Slashdot Mirror


Why ISS Computers Failed

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.

7 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Power off command by jsse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Also, in a shocking design flaw, there was a "power off" command leading to all three of the supposedly redundant processing units. That reminds me many years ago, when my friend worked as a programmer in a major bank writing small programs for an online international financial system. He issued an 'shutdown' command through JCL(Job Control Language) and that really shutdown the entire system. He didn't realize he had the privilege to issue administration commands. Instead of reporting the crisis to his manager, he hide away until someone figured out what's going on. Needless to say, my friend was fired.

    Years later I met his manager, he told me that my friend could have been promoted for discovering one of the biggest loophole ever in the bank's history, if he had reported the problem immediately. Though the unexpected shutdown caused considerable damage, it could have saved billions from real break-in with this loophole.

    That's a lesson that every engineer should have been learned. :)
  2. Re:Urgh. by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree... That's what first came to mind after having watched this incident unfold live. What he fails to mention is that the Russian engineers were always open to suggestions and they cooperated pretty well when they needed to discuss the problems. The Russians were also working nearly 24/7 on trying to find and resolve the problems and come up with theories before they were running out of time. The article makes it sound like they early on got locked into "blaming the Americans" or something. It was merely one theory that was tossed around and discussed, and diagnosed early on. If there seem to be a power failure (which it ended up being all about), surely one logically suspected culprit could be a power feed problem?

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  3. Re:A bit harsh on the Russians. by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm thinking it's relatively close to even. We lost 3 on the pad (early Apollo, where we learned that a full oxygen mix in a capsual with burnable stuff in it is Almost A Good Idea), & a pair of crewed space shuttles. Officially, the Russians haven't lost anybody but rumor around the water cooler is, they lost a couple when they couldn't deorbit a capsual in time and the cosmonauts ran out of oxygen, couple died on the pad in explosions, and a couple parachute failures pancaked a couple Vostoks into the Siberian tundra.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  4. Re:Hmmmm. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Problem with doing the small lift, is that the ISS would have been a fraction of the size that it is. Until they developed transhab, each module would have to be rinky dink.

    Personally, I would argue that not moving forward on new lifters was THE real mistake. In particular, during reagans time was when the Challenger happened. reagan should have started the development on a new lifter then. Clinton did start one (X-33), but it was killed off with W. Right now, I would have to say that if America can get multiple launchers that can lift 25 metric tones inexpensively AND perhaps 2 launchers that are true Saturn class (the Ares IV|V and the the falcon BFR), then we would be ok for some time, perhaps 2020-2025. What amazes me is that we expected a new class of rocket to last like an airliner. Yet, Rocket Science is in the same place that Airplanes were in the 40's; roughly undergoing all sorts of changes due to loads of new research. Hopefully, we learned from all this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  5. Re:The REAL reason they failed by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Vista doesn't get any breaks for 1 reason: I run Vista and it runs GREAT! BUT... big BUT. I am currently running: Intel Q6600@3Ghz 2x 1GB 800Mhz RAM 2x ATi HD2600 XT 256MB GDDR4 P35 Chipset Motherboard. Runs REAL smooth. I tried to run it on my old AMD 4000+ X2/2GB/ATi x1950. I had to pretty much scale it back to almost look like XP before it was anywhere near usable - and why would I do that, when I have XP. I know this is off topic. To bring it back to topic, nice read of an article, it seems the ISS is prone to the same problems we have down here - interoperability.

  6. Re:The REAL reason they failed by The+Spoonman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why? Is defending a MS operating system for honest reasons impossible to believe anymore?

    Here's the problem: the vast majority of Slashdotters are either: a) technically incompetent or b) Unix people, which also makes them technically incompetent but also gives them an unjustified superiority complex. After all, their OS of choice has gotten to the point that they have to assemble it themselves and then give it away for free. And despite all of that, people still don't want it. Go fig.

    In all seriousness, they just don't get it. It's a shame, and it's just getting worse every day. The industry's filled with old farts who refuse to learn anything new, and young'ins with no aptitude beyond passing a certification test. When I tell them our team of 15 people manage 14,000 Windows desktops and 2000 Windows servers, they tell me it's impossible. But, again, that's 'cause they're boobs. Trust me, just keep pissin' 'em off by showing them up in projects and eventually they start to dwindle away.

    --
    Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
    http://www.workorspoon.com
  7. Re:Urgh. by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if the Russian Program Managers got all political against us, but the item, written by a retired NASA manager, sure as hell gets political against the Russians.

    When you follow the space progam/ISS day in and day out, rather than relying on the all to infrequent Slashdot coverage... you soon see why. Again and again when something goes wrong, the Russians first (publically) announced 'theory' is that the problem is 'the Americans fault'. Only months later, if ever, does the truth come out. There are a couple of failures from the early flights of the current Soyuz version that were publically blamed on the Americans - that the Russians have yet to disclose the real cause of. The Russians have a long habit of being less than candid when it comes to their space program, and NASA has gone right along with them in covering up safety and performance issues with MIR, Soyuz, and the ISS.
     
     

    This item is hugely biased. It looks to me like a simple case of corrosion, which could easily have been patched up if it happened on a Mars flight.

    Sure, this one failure could have been patched up - but this is only the latest in a long series of failures caused by poor design and manufacture of the Russian segments of the ISS. Failures nowhere matched on the US side. Failures consistently blamed on the US by the Russians. While both NASA and the Russians are publically praising the performance of the Russian hardware.
     
    It's not just about the Russians.
     
     

    It's just as well he's retired - looks like he's fighting long lost battles against cooperation with the Russians and Europeans.

    It may seem that way to somebody unfamiliar with the backstory and history. (I.E. pretty much every Slashdot commentator so far.)
     
    [rant]The Slashdot hivemind frustrates the hell out of me when it comes to space issues. Too damm few bother to actually read and keep up with the field, and fewer still know much about the history.[/rant]