Open Standards Planned For Next NASA Telescope

BobB writes "A NASA infrared space telescope called the 'James Web Space Telescope' is scheduled to be launched in 2013. The plan is that it will be built using open standards-based software designed to prevent problems caused when software programs developed by various agencies are incompatible with each other, as has been the case with the Hubble telescope. From the article: 'Though open standards has become common in the business sector, Matthews says this is the first time NASA has used the IBM Rational system. "This is a fairly major shift in approach for NASA," he says. "They traditionally have been very conservative in their adoption of new technologies and new tools, but I think they've found that conservative approach just doesn't hold up when you start to reach a [certain] size and complexity."'"

Comments

yes..

[macadamia_harold]

This is a fairly major shift in approach for NASA," he says. "They traditionally have been very conservative in their adoption of new technologies and new tools, but I think they've found that conservative approach just doesn't hold up when you start to reach a [certain] size and complexity.

Yes, complexity, like converting english measurements to metric.

Re:yes..

[jd]

Major shift? Conservative? This is the same NASA that broadcast NASA Select over CU-SeeMe and also the Multibone, allowed Donald Becker to develop network drivers for Linux, opened the source of a great many Computational Fluid Dynamics packages, promoted the early development of Beowulf Clusters, published guidelines on how to identify barbarian invaders, has hosted talks by SETI folks, investigated AJAX-style applications in the mid 1990s and was routinely helping the Open Source community years before any business would go near it?

Now, I think they make some extremely stupid decisions at times. I think that half their management is an extreme liability to their operations, the safety of their astronauts and the quality of their science. I also think they are desperately underfunded and have developed something of a siege mentality. However, "conservative" is not a term I'd associate with them, and they are most certainly familiar with "Open Standards" - having either invented them or were early adopters.

This is merely where they should have been all along, based on their own practices and their own connections with the IT industry. Far from calling it revolutionary, I'd consider it merely evolutionary.

Reamed with the Rational Rose-bush

[amightywind]

I used Rational Rose in a large avionics project. I can honestly say it is the worst piece of software I have ever encountered. This push comes from the suits at NASA glad handing their buddies at IBM. It cannot come from the programmers.

Re:Reamed with the Rational Rose-bush

[HangingChad]

I used Rational Rose in a large avionics project. I can honestly say it is the worst piece of software I have ever encountered.

I'll second that. Worked next to a project that was built in four months by two primary programmers, a DBA and two analysts. The customer brought EDS in to take over long term maintenance and they wanted to move everything over to Rational for managing change requests. Today there are 30 people on the project and what used to take hours now takes months. Where they used to spend 10's of thousands they now spend 100's of thousands.

They brought in EDS because they didn't think they were getting good value from the team that built the original application.

Rule 1: Forget Rational

Rule 2: Never give a working application to EDS.

Re:Reamed with the Rational Rose-bush

[Utopia]

I agree.

Having worked with Rational Rose I can that if NASA is using Rational then the "major shift" is in the wrong direction.
I had to use Rational because of a push from management for a company-wide use of Rational.
A really bad decision in opinion. Too many bugs and clunky workflow makes the software utter crap.

Ironic

[truthsearch]

"They traditionally have been very conservative in their adoption of new technologies and new tools"

That's an exceptionally ironic statement to make about an organization responsible for space exploration.

Re:Ironic

[Indigo]

It does sound pretty funny, but in the specific context of flight software, it's true. When sending something complicated and expensive into space, you don't want it running bleeding edge code. You want to stick to the tried and true, even boring, stuff. Granted, there are missions that push the software envelope, but for those missions it's done deliberately and treated as a risk, not just because someone doesn't want to seem old fashioned.

Matthews is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked on multiple NASA projects in the 1990s. During the mid-90s we used Rational http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/ for a short period of time (6 months) then dropped it. IME, the people who want these tools are architect that couldn't program their way out of a paper bag. Since Ive become an architect now, I prefer Visio http://www.microsoft.com/office/visio/ to most of these other tools - that's only if a pencil drawing doesn't cover everything good enough AND I need to make a presentation to someone with money.

IBM has many nice tools and the best bang for your buck hardware, but Rational ought to be buried into a deep, dark hole with a RADIOACTIVE sign outside. http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/images/signs/sign_caut ion-rad-mat.jpg

Re:Interesting spin job

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with you. ClearCase is not the worst in its category. This is not true.
Hell, it's so bad it warrants a category on its own.