot should try to report *true*, *accurate* stories. Is that so much to ask? A little journalistic integrity (I know, I know... naive... :)

    2. Re:Bad form, Slashdot... by cavemanf16 · · Score: 5
      ...I'm sure people here would be complaining about poor journalism, bias, etc...

      This isn't a journalism site, it's a bulletin board system. Jon Katz is the only one who really writes stories of his own, each time. Most of the rest of the stories are just links to other sites. So yes, that's why slashdot evangelizes about Linux 24/7 and bashes Microsoft. Sure, we all realize that NASA didn't just pick Windows to run space shuttle operations just cause it was easy to use. I'm sure plenty of considerations went into how well it would work versus other OS's. But it's still fun to discuss whether they made the best choice possible, which is what slashdot is so popular for. Discussion.

  9. Crashed computers don't use Windows by ec_hack · · Score: 5

    The ISS computers that have been crashing (the MDMs) don't use Windows. The MDMs and other embedded computer systems are based on Intel 386 chips. If they have a kernel, it is probably VxWorks or other commercial RTOS. AFAIK, the only ISS computers that use Windows are some of the laptops, however, some use the Intel version of Solaris.

    Why 386 chips? Because they have been tested and been found to be relatively radiation tolerant. More current chips are likely to be subject to more radiation-induced faults due to smaller transistor size.

    1. Re:Crashed computers don't use Windows by pavonis · · Score: 5

      For gods' sakes, someone with some karma mod this thing up. /.'s reaction to this story, in the complete absence of the relevant facts, was kind of distressing- so many instant Windoze bashers popping up, the usual modding-separating-wheat-from-chaff system failed completely. The only systems aboard ISS running Windows that I am aware of are some of the laptops, which are not the sole interfaces to any critical system, and servers for some relatively minor tasks, like e-mail I believe.

      I assume this choice was made for the sake of simplicity. I don't agree with running windows at all, but so far as I know they're being fairly sensible about it. Those referring to NASA decisions that 'everything would run windows', or massive M$ marketing campaigns, please provide some sort of reference if at all possible...

      Side note: there are other means of communication with ground, even if Endeavor weren't parked there. They just switched to the shuttle as the simplest thing. If all else fails, amateur radio should always be usable...

      Repeat of question I posed in an earlier article: Apart from simple answers like 'More testing' and 'be more careful', do any of you have suggestions for how NASA's software might be made more robust? Of late software problems have caused more trouble than hardware, which seems odd.

  10. But here's the twist... by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 5
    As an orbiting object decreases speed, it falls in its orbital path.
    Which is correct as far as it goes (it only applies to single-impulse velocity changes). However, after losing speed the object falls into a lower orbit (it no longer has the velocity to maintain its original orbit), and the trade of potential energy for kinetic energy increases the orbital speed.

    Total energy/mass of an object in orbit is 1/2 v^2 - GM(earth)/r; you get a circular orbit when the kinetic energy is equal to half the (negative) potential energy, i.e. v = sqrt(GM(earth)/r). The total energy of an object in an orbit (as opposed to an escape trajectory) is always negative.
    --
    spam spam spam spam spam spam
    No one expects the Spammish Repetition!

  11. Deep link by sllort · · Score: 5

    The link that specifically mentions Windows, for those of you wondering, is here.

    Now what do you guys make of this?

    "Used the startup disk in the onboard software suite, but could not find a particular file while hunting around with DOS. This would have been much easier with some bootable media (CD-ROM?) that could run Windows. (Or if Shep was not indoctrinated by that "other" operating system). We may need an emergency boot capability again. After 5+ attempts, finally got the hard drive to take an image off the ghost CD. One of the Autoloader floppies went down, but SSC 2 is now running normally. ( 3+ hours troubleshooting). "

    Guesses? Bets?