Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why ISS Computers Failed

Posted by kdawson on from the triply-redundant-is-not-foolproof dept.

Geoffrey.landis writes "It was only a small news item four months ago: all three of the Russian computers that control the International Space Station failed shortly after the Space Shuttle brought up a new solar array. But why did they fail? James Oberg, writing in IEEE Spectrum, details the detective work that led to a diagnosis." The article has good insights into the role the ISS plays as a laboratory for US-Russian technology cooperation — something that is likely to be crucial in any manned Mars mission.

6 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Duct tape saves the day! by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...They also decided to rig a thermal barrier out of a surplus reference book and all-purpose gray tape....

    Once again, duct tape saves the day! :)
  2. Re:Redundancy != Safety by 8-bitDesigner · · Score: 5, Informative
    Two nit-picky points here:
    1. It wasn't condensation that felled all three computers, it was a single corroded connector, which shorted and sent a kill-command to all three computers. Technically, redundancy here would've circumvented that issue.
    2. Actually, I believe the article stated that it was a Russian-manufactured component, not a NASA design.
  3. Hmmmm. by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Informative

    The original plans called for the ISS to be finished many years ago. It is not yet, because America has had issues with transportation. In addition, a few modules that were planned to make the ISS very useful were canceled because of us (in particular, CAM). In the end, both sides have had issues, and changes have occurred. That is normal for these kinds of projects. To be honest, I think that all of this has been handled pretty decently.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  4. Here we go again... by LanceUppercut · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, well, well... Here we go again. Jim Oberg. That same Jim Oberg who was almost blowing his gasket a couple of weeks ago when that journalist was asking him questions about alcohol abuse by astronauts (you all remember the story, I'm sure). It was all preposterous nonsense not backed up by any evidence, he said, berely keeping his cool. And what do we see now? He is happily making up stories about Russians accusing US of the computer falures - something that never happened in reality. The power problems caused by some new US installations were indeed considered as intermediate working brainstormed versions of what could have happened. But nobody ever did any fingerpointing or made any acussations before the situation was sufficiently researched and the root cause determined. Of course, Jim Oberg could not refreain from distorting the truth "just a little". Tsk, tsk, tsk... Note, how he refers to the hypothesis as both "blatant finger pointing" and just "guesses" within single paragraph - just to keep his article a little fuzzy, so that he can flip-flop to either when the situation calls for it. Nothing surprising here, though...

  5. The computers are not Russian, but European by hazard · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article is misleading. The computers are not actually of Russian make, they were supplied to Russians by Europeans (EADS). See here.

  6. Re:The REAL reason they failed by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

    We don't do honest here. We do technically sound.


    We don't do technically sound here. We make do parroting the "common wisdom" and secretly praying nobody who actually knows something will be bothered to respond.

    Good form means getting and informative moderation rating without provoking an informative result. If you do provoke an informatve result, you end up in the penalty box (i.e., spend a few days actually getting work done rather than wasting time on Slashdot).
    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.