Slashdot Mirror
Software Bug Causes Soyuz To Land Way Off
howhardcanitbetocrea writes "A mysterious software fault in the new guidance computer of the Soyuz TMA-1 spacecraft was the cause of the high-anxiety off-course landing over the weekend, according to NASA sources.' Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."
Or any software. You might want to consider the software all the weapons systems that actually exist first, or anything in a safety-related environment. Take a look at Risks Digest.
Yakov Smirnoff, a Russian comedian, established this joke as a portion of his routine:
"In America, you find the party. In Soviet Russia, the Party finds you."
Do you like German cars?
First computer bug. You will need to scroll down to the bottom to see the it. The rest of the page talks about Grace Hopper, who helped coin the phrase.
Well, not always. In the 70's (or early 80's ... I think the 70's) all of the Eastern block countries sent their cosmonauts to the Salyut space station (that was before Mir). The Bulgarian cosmonaut Georgi Ivanov was very close to having a deadly accident because of the Soyuz. They could not dock for some reason, spent about 24h flying by the Salyut, and finally had to re-enter using auxiliary engines, and having precisely one try to fire them. They got lucky here, the engines worked and they entered the atmosphere in so called "ballistic trajectory" (how can it be non-ballistic?), with 9-10G overload.
I forgot to mention, there were two of them, the Russian Nikolay Rukavishnikov was the commander of the mission, G. Ivanov was the second guy.
This spring, several weeks after Columbia broke apart, there was an interview with G. Ivanov in a Bulgarian newspaper online, when he recalled how he himself was close to having a fatal accident back then. The reason was a malfunctioning fuel pump of their Soyuz.
I'm confused.
In Soviet Russia, joke explanation reads YOU!
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's funny to notice, that in Russian newspapers the reason for this lending trouble is stated as "the American cosmonaut pushed the wrong button so the capsule started acting up..." Obviously the guy did not receive any previous training in landing procedures on this capsule, so he pushed the first familiar button, I guess. Again, interesting why they say one thing in Russia and completely different thing here??? Any ideas???
Actually, they don't know if it was a software bug. At this point that is pure (though somewhat educated) speculation.
The only thing known for certain, is that the backup guidance system took over and landed the craft safely.
It is possible that pilot error caused the switch to backup, or mechanical failure, or a software design error, or a software bug.
So it really wasn't the astronaut's fault, at least according to the Russians.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
They build them strong - snipped from an entry for soyuz 5 :
"Volynov remained behind for what was undoubtedly the most unbelievable re-entry ever survived. The PAO service module of the Soyuz failed to separate after retrofire. While this had occurred on various Vostok and Voskhod flights, and on one Mercury flight, it was a much more serious problem for Volynov, where the module was much larger than a small retropack. Furthermore, once it started reaching the tendrils of the atmosphere, the combined spacecraft sought the most aerodynamically stable position - nose forward, with the heavy descent module with its light metal entry hatch at the front, the less dense service module with its flared base to the back. Volynov at once appraised the situation and considered all possibilities and realised that there was nothing he could really do.
The spacecraft was re-entering air-lock forward and with every minute the G forces increased. Volynov did his duty with all of his strength but this became increasingly difficult since he was hanging in the straps of his seat with the G forces assailing him in the opposite direction from what planned. Soon a strong smell penetrated the cabin - the rubber gaskets of the hermetic seal of the hatch were burning. The hatch had a light covering of heat protective resins, but at the last moment these could not hold out and the vaporised into fumes that immediately spread throughout the cabin. Volynov could remain conscious for only a few seconds after this.
He remained alive when a miracle occurred - a miracle for which he could thank the designers who had included a strong titanium frame which helped the airlock hold out against the onslaught of the superheated plasma. The PAO service module finally separated from the SA re-entry vehicle. The capsule turned around to an aerodynamically stable position at hypersonic speed and the heat shield finally took the brunt of the heating as designed. The spacecraft continued on a 9 G ballistic trajectory. The damage to the capsule resulted in a failure of the soft-landing rockets. The landing was harder than usual and Volynov broke his teeth. The capsule was recovered 2 km SW of Kustani, far short of its aim point, on January 18, 1969 at 07:58 GMT. It would be seven years until Volynov flew again, on Soyuz 21. "
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
assuming that a re-entry vehicle is twice that, it still leaves a pretty small radar cross-section,
There are a few things working in our favor though:
The launch vehicle has an enormous infrared signature. It's easy to track while the boost is on.
Since the path of the projectile is ballistic, we can ascertain with a good degree of certainty where our radar should be looking for it.
Upon re-entry the projectile once again has a huge spike in infrared visibility, and the path is entirely ballistic at this point.
It's reasonable that we should be able to spot it on radar if we have a very good idea where it should show up.
It's a hard target to hit, no doubt. But finding and tracking it should not to be the hardest part of the problem.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
The crew of that Tornado GR.4 belonging to 9 Squadron RAF Marham were known for their concientious attitude towards their work along with their great experience on Tornados.
Neither officer was reknowned for 'goofing-off' as they knew like any-other RAF crew that such behaviour leads to a court-martial in jig-time.
It is know that they were in the right place at the right time and it might also be worth pointing out that it is highly unlikely that they would deactivate the IFF when they knew that Rapier systems were deployed (You don't even know they are there till they fire).
The current status of this 'friendly-fire' incident according to both the US and UK is that it is under investigation. you may like to read this article on possible bugs in the Patriot system software.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Actually no, both the Americans and the Russians have designed warheads that can be steered off ballistic trajectories during final approach. The Americans fitted them to their Pershing missiles (which have now been withdrawn), the Russians have them on their Topol-M ICBMs.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Yes, it was. In this case, it's not Tycho Magnetic Anomaly, but rather Transport Mir Anthropometric. The TMA's are the "large astronaut" retrofit (The US allows taller astronauts than the russians do; surprisingly few of ours fit the older soyuz, which means they could never be station crew) of the TM model, which, itself, was the unit customized to be the ferry craft for Mir from the T class transport which was supporting Soyuz...