Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Draws On Open Source For Shuttle Bug-Tracking

Posted by Soulskill on from the hard-to-argue-with-cheaper-and-faster dept.

thefickler writes "NASA has built a new software package to track problems with the Space Shuttle using open source tools from Mozilla. '[Alonso Vera, the lead of the Ames Human-Computer Interaction Group] wouldn't say exactly how much the new systems cost to build, but he said they were an order of magnitude cheaper than what was being used before, closer to $100,000 than the $1 million it would have cost in the past.' The Space Shuttle Endeavor launched successfully on Friday, so the new system is being used to track any problems which may crop up in the current mission. As one commentator pointed out, 'A system like this could save more than money; it could save lives.'"

83 comments

  1. They're already using it by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bug number one with the Space Shuttle is that "Microsoft has a majority market share in space travel".

    1. Re:They're already using it by peragrin · · Score: 3, Funny

      you didn't think the shuttle columbia blew up because of foam hitting a tile did you?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:They're already using it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      you didn't think the shuttle columbia blew up because of foam hitting a tile did you?

      Of course he doesn't! But the tile fell off because of Microsoft! If the design engineers weren't using Microsoft products somewhere in their lives (even if it was just MS Money at home), the accident would never have happened!

      Oh yeah, it was also Bush's fault, too.

      This is Slashdot after all.

    3. Re:They're already using it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      See, comments like yours are dangerous and hate-speech. That's why we need to implement an Extended Fairness Doctrine everywhere to supress the expression of divisive thought- er. Protect The Children. That's what Change is all about, after all.

    4. Re:They're already using it by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both Columbia and Challenger failed because management overruled engineering and ordered that schedule be maintained in spite of quality concerns. Launch it now, land it now, release it now.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:They're already using it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to be fair the shuttle would never leave the ground if management did not overrule engineering all the time. that bucket of bolts deserves to die on the pad.

    6. Re:They're already using it by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the power of the BSOD

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    7. Re:They're already using it by BrentH · · Score: 1

      "Launch early, launch often". Erm.... ;)

  2. Hopefully this is only the beginning. by Bentov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can only hope that more of this is to come; gotta save money someplace. Better to save my by actually saving money vs. saving money by taking it away from something else.

    1. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      It'll save money sure, but I think it is a huge stretch to say that open source bug tracking will save lives. It will do no such thing.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by mweather · · Score: 1

      If it's not going to make the shuttle safer to fly, why did they bother developing it?

    3. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can only hope when somebody files a bug for something like say, "shuttle fires unreliably under ice conditions" nobody closes the bug and sets the status to "WORKS4ME".

    4. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Eh I'm not so sure. Everyone knows how rigorously the military requires software to be audited for flight control systems.. and this is the space shuttle. A bit of a step up. So it may be easier to write everything from scratch, testing rigorously as you go, instead of handing developers an unfamiliar codebase and making them try to make it meet code robustness requirements.

      I love free software but I don't think volunteer developers in an anarchist programming environment have a place in the development of a $2 billion system at the absolute pinnacle of aerospace design complexity.

    5. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by MrMr · · Score: 1

      It will save lives because thanks to this particular change no cheaper components need to be used in other parts of the vessel to achieve the next round of price cuts.

    6. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTA - it was to replace a large number of proprietary databases spread across numerous subcontractors with a single common solution hosted locally at NASA. It saves costs and time, but not lives.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    7. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Funny

      I love free software but I don't think volunteer developers in an anarchist programming environment have a place in the development of a $2 billion system at the absolute pinnacle of aerospace design complexity.

      Yeah but it will fine for the space shuttle. [ducks]

    8. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. That sounds like a big lifesaver right there. At the least, it'll help catch sets of problems that are synergistic. For example, if you have some avionics issue that is sensitive to excess vibration from the SRBs, it'd be helpful to easily access the SRB problem databases and see what vibration problems they currently have. That may tip the decision from "we'll let it go for this launch since it hasn't been a problem before" to "the latest SRBs have some new problems that affect this issue, we better fix it this time to be sure."

    9. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by cyclone96 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I understand your point, however this particular software is basically a system for tracking vehicle "funnies" on the ground, it's not something that is in the loop of the vehicle flight software or something used to make critical decisions. The old system is pretty dated and unwieldy to use (I've used it, I work for NASA). We're obligated to try out cheaper alternatives to custom code to see if it works for us without compromising what we are trying to do.

      Sometimes it does work for us - the Mission Control Center workstations and the onboard command and control laptops on the Space Station were all recently converted to Red Hat. It is in many ways better than the old proprietary unix solutions because with the source it's easy to do our own mods to the software. We still test the daylights out of it since that is critical software, but it's a lot easier to support since we have the source code and can do our own bug in-house bug investigations, patch it, or rip out things we don't want/need.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
    10. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all this cash is saved on license costs?

    11. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by DiegoBravo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Despite the (European) Ariane, the most tragic NASA's episodes were not directly related to software. Even with the high business software project failure rate, the software in the space ships has proved very reliable.

      I think people is biased to feel the software as a intractable mess because of the intractable requirement dynamics in business projects. BTW, never complains that the hardware can be so bad too.

    12. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I do not think that it has something to do with money saving.

      I have seen that many times in past when people quoted costs only as justification to switch to better system.

      And frankly, systems like Bugzilla, Mantis are magnitude better compared to commercial offerings. I have used number of "state of the art" issue tracking systems - both OSS and commercials - and OSS options are plainly better. Commercial tools win against OSS options only because they have simpler management tools what management (who are in charge of purchase decision making) values higher than overall functionality and usability. But you will not find commercial issue tracking systems where engineers are making decisions.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    13. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Well since that is a completely unrealistic example that would never happen, you cant really use it to justify your position.

      As a subcontractor to NASA I dont really see how centralizing the databases provides any life savings benefit. Time and money yes obviously, life saving, no.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    14. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I can't tell, if you're being sarcastic or just obtuse. I would, of course, disagree with the characterization of my example as "completely unrealistic". The point was as long as you have completely different issue tracking software for complex systems that have to work together, you have ways to introduce fatal problems through unexpected interactions between issues on disjoint tracking systems.

    15. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      I'm not being sarcastic or obtuse. I'm being realistic.

      It's an unrealistic example because the subsystems simply do not work that way. The system is designed, and all the subsystems (supplied by contractors) get a very detailed and specific list of requirements. You have to meet all the requirements or you simply are not allowed to integrate your system. So when the avionics company got the contract for the electronics, they would have received a list of requirements that included the launch vibrations that they had to survive at. This would be a value with enough margin on known launch vibrations that even if the booster rocket exceeded the spec it would be ok (after a very painful review and requirement waiver process - if they even let the booster company ship without meeting the requirements). The avionics company does not need to know any details about any other part of the system as long as they stay compliant to their requirements.

      All of the subcontractors develop their subsystems in almost complete isolation of all the others, with NASA playing referee moving budgets (mass, power, etc) arounds and keeping track of the overall requirements. The avionics guys would never even talk to the booster guys nor to any other unrelated subsystem.

      In space there is no such thing as "introduce fatal problems through unexpected interactions between issues". The programs are setup in such a manner to not allow that to happen. Thats one of the big reasons why it is so expensive to develop anything for space.

      I'm not saying that a common problem tracking database wouldn't make NASAs job easier - it would. It would not however save lives as all of the major issues that are mission critial have been worked through already, becoming the source of the subsystem requirements.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    16. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ok, I see what you're saying. So even with a unified tracking system, they'll still compartmentalize project development in this way.

    17. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by mweather · · Score: 1

      In space there is no such thing as "introduce fatal problems through unexpected interactions between issues". The programs are setup in such a manner to not allow that to happen.

      Like the strength of the shuttle wing's leading edge, and the weight of falling foam? You'd think they'd have been more careful if they expected that to happen.

    18. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      There's always an unknown. However if they had the foam falling off in the same database as the shuttle wing design, the shuttle accident would have still happened.

      When the first foam fell off the situation was analyzed and deemed to be acceptable. The analysis and conclusions were obviously wrong and a centralized database wouldn't have changed anything.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    19. Re:Hopefully this is only the beginning. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Correct!

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  3. PHLEGM already taken... by mach1980 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The name of the system sure sounds as from a dilbert strip: "Problem Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action (PRACA)"

    --
    Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
    1. Re:PHLEGM already taken... by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In polish "praca" means "work". So probably it just works.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    2. Re:PHLEGM already taken... by ladybugfi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well if you say in Finnish "se prakaa", you mean that it breaks. Fitting...

    3. Re:PHLEGM already taken... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... which has the implications that polish astronauts will be allowed to fly in the Space Shuttle, while the Finns have to stay home?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:PHLEGM already taken... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      "...while the Finns have to stay home?"

      Not if they speak Polish.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  4. What were they using before... by johndmartiniii · · Score: 1

    Post-its next to their screens?

    --
    If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
    1. Re:What were they using before... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    2. Re:What were they using before... by Avatraxiom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They were using something like 40 different systems--a different one for practically each department and contractor at NASA. Some of them were pretty much using the technological equivalent of post-it notes next to their screens, and I've been told that some were keeping track of defects using paper files. -Max

      --
      Everything Solved, High-Quality Bugzilla, Perl, and Linux Services
    3. Re:What were they using before... by johndmartiniii · · Score: 1

      Shit, I though I was just kidding. Reality rears its ugly head.

      --
      If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
    4. Re:What were they using before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you were kidding, to some degree. :-) I don't think anybody was using anything like real post-it notes. I actually have no idea, though--I'm really not actually privy to that sort of information.

      -Max

    5. Re:What were they using before... by Avatraxiom · · Score: 1

      To clarify, this comment was more me attempting to be amusing than an actual factual statement. I suspect there were actually many advanced systems in use and I really actually have no idea what systems were being used. -Max

      --
      Everything Solved, High-Quality Bugzilla, Perl, and Linux Services
  5. Good Company by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The order of magnitude under budget sounded familiar. Jefferson Lab Accelerator made a similar statement about at least some parts of the machine when they announced they had completed building and testing it and it was ready to fire up, ahead of schedule and under budget. I remembered they used government surplus and off-the-shelf parts as much as they could, but I didn't pay attention to the software. So I looked it up. HP-UX from 1987 to 2004, Red Hat since 2004. They talk about open source as a rationale, and specifically mention the Mozilla programs: http://users.cosylab.com/~mpelko/PCaPAC08/papers/mox03.pdf

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Good Company by invisiblerhino · · Score: 5, Informative

      A lot of science uses open source tools anyway, so this is only news in that it'll draw the public's attention to it. At CERN, the data analysis package (ATHENA) I worked on had a Python front end, used gnu tools (gcc, gdb), expressly encouraged physicists to use valgrind etc. I've forgotten how bug tracking worked, but I'm pretty sure it was something like Bugzilla. I'm not sure about the status (open source or not) of the full analysis package, but other stuff to come out of CERN (CERNLIB, Geant3) has been. It's all good.

      --
      xterm -n 8
  6. Bugzilla? Really? by rfreedman · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, the rocket scientists looked at all of the available open-source bug trackers, and chose Bugzilla? Really?

    1. Re:Bugzilla? Really? by david.gilbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hopefully the rocket scientists were doing rocket science while leaving the IT people that support the rocket scientists to choose the bug tracker.

    2. Re:Bugzilla? Really? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, the rocket scientists looked at all of the available open-source bug trackers, and chose Bugzilla? Really?

      No matter which solution they choose, it certainly doesn't solve the common people related issues we see:
        - rejected, reason: space debris, this is out of scope
        - won't-fix, reason: no parts available
      I am sure there others.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:Bugzilla? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as they didn't have some manager force Siebel down their throats. My gods, that crap is awful, and a loss leader to hire Oracle consultants to try and keep it working.

    4. Re:Bugzilla? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Launchpad would have been more shuttleworth.

    5. Re:Bugzilla? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the Free Bugzilla is a lot better than the super expensive IBM Rational tools.

  7. Bug: Shuttle won't launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just tested it on florida v1.0, wfm

    are you running this on florida, texas, california, or something else?

  8. How is this surprising? by AndGodSed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, open source is cheaper, AND appears to give good results?

    Why am I not surprised?

    --

    Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity

    1. Re:How is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Open Source bugtrackers have to keep track of bugs across platforms, architectures, languages, and more forks and versions than you can shake a stick at; and it has to do it over the internet, without any kind of physical proximity.

      I think an open-source bug tracker is going to be superior to any proprietary solution, period.

    2. Re:How is this surprising? by mebrahim · · Score: 1

      Because you must be not-so-new here?

      --
      Persian Project Management Software as a Service
  9. The really worrying thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The first shuttle mission was in 1981 - 27 years ago. You'd hope that in all that time, NASA would've cracked the major problems and the number of issues being raised now would be close to zero - reflecting the 30-odd years of development.

    Given that the scuttle is due to be scrapped anytime, the fact that they're planning a *new* bug-tracking system for it, right at the end of it's life, is downright bizarre.

    1. Re:The really worrying thing by westlake · · Score: 1
      The first shuttle mission was in 1981 - 27 years ago. You'd hope that in all that time, NASA would've cracked the major problems and the number of issues being raised now would be close to zero - reflecting the 30-odd years of development.
      .

      There have only been about 125 shuttle launches. The Boeing 747 has been in development and in daily use since 1970 with 1400 built to date.

    2. Re:The really worrying thing by legirons · · Score: 1

      The first shuttle mission was in 1981 - 27 years ago. You'd hope that in all that time, NASA would've cracked the major problems and the number of issues being raised now would be close to zero

      Presumably they keep changing it to carry different types of stuff into different types of space?

  10. It could have saved a lot of lives, actually by Avatraxiom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My company (Everything Solved), made PRACA along with NASA, and in one of the first meetings, a researcher at Ames told me that if a system like PRACA had always existed at NASA, then every major mishap in NASA's history could have been avoided. -Max

    --
    Everything Solved, High-Quality Bugzilla, Perl, and Linux Services
    1. Re:It could have saved a lot of lives, actually by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I strongly doubt it. For example, the two problems that killed astronauts on the Space Shuttles were known issues to the people making the big decisions. Better issue tracking might have helped address these problems before they killed someone, but it is unlikely.

    2. Re:It could have saved a lot of lives, actually by slack_prad · · Score: 1

      hey .. you should play on WF server sometime ;)

      --
      Sent from my desktop computer
    3. Re:It could have saved a lot of lives, actually by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Filling Apollo I's crew capsule with pure O_2 was a design decission.

    4. Re:It could have saved a lot of lives, actually by Avatraxiom · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to say that the above comment is actually my opinion and not a representation of any government organization or employee, and I am not an government employee. There were existing PRACA systems before the one we made. One of the other responders is correct that there are many other mitigating forces in mishaps, and that my statement may not be correct. -Max

      --
      Everything Solved, High-Quality Bugzilla, Perl, and Linux Services
  11. Why not publish the source online? by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't they publish read only access of the source code online and allow the public to file bug reports?

    More eyeballs, shallow bugs.

    1. Re:Why not publish the source online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I could use that bug tracker. My space shuttles keep exploding on me, and NASA support is really shitty.

    2. Re:Why not publish the source online? by gparent · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the NASA wants people filing bugs for stuff they probably have no knowledge of.

      And honestly, how are you even going to reproduce it? Buy your own shuttle?

    3. Re:Why not publish the source online? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      I think you could reproduce it and get it running, I believe most of the code is produced by outside contractors, so I don't see what the problem is.

      Otherwise how would they test the code themselves? You think they keep a couple of shuttles hanging around for testing the software?

      There was a story on slashdot about a year back about how they produce code, etc.

    4. Re:Why not publish the source online? by gparent · · Score: 1

      Yes, but are the peeps from NASA really gonna buy into bug reports from 20 year old kids in their mom's basement? I doubt the cons of opening up their bug tracker would be worth the benefits.

    5. Re:Why not publish the source online? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Considering that said 20 year old kids in their moms' basements will likely spend a significant amount of time poring over the software, I don't see why not. It is free testing, after all.

    6. Re:Why not publish the source online? by gparent · · Score: 1

      It isn't free if they have to audit every bug report to make sure they're actually real bugs, and then discard 80% of it. That's what I meant by "I doubt the cons of opening up their bug tracker would be worth the benefits"

    7. Re:Why not publish the source online? by JetScootr · · Score: 1

      I work at JSC. I'm just a code monkey; and am not speaking for the customer (NASA) or my employer; This should be considered (changeable,poorly expressed) opinion only, limited in all sorts of ways that lawyers like.
      Do you know what a Fischer ellipsoid is? (You're sitting on one.)
      Go ahead, google it. Make sure you fully understand before continuing. I'll wait right here.
      deedee dahdah boody-boop a doop...
      hmmmm....(what's taking so long?)....
      Ah, there you are.
      That's just one of the bazillion things ya godda learn in order to help maintain the codebase. It's not enough to know software tech, you must understand space tech as well.
      They're called rocket scientists for a reason, people.

      --
      Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
    8. Re:Why not publish the source online? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      I never said submit contributions my good man, however I believe people would be able to spot bugs if given the chance.

    9. Re:Why not publish the source online? by JetScootr · · Score: 2, Informative
      Perhaps I was a bit snarky there...sorry.
      I work in the astronaut training facility, on simulation software. Loosely, I'd categorize the code like this:
      • simulation 'infrastructure' or 'framework' (ie,realtime game engine,graphics,network/shared memory protocols,etc) .. (Requires knowledge specific to computational hardware, i/o devices, etc of the simulator itself)
      • Model software, such as payload X or onboard system Y
        (Requires specific aerospace tech knowledge)
      • Math, like equations of motion, mass properties, ephemeris, etc. (Requires rocket scientist)
      • Non-simulation support software, such as S/W CM, bug tracking, distribution software, process mgt s/w, etc .. (Requires paperwork-procedure-specific knowledge)
      • Maybe miscelleanous, but none comes to mind right now.

      Bringing a good programmer up to speed on all this stuff takes several months. The math is the only part I'd think a good coder could analyze witout domain-specific knowledge. That was written,vetted and frozen decades ago (except ephemiris, Fischer stuff *should* get updated infrequently).

      --
      Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
    10. Re:Why not publish the source online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for one thing I think someone would have spotted the conversion of units wrong which screwed up one mission.

      You're too negative and think all people are stupid.

    11. Re:Why not publish the source online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think they keep a couple of shuttles hanging around for testing the software?

      yes actually. the enterprise (the space shuttle) has never flown and is used to test software and train astronauts.

    12. Re:Why not publish the source online? by Rysc · · Score: 1

      It might take a lot to get someone up to material contributions, but many coding errors are noticeable without knowing much about what the software is doing. Although I guess static analyzers could catch most of those just as well.

      I think the real question here is... what's the harm? Worst case you get some emails you ignore, best case you find some genius who can help you. Just allowing the space enthusiasts who are also programmers to get some idea of what's involved, or to see progress go forward day-by-day... I'd be fascinated, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    13. Re:Why not publish the source online? by JetScootr · · Score: 1

      What's the harm? absolutely none, to be sure. The real work would be for the few of us around here who are really into software to be able to sway managers and other engineers into accepting the new ideas. Most programmers here are aerospace engineers, EEs, math or physics geniuses, etc, first, who write code to implement their particular expert discipline. "herding cats" doesn't hardly cover it.
      There's no doubt they're brilliant, most of them, but I'm a minority here- a person whose first expertise is software science, then avionics. EEs, mech engineers, etc, are in general not looking in the direction of goings-ons in the software industry, and so are generally unfamiliar with free software, open collaboration, etc.
      guess/opinion: Although there's probably not a lot of hassle in making the code available (it IS copyrighted by NASA), the legal aspects MUST be addressed. In doing so, the first question any manager (qualified in any industry) is gonna ask is "What's the payback?"
      Once again, for the record: My conversational thoughts only, I am not speaking for NASA or my employer; also, I have no decision making authority in this area; All I can do is persuade.

      --
      Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
    14. Re:Why not publish the source online? by JetScootr · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. Enterprise was used for ALT (Approach and Landing Tests) in 1980's, pre-first launch. Technically, it has 'flown', but not as part of a launch vehicle or into space. It was 'drop tested'.
      Flight software testing only requires the computers and related avionics; currently, some of that is in Bldg 9 at JSC (I think - it's been years since I was there). Flight software testing is done in a variety of ways, including running it in the astronaut training simulators on emulated and actual flight hardware. One of the early flights, STS 2 or 3 IIRC, was delayed a coupla days cuz a bug in flight software. It had occurred in the simulator as well, but nowhere else. Flight crews didn't yet trust the realism of the GNC configuration in the simulator, so the simulator was considered the cause of the bug.
      The SMS became a part of the testing process for flight software after that.
      Again, this is personal comment only, does not reflect, and I am not authorized to speak for my employer or NASA.

      --
      Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
  12. Re:STS-107: Weird elevon data readings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had mod points I would mod you down for being a little prick.

  13. Testing is not enough by Dark1999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For systems such as these formal verification is very important. NASA understands that and they have a pretty strong "Reliable Software Engineering" team: http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/rse/

  14. Cheaper? by cheeseboy001 · · Score: 1

    How did they manage to make using Bugzilla cost $100,000?

    1. Re:Cheaper? by AMuse · · Score: 1

      Labor, Labor, Labor.

      They're tying it into, and porting data from, dozens of disparate data sources - some old, some newer.

      Frankly with the cost of labor in the Silicon Valley area even in this economy, I'm shocked it cost that little.

  15. If it goes like most open source projects... by Chris+Snook · · Score: 1

    Half the bugs will sit in NEW status until the shuttle is retired, then they'll be closed WONTFIX.

    --
    There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
  16. w00t! Bugzilla In Space! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    It sounds like a bad Japanese movie. But it is no surprise to me that open-source software is saving money everywhere in the public sector. And about time!

  17. modifying bugzilla by Earthpaladin · · Score: 1

    I've been thinking that bug-zilla could be used for other uses as well. For example, I work at a resort. Instead of having a paper to keep track of all the "bug" ie maintence issues perhaps a system like bugzilla would be better. I'm thinking of stuyding computer science, after I get done with my business administration degree. Another thing is that if I use an already existing program, then the company can't come after me for the rights to if it I modify it.