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."
Unfortunately you cannot have free software if you place arbitary restrictions upon who can use it or what it can be used for.
Its an embedded Operating system for use in a monitor and control system - not unlike the automatic cars we just cheered on around the desert or the bots on mars, just because it may have several tonnes of high explosives taped to its back doesn't make it any different.
liqbase
Don't be stupid. The GPL states that Linux may be used for any purpose the user sees fit. That can be good or bad. Things to note:
You really cannot be serious "all the people who ... have taken part in building weapons that kill". They didn't build weapons, they built general purpose software. They can have completely clear consciences about this. Don't let one application of this software politicise Linux or the Free Software movement in this way.
If you value survival, you do. Not that I advocate war or anything, but I would like the baddies to believe I have a reasonable ability to kick their ass.
It is certainly not popular to point out, but war is generally what advances civilization in terms of discovery, invention, etc. Historically at least, killing others and keeping yourself from being killed has been the primary motivating factor in becoming better, smarter, and stronger.
Not that I am advocating war, and certainly not the current farce.
Finkployd
That would not be a good thing. Let's see where it would lead...
#1 : All military contractors and personnel would suddenly stop contributing to any OSS efforts.
#2 : Any non-popular group would then be given a "free for non-(non-popular group) use" statement / clause.
Fundamentalist Christians could be placing a "free for non-gay use" clause in their releases. African Americans could place a "free for non-white use", Lesbian Americans a "free for non-straight use," and Left-Handed-Americans a "free for non-right-hand use" clause.
Slippery slope, my friends. Free is free.
Oh, and wouldn't you prefer the finite number of tax dollars available to be spent as wisely as possible? Sorry... I forgot that Anonymous Cowards typically don't pay taxes.
Well, it's probably best not to let what you call these things limit your thinking about them. Looked at from the other side of the chessboard, many "defensive" systems clearly have offsensive implications. There may be offensive applications for many components (e.g. shooting down satellites). Even if a system is purely defensive in nature, one of the limiting factors in offensive action is the way it exposes you to harm.
This is why many peaceniks are against defensive systems: because they create the illusion that we can attack others with impunity. As we're finding out in Iraq now, it's not enough just to have the military strength for victory. There are bound to be consequences outside your planning framework.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
> Linux isn't really a realtime OS.
You are wrong. Linux is a hard realtime OS (and you can get soft realtime without making a big effort) when you have the right hardware and the right scheduler. This Linux OS has independent timers and a special scheduling system, which makes it run realtime with granularity of microseconds in the simulation. Now you will ask how I know that... Ill tell ya, I work with this product, as a control engineer, and help desk for this product.
The difference of this version Lockheed purchased is that its not an Operating System, but a full HIL/MIL (hardware in the loop, man in the loop) system, which means the software, the computer, special acquisition I/O cards, the special timer system AND a special set of realtime debugging tools that are the hottest thing available. I could try to explain you what these tools are all about, but i) people would tell Im doin marketing bla bla bla and ii) I doubt you understand industrial simulation, so I must assume you are some student repeating like a parrot that QNX this, vxworks that. But just to prove Im not lying, these tools are able to hot patch a running code without stopping the process (when you have the source available, in C, C++, Fortran and ADA), kernel intrumentation, graphical view from the scheduler taks, execution time of process and syscall, cpu isolation to run a dedicated simulation in a certain cpu, you can monitor critcal vars and setpoints in a GUI, so you can run the simulation and check they are never out of the sweetspot, running distributed simulations in high speed deterministical networks, etc, etc.
But goin back to the topic, these debugging tools are amazing and a great add-on to the package. Im not surprised of the choice, the product is very good. And its something the RTLinux (from FSM Labs) and Wind River versions (of Linux - ya, they are doing linux too, or even its VxWorks doesnt have).
The reason Linux is not so popular is that these guys are really really traditional people, and they dont change very often their tools, its hard to break the stablishment. In the other hand, some simulations users loves using Linux in their simulation systems. Others are using other solutions for years, and dont feel the need of changing them, no matter how painful it is to run old/legacy applications.
So just to finish my point. This is a full simulation system that can do the job even better than other proprietary solutions, and with a better cost-benefit. Its not "clever trick". The people who make this product are not newbies (they are playing this games for decades, check their history), neither their users. They didnt pick up this solution because they are cheap, or they look beautiful, or they like tux. They picked because its the finest one available.
>Something that was...well, designed to do RT, and designed so you can easily take >out all the stuff you're not using (think less room for bugs).
You can do that with Linux OS. FSM Labs has versions that can boot in 300 miliseconds to full operational status and as small as some kbytes. If you use google a little, you will find some harcore realtime systems with linux
> I haven't even thought about mission critical yet!
> I love Linux as much as the next geek, but tools for jobs folks.
You obviously does not work with that.
What an assinine statement. This was well known, by EVERYONE involved, well before the war started.
;-)
Alas, this is 20/20 hindsight. Sure, people paid lip service to this. There was lot of talk of "hard work", but not an inconsiderable amount of verbiage about "low hanging fruit" as well. By in large, most people were deluded as to the extent of our post-war involvement. Present company excepted of course.
If you recall, Mr. Lindsey lost his job a White House economic advisor because he predicted the war would cost in total as much as $200 billion, which we now know to be a gross underestimate. The White House said the war would cost between $50-$60 billion. I think it's fair to say the difference between these estimates is the cost of the aftermath of the initial campaign -- the part that cannot be accomplished with military strength. You can do a 2x2x2 matrix and place yourself in it: for the war then/against the war then. For the war now/against the war now. Underestimated the cost of victory/correctly estimated the cost of victory. I'm against/against/correct. Perhaps you are a for/for/correct, but I think there's quite a few people in the for/against/underestimate box, as well as the for/for/underestimate box.
I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq, though no doubt things could be better. Remember, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
Indeed. However since I protested the war before we went in, I believe that I have a bit of a right to say "I told you so" to the people who were for it then and against it now. Those people have no right in my opinion to say they were duped. As you say, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think this was going to be easy, and right now it's going very nearly exactly as I expected it would.
Naturally, if you were for it then and are still for it, you might be able to justifiably claim that you knew this all along, that you were a for/for/correct. However, I believe you wouldn't have much company in that box. But you'd have problems establishing your bona fides. Everybody who is for/for wants to say they they knew all along, just as the for/against want to say they underestimated the costs because they were lied to.
BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out.
Ah, I see. You're suggesting that Iraq is going to end up carved into two or more states who are mortal enemies. That they'll spend decades facing each other over frozen battle lines. That the fate of the region will remain in balance only through a combination of exhaustive militarization on either side of the line with the added threat of global nuclear conflict? I'd say then that you are most prescient.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I believe you are missing the point.
1 The USSR fielded and tested satellite killers in the 70s so the ability to take out a satellite is not new.
Relevant to my point, but not a good counter example. It's always been possible. It's never been practical. Making the impractical practical is one definition of technological advancement. Furthermore, you ignore the strategic implications. If the Soviets attacked our satellites, it would be an act of war. They could not engage in an act of war without risking it going nuclear. However, if you had a missile defense systme you believed in that could also destroy satellites, you could believe it possible to deny the other side the ability to counterattack, either by conventional means (by hampering their communications) or by nuclear strike. You'd be foolish to believe so, but it's foolish to predicate your defense on either the competence or incompetence of your enemy.
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?
Irrelevant to my point. I don't think it makes any difference. The system vendor will get source on this kind of contract if it needs it, along with whatever kind of rights it thinks is necessary. Since it only has one customer to worry about, the OS vendor will be happy.
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?
True but irrelevant.
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.
Now we're back on track. This is like saying that having your king well protected or not is irrelevant to your ability to capture your opponent's pieces in chess. Naturally a well defended position is easier to attack from. An apparently well defended position is a good way to lose a game through overconfidence. Furthermore in life, the game never stops, nor is it played on a single board by two sides according to strict rules.
No, I don't think such a system automatically and necessarily limits civilian casualties, even on our side, although it clearly does so in some potential scenarios. Technology is a tool, not a solution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
People can debate the morality of this all day without really accomplishing anything, but as someone who operated technically sophisticated weapons systems, I can speak from experience as to the value of having an OS that is rock-stable and fast. As a long-time anti-submarine warfare helicopter pilot, the last thing I want ever want to see on my center console screen would be a blue screen of death, because in a shooting war, the "death" part might be far more literal than figurative. The morality of the use of technologies for war is a debate for politicians and academics; for those who are at the cutting edge of the spear--who are all volunteers and are there defending your right to even have this debate--the only thing that really matters about a technology is does it work now, and will it work without fail every time it is needed. Personally I'd go with Linux with a great deal of confidence. And if the political will of a nation is going to ask some citizens to lay their lives on the line to protect the bulk of the people, don't those folks on the cutting edge deserve to have the very best tools to do their job?
Strawman argument. Missile defense is not protecting us against any of those things in a realistic sense.
Missile defense has not proved anything near the ability to prevent an attack by multiple advanced missiles, particularly those which would use even relatively simple anti-simulation decoy techniques.
For the newbies to missile defense, "decoys" are typically large mylar balloons which inflate in space to create radar targets as large or larger than a warhead. They are extremely cheap and light, so anybody able to make an ICBM can afford to put many decoys in their missiles. "Anti-simulation" means you put the warhead in a balloon, or in some other way make it look very similar to the cheap, plentiful decoys.
Now your putative missile defense system has to somehow deal with dozens of things that all look like cheap decoys, but only a handful are actually warheads.
The missile defense folks will hem and haw about how their system is not meant to deal with a sophisticated enemy, which is code for "we think North Korea can't really make fancy warheads that maneuver like we think Soviet warheads can" but ignoring the fact that mylar balloons are not sophisticated. Or that it is only meant to handle single isolated launches, like might occur by "accident." Or they'll say they are only deploying the system to provide the opportunity for more realistic testing. Or that they really need a launch-phase system (before the decoys get a chance to deploy), which needs to be very near the launch site, so you need to post sailors or soldiers very near North Korea (because you can't get close enough to China or Russia's launch sites without invading their territory) whenever you think a launch is probable, and keep them ready enough to respond in minutes.
As opposed to sitting around in Alaska waiting for a single warhead, with at most a few decoys, to come sailing up from North Korea, and hoping that North Korean missile designers never heard of mylar balloons. Then you get to see if the *many* billions of dollars we've spent on this system pay off or not.
"The Iraq war is different..."
Its not really that different. Its one in a long string of regime changes where the U.S. seeks to take down people it doesn't like, people who don't do what the U.S. says, people that thumb their noses at U.S. corporate interests, who challenge the U.S. on the world stage. The goal is to prop up friendly puppets who defend U.S. business interests and kowtow to U.S. demands.
Its been long established that the surest way for a sovereign leader of any state to be taken down by the U.S. is to have oil reserves and to not sign them over to the control of American/British/Dutch oil companies. The U.S. military and intelligence agencies have spent most of the last century insuring Allied oil companies control of the world's oil fields. The U.S. toppled the government of Iran, and installed a ruthless dictator, the Shah, precisely to put its oil fields in to the hands of American oil companies.
The U.S. has tried unsuccessfully to topple Chavez in Venezuela pricesly for the same reason, to get its oil reserves in to the hands of friendlies.
The only things really different about Iraq is the blatantness of the aggression, the blatantness of the lieing and the fact that it failed badly. Taking down Noriega in Panama was very much the same kind of war, its just it was much better executed and there wasn't the deep ethnic division that there is in Iraq, which is fueling the civil war there. Taking down the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, very similar, its just the war was much more covert and used largely indigenous guerrillas with CIA handlers. American's didn't die much in Nicaragua so American's mostly didn't care, even when the Reagan Administration tore down the Constitution by waging a war Congress forbad. The never ending series of coups in Haiti, pretty much the same thing. The U.S. gets tired of leaders there that don't play by U.S. rules so they arm bands of right wing thugs in the Dominican Republic and their CIA handlers send them to do their bidding.
I wish Iraq really was different but in fact its just how power politics is played. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R did it most of the last century and killed millions of people in assorted third world countries around the globe fighting proxy wars. In the process they created the cauldrons that brew terrorism. Somalia is the hell hole it is thanks to decades of proxy wars to control the horn of Africa. Afghanistan likewise became the base for Al Qaeda thanks to a proxy war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R there. The U.S. is just seeking to shape the world out if its own self interest, and the harvest it is reaping is very, very ugly.
@de_machina