Slashdot Mirror
Computer Date Glitch May Limit Next Shuttle Launch
n3hat writes "Reuters reports that the next Space Shuttle mission may have to be deferred if it gets too close to the New Year because the onboard computers do not handle the changing of the date in the same way as the ground computers. From the article: '"The shuttle computers were never envisioned to fly through a year-end changeover," space shuttle program manager Wayne Hale told a briefing. The problem, according to Hale, is that the shuttle's computers do not reset to day one, as ground-based systems that support shuttle navigation do. Instead, after December 31, the 365th day of the year, shuttle computers figure January 1 is just day 366."
Granted, the work they do is very impressive and the process is very exacting. But come on...they haven't been able to fix a simple year rollover event in 30 years?!?
From the Fast Company article:
I would say that requiring a reboot every year on December 31 is a pretty huge error. In this case, it is forcing NASA to launch earlier than they otherwise would wish. And this isn't the first time this type of problem has caused problems. The New Scientist has a similar article that goes into more detail:
The end-of-year rollover depends on the leap year and leap second (if any), and has traditionally been a source of problems.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Perhaps the fact that the shuttle was being developed at the same time as ADA might have something to do with it. Or do you recommend using a not even fully designed, coded, and tested language for controlling the most complex piece of equipment that man has ever built?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, the estimated failure rate for the shuttle program was 1 in 35, though the shuttles themselves may have been designed to withstand 100 launch/landing cycles*. This was a bit of an issue when the 25th mission resulted in a failure (since most of the population does not understand statistics).
And, for the record, there have been 117 launches, according to wiki, which I will take as accurate enough for this discussion (far less than 200).
*yes, IWAAE (I was an aerospace engineer) working for NASA, and was involved with shuttle payloads and structural reliability analyses.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Hundreds of comments and not a single one mentions that NASA is a CMMI Level 5 organization. For those that don't know (and apparently, that's a lot of you), CMMI, aka Capability Maturity Model Integration, is software ENGINEERING methodology for developing processes and technologies around IT systems. It is a very in-depth methodology for developing software and comes about as close to "engineering" as you can get in software development.
Here is a list of participants in this program.
And here is a general overview of what CMMI is.
And just to put it into perspective, when I was last working with CMMI, there were only 3 companies certfied at level 5. Nasa, Motorola, and another one I can't remember. I am sure that has changed but nonetheless, it's a big deal and shows a serious effort to do things in a controlled, measureable, testable, way.
I only bring this up to counter the ridiculous "solutions" that some have proposed on this site.
"I can fix that in 3 lines of code".
Well, great. That might work at YOUR company. But please don't do that at NASA. Despite what many think here, NASA is a top-notch software development house. And I would expect nothing less given what is at stake.