Slashdot Mirror
ISS Computer Failure
A number of readers wrote us with news of the computer problems on the International Space Station. Space.com has one of the better writeups on the failure of Russian computers that control the ISS's attitude and some life-support systems. Two out of six computers in a redundant system cannot be rebooted. The space shuttle Atlantis may have its mission extended until the problem is fixed. A NASA spokesman was optimistic that the problem can be resolved; worst-case scenario would be for the shuttle to evacuate everyone onboard the ISS. Engineers are working on the theory (among others) that the failure may have been triggered by new solar panels installed earlier in Atlantis's mission.
They need the russian guy from armageddon to bang on the side of the computers!
Maybe NASA didn't pay for Soyuz Ultimate Edition, with support for additional solar panels.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"...control the ISS's attitude..."
So the ISS is throwing a temper tantrum? Just put it in time out
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Like many Slashdotters, when the computers at my job fail, my attitude tends to become uncontrollable as well.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Hopefully they're starting with their DFMEA documentation... "guessing" at the problem and having "theories" is probably not a good way to go. Also, it's apparently a common-mode failure, which you shouldn't have in a safety-critical system; generally this is avoided by having different computer hardware and/or completely different code to do the same tasks.
Quite unfortunate that it seems like systems engineering is lacking in more and more disciplines recently, although I suppose it makes good systems engineers more valuable.
My list for this would be something like: "Computer doesn't boot." Possible reasons: "No Power", "Insufficient power", "Corrupt memory", "Broken circuits", etc. Then you go down that tree further and find the root cause. The most disturbing thing is that they had such a major common-mode failure...whatever happened to the "no single points of failure" mantra?
* sigh *
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Really, does the fact that the computers are Russian matter? Broken software is broken software, and broken hardware is broken hardware.
It's not like the Russians would send crappy stuff up to the ISS anyways, they would put all their best into it. And the Russians have a history of having some excellent mathematicians.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
They're all made in Taiwan!!
At this point, as a US taxpayer, I'd much rather see the ISS finished rather than just leaving it up there as a pile of space junk.
It's kinda like finding out your house you're current building will cost twice as much as normal.
Do you just leave it half finished and abandon it or do you keep pumping money into it?
It's obvious they are not running Solaris.
From TFA:
"The lights, the fans and, thank God, the potty, all those things are working," Suffredini said.
Well at least he has his priorities in order. God knows you don't want anyone looking into the Hubble to see the ISS going by with your ass hanging out of the window.
The investment in time, money, and energy has already been made. To abandon it now, no matter how dysfunctional it is, would be a bigger waste. If the initiatives to return to the Moon and move on to Mars are going to go forward (and given Congress' past performance in this regard, I highly doubt it), then ISS is a necessary platform to span the gap between the Earth and the Moon. MInd you, when the United States was first thinking of going to the Moon, Werner von Braun put forward the plan to build a space station first, then use it as the assembly point for the journey to the Moon. Then, the platform would already have been established, and the Space Shuttle would have been the next natural extension after the end of Apollo. But the idea was shelved in order to get to the Moon by 1970, and as a result we have the current situation. So, we have done it backwards, but to abandon it now would be truly a giant step in reverse.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I've been waiting for this story to hit /. - didn't take long... I have to admit that using the ISS as an excuse to hide the real issue(s) and buy time is creative, tho :)
o s/070610/070610_tear_bcol_11a.standard.jpg - photo of hole/tear in thermal blanket
...the real information comes out and we find that something bad did indeed happen; they knew about it all along, and they were/are once again clueless as to how to deal with the situation, claiming the shuttle is sooooo complicated or sooooo old or soooo expensive, when all they really want to do is CYA.
When the shuttle launched last week, the headline quoting NASA was 'perfect launch'.
Then, we heard this: "NASA says shuttle damage is not serious"
Huh? I thought it was 'perfect'...?
'NASA studies gap in shuttle's shields' - "not appearing to be an urgent problem" - "Other than that, the vehicle is very clean. NASA's Shannon said." http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Phot
"The first shuttle launch of the year helped put NASA back on track after a run of bad luck and scandal on the ground during the first half of the year."
Next, we get this: "NASA checks into potential hit on shuttle"
"Sensors on the shuttle Atlantis have recorded hits on the leading edges of the wings, around the area where Columbia suffered fatal damage four years ago, NASA officials said Tuesday. However, they emphasized that the hits probably did no damage to Atlantis."
"What we have seen does not indicate that we have been hit by anything," NASA's Shannon said."
Huh? Do we have a hit or not...? Shannon has quite the golden tongue.
My point is that NASA always says "perfect launch", even when they are sitting on data that suggests damage or problems. And - here we go again.
NASA does everything they can to shine up their process and actions to avoid even hints of trouble. They are more worried about bad press and how the public views their capabilities than they are for the short term. This story about a computer glitch on the ISS is a smokescreen to cover their asses while they try to fix whatever is wrong on the Shuttle. Hit or no hit, something is amiss.
Sooner or later... Always
The mindset-climate at NASA has always been the same and always will be the same. Hubris.
I know you're joking but I'm a sucker so here goes: attitude means, "which direction is it pointed" They use big gyroscopes to keep the station oriented so that the solar panels can track the sun.
Maybe the new solar panels are a new input to the attitude program - "I am a new solar panel, I need to be pointed this way so that my 1 axis motor can track the sun"
No.
On NASA's manned space equipment you will find no software that is not controlled by NASA. These folks don't just run a few tests. They spend thousands of dollars per SLOC in testing. They actually mathematically prove their software's correctness. Perhaps the Russian agency's quality isn't quite as high, but I still doubt their (or anyone else's) systems onboard the ISS have any OS at all. Most likely they are all custom embedded systems.
I'd council against jumping to conclusions about the cause of this solely based on the Russian origin of these systems. I remember a lot of people did that with the early Ariane crash based on it being written in Ada, and ended up looking pretty silly when the problem turned out to be some ported code that wasn't rewritten properly for the new platform.
Evacuating ISS would be a very bad thing to have happen. The crew would be fine, as this luckily happened with a shuttle in dock, which can act an emergency lifeboat for the whole crew (plus the Soyuz that's up there with them, if things got too crowded on Atlantis). The biggest problem would be for the hardware - without people up there to keep maintenance tasks going, the station would need to be completely shutdown save for a few critical systems (attitude control, the NH4 cooling systems, power, etc.). In this case, some of those few critical systems are what seem to be giving the trouble.
Evacuating ISS is always a last resort, because should something happen to it while unoccupied, it'd be a total loss. We won't have another shuttle ready for a month or so, and I believe the Russians just recently did a Soyuz exchange, so there'd be no quick return, even if the problems were fixed. With attitude control in question, it could become too unstable for even a shuttle or Soyuz docking to occur.
"I'm sorry comrade, but I'm afraid I can't do that."
Not quite...
"I'm sorry comrade, In space, gyroscopes, turn you"
sigh, life is balanced again.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
The first piece of the space station was Zarya, the Russian control module that was launched into orbit November 20, 1998. A few weeks later, on December 4, 1998, the U.S. module Unity was launched into space. On December 7, 1998, the two modules were connected.
That makes the ISS just over 8 years in service.
How old is Atlantis?
Space Shuttle Atlantis has completed 27 flights, spent 220.40-days in space, completed 3468 orbits, and flown 89908732 miles in total, as of September 2006. Atlantis visited visited MIR in 1997!
Atlantis is 23 years old as of last April. 21 years in service. More than twice as old as the ISS.
Now, tell again - which is the real bucket of bolts? ISS or Atlantis?
I caught a glimpse of one of the astronauts obviously attempting to retrieve some e-mail from his laptop.. And then complaining over the com that he was getting a "you can only have one instance of Outlook running" - ground control advised for a laptop reboot, but the guy upstairs wasn't too keen on doing that
The personal communication laptops the astronauts have are windows machines. The machines that run both ISS and Shuttle are **not**. They are derivatives of UNIX, and, as grandparent said, have many eyes and many thousands of dollars poured into each line of code. There was a good article not too long ago in Fast Company about the shuttle coding team.
From the article: the last three versions of the program -- each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors. That's impressive. The same care went into the ISS computers, at least from the US's side. I can't speak for Russia as I don't have that level of familiarity with them.
Last, everyone is talking about the 'russian' computers.. Well, this guy last night in the press conference did state these were actually "western style" *european* computers !
The Russian computers failed. The US computers have 'taken over' temporarily. Why? Because we have this nice little satellite network called TDRSS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System) which lets us relay communications with shuttle over the vast majority of the orbit. Russia does not. They can only communicate over line of sight, which is a few times each day for about 8 or so minutes.
I suspect you're joking or trolling, but the "billion-dollar space pen" is an urban myth.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.