Slashdot Mirror
Lockheed Martin Selects Linux for Missile Defense
m3lt writes "Business Wire is reporting that Concurrent announced today that Lockheed Martin Space Systems has selected RedHawk(TM) Linux as the operating system for their United States Army Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program." From the article: "Lockheed Martin selected RedHawk for the THAAD program due to the precision and guaranteed response time of Concurrent's RedHawk Linux real-time operating system. Only RedHawk Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates required in their HIL simulation without frame overruns, thereby ensuring the highest quality of system test."
There was this story on slashdot a couple of months ago and was detracted by many as opterons being out of place in the real time market. I guess we see it does have use =P
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Linux will be used to *test* the system not run it.
"Lockheed Martin will use RedHawk real-time Linux in hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation testing of strategic missile defense subsystems. HIL simulation is a critical product development process that provides for thorough testing of components in a virtual environment in which other subsystems are replaced by mathematical models."If its a missile defence system, surely the point is to SAVE lives, not take them? ;)
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Parent post is a troll. The realtime kernel Lockheed Martin is using WAS designed as a true realtime OS in the likes of QNX. It is different than the vanilla Linux kernel you're running on your desktop and has advanced QoS and realtime features that they required.
Hardware In the Loop testing is where a missile is put basically in a 3 axis gyroscope mount so it is able to maneuver freely. In front of it is put a projection screen where RADAR images are being projected. The seeker on the missile then sends a signal to the fins to move but instead of moving fins that signal is hijacked and an algorithm figures out how the missile would have rotated in space and instead rotates the gimbal (the gyro mount) instead. A computer program tracks how the missile would have really moved in space. A RTOS comes in handy for these kinds of simulations. HWIL testing is an important step between pure software simulation and firing the actual beast because you can start to see lags in the system and test indvidual subsystems non-destructively without ever firing a missile.
-everphilski-
Double Kill!
Multi Kill!
Mega Kill!
Ultra Kill!
M M M MONSTER KILL (kill kill)
Ludicrous Kill!
HOLY SHIT!!
Why, yes, I do play UT2004. A lot.
sig?
Our group has one of the Concurrent "iHawk" systems on order. They're pretty sweet. Essentially, RedHawk is a Concurrent-licensed version of Montevista's HardHat Linux modified to have its scheduler driven by a Concurrent-custom hardware interrupt card (the "RCIM"). You program your interrupt frequency, tie your task to be driven by the card, and determinism goes through the roof. The computer itself is COTS server-grade stuff. Presently Concurrent is using Dells I believe.
My dad works on this stuff.
Just like patriot, they shoot stuff out of the sky.
Pretty freaking amazing.
Thad is the medium range system, patriot is the small range system. There is a ICBM system that is now deployed, I think they have two intercepters in Alaska.
but it wasn't built for RT from the ground up.
And that's why it won here.
This distro IS true Realtime OS, with kernel modified to work in realtime. In this it's equal with all the other available RTOSes, or even a bit below, because the support for realtime operation is young and not fully-featured. But while other RTOSes focused on adding more features, making it more stable and such, while neglecting actual efficiency, plain vanilla linux was developed to be a speed monster, with all that extra schedulers, optimizations, support for custom architectures, SMP and all the stuff that just made it a very FAST OS. Then the RealTime extension was added.
Make no mistake, Realtime doesn't mean fast. On normal systems, no matter how much CPU power, you can't guarantee some thread won't be stalled for longer than X miliseconds. On RTOS, given certain hardware speed and certain software load you can -guarantee- some threads will be given time within some fixed time. Often longer than they usually get on non-RTOS, but never longer than certain X miliseconds.
Now thing is, how much can the X be, and what does it depend on? Well, certainly on amount of $$$ you put in the hardware, more CPU power = more spare CPU power that can be given sooner. So theoretically: Give enough CPU power, have arbitrarily short guaranted response time, down to time of one loop over the kernel procedures. In reality: You have just as much hardware, and the kernel of the RTOS eats up most of the resources, and due to all the failsafe checks, runs quite slowly in fact. True, at a constant safe pace that allows for granted 20 frames per second of input sensors analysis. But if you want 30, sorry, it starts crubmling, CPU overloaded, failsafes launched, frames lost. As long as you tell it to grab 20 frames a second, it won't fail, ever, no matter what though (as opposed to non-RTOS, which may lose a few frames just because it needed to swap out some memory or run a cron job in the background).
All RTOSes do this. x MIPS, y RAM, m miliseconds for response, n miliseconds when the thread must finish or it will be forced to finish. Plus costs, reliablity and all the standard issues with any generic OS.
Now, given certain speed of hardware, what speed can you guarantee? Depends on the OS, and the faster the OS, the better the speed. And while Linux is really very fast, others aren't so. Writing a system that GUARANTEES 50 fps instead of 20 fps is damn hard. But writing a normal system that does 90fps on the average, without lowest speed guarantee? Well, possible, not so hard. Just keep it optimal. Then throw in the extra bits that make it a RTOS, and you notice that even after the RTOS overhead it never gets below 70fps. Check most pessimistic scenarios and you see it will never drop below 50fps.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
You do realize I hope that this system, THAAD, is a theater missile-defense system, not a global "Star Wars" hemisphere-defense one.
It's designed to protect strategic assets from medium range, single warhead ballistic missiles, which are exactly the thing that China, N. Korea, and other ex-Soviet client states have in spades (and are significantly easier to put together than an ICBM). The intended use is to place them as a spot defense over a high-value target, as the farthest reaches of a layered system that includes short-range defenses like Patriot, etc.
This is not an ICBM shield for the U.S. in the manner that I think you are thinking it is, that would really have any effect in the event of a global thermonuclear war. The preventative measure against that is still MAD. However when you step down from that scenario (and terrorism), the next most likely case of a nuclear weapon being used against us is with a theater ballistic missile against a strategic target like a foreign city, aircraft carrier, or air base. In a situation like that, a defensive system like this makes a lot more sense.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Yeah I was looking at the same thing also. They have some OSS stuff there for download (and helpful instructions in case you want to upload your changes -- I mean who wouldn't want to contribute at no charge to their friendly local defense contractor?) but no source.
/src directory on systems they sell, or on the CDs or however they distribute it.
This by itself doesn't mean anything though. Remember that the GPL doesn't require you to make your code available online to just anyone, it just says that you have to distribute it along with the software. So it could be something as simple as a
They can't prohibit you from buying the product and redistributing the source code, but it doesn't mean they have to go out of their way to make it particularly easy for you to do so. The only real way to tell if they're breaking the license would be for somebody to buy RedHawk Linux in whatever form is closest to a "retail box" and see if it comes with source, or a written offer to provide it. I believe those are the requirements of the GPL.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So?
1 The USSR fielded and tested satellite killers in the 70s so the ability to take out a satellite is not new.
2 The missile defence system doesn't have to use Linux but wouldn't you prefer it to use an Open Source system to a closes source system?
3 I thought GPL was all about freedom? I have heard all sorts of rants on Slashdot when people where trying to stop PGP because terrorists could use it. A new clause in the GPL you can use it only if we agree with your political aims? The no killing clause... So abortion clinics, Assised suicide advocates, and Pro-Choice groups can not use GPL software?
4 This is a system that if it works will shoot down missiles not kill people. Most of those missiles will be aimed at civilian population centers since they are currently not accurate enough to hit military targets.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It's free (as in freedom AND beer), and it works pretty well, especially with I/O cards that are supported by comedi drivers, which are designed with real-time use in mind.
We use them for our real-time HIL simulations at my department, and we're happy with the results.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
My dad works on this stuff.
Just like patriot, they shoot stuff out of the sky.
Pretty freaking amazing.
Well, hopefully not just like Patriot
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
It was the ASAT system launched from F-15s, the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV)h tm
m ini.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/almv.
The Russians had one too
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/
Theres been a host of other systems that bordered on or had ASAT capabilites over the years.
The author is "sort of" right. THAAD was floundering badly in the 90's and was completely restructured in 1996. The battle management and sensors were fine, but the interceptor was a flop and completely redesigned.
He speaks of the old system, you of the new. The only thing in common between the two systems is the acronym, but even the first Word in it has changed.
Not to worry, the THAAD interceptor will probably be replaced with the SM-3 (the missile that the Aegis BMD system is based on). However the radars and C3BM will remain the same.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
"most evil or idiotic think that Khomeini, Hussein, and Chavez"
Khomeini came to power THANKS to the U.S. The Mossadegh government the U.S. toppled originally was in fact a pretty progressive government, the only thing they did wrong is they got fed up with the fact British oil companies, who got their foothold in the middle east thanks to colonial expansion from World War I, were taking the lion's share of their countries wealth so they nationalized Iran's own oil fields. The British whined to the U.S. to do something, they did, the CIA overthrew a sovereign government, oh and then they screwed the British too and gave the oil fields to U.S. companies. How did the U.S. put Khomeini in power? They put the Shah in power and he and his secret service were one of the most brutal regimes in the middle east, they were every bit Saddam class, disappearing, torturing and killing their opponents. The Iranian people hated the Shah so much they viewed Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalism as an improvement. Many Iranians hate the U.S. with a passion to this day thanks to the Shah.
As for Chavez he has been demonized by the U.S. as is the U.S. way when they want to topple someone, Kaddafi, Castro, Noriega, Saddam etc. Notice who since Khaddafi started kissing American and British boots, and opening his oil fields to them, they don't demonize him any more? Same guy, trust me. Chavez isn't perfect but the dynamics in Venezuela come down to two groups vying for power which is true of just about every country, especially in the Central and South America. A wealthy plutocracy where a few percent have all the wealth and power, and 90+% who are in grinding poverty and powerless. Chavez is popular with the 90+% who have nothing. He like Castro does some great things the U.S. always forgets to mention:
A. They insure universal access to quality health care for everyone, not just those who can afford it
B. They insure universal access to education, especially university education, again based on need and merit not ability to pay. Cuba turns out huge numbers of doctors for example that provide health care to poor areas around the globe who would have no health care if left to the whims of capitalism
C. They seek to distribute wealth more evenly versus having a few percent who are filthy rich and comfortable while everyone else is starving, illiterate and die young due to absence of basic health care.
Unfortunately Socialism is flawed just like Capitalism. People get drunk on power in both systems and abuse it. Socialism means big government and big government tends to be bad no matter what political philosophy it prescribes to. Socialism tends to trample individual liberties and freedom, but so does Capitalism. Capitalism just uses more carefully crafted and better concealed means to rob you of your freedoms.
Problem with people like you sir is you buy in to the propaganda the U.S. spews and think the only bad leaders in the world are the ones the U.S. hap
Problem with people like you sir is you buy in to the propaganda the U.S. spews and think the only bad leaders in the world are the ones the U.S. decides to demonize. The Shah was every bit as bad and probably worse than your list of three, so was Marcos in the Phillippines, Papa Doc in Haiti, Diem in Vietnam Pinochet, and a cavalcade of other ruthless dictators the U.S. has propeed up over the years to the misfortune of the people who suffered under them
The problem with people like you sir are you are suckers for the U.S. propaganda, and their list of people they demonize on a given day, and you buy it hook like and sinker. The Shah of Iran was every bit as bad and probably worse than your list of three, so was Marcos in the Phillippines, Papa Doc in Haiti, Diem in Vietnam, Pinochet and a cavalcade of other ruthless dictators the U.S. has propped up over the years to the misfortune of the people who suffered under them.
@de_machina