Slashdot Mirror
Programming Error Doomed Russian Mars Probe
astroengine writes "So it turns out U.S. radars weren't to blame for the unfortunate demise of Russia's Phobos-Grunt Mars sample return mission — it was a computer programming error that doomed the probe, a government board investigating the accident has determined."
According to the Planetary Society Blog's unofficial translation and paraphrasing of the incident report, "The spacecraft computer failed when two of the chips in the electronics suffered radiation damage. (The Russians say that radiation damage is the most likely cause, but the spacecraft was still in low Earth orbit beneath the radiation belts.) Whatever triggered the chip failure, the ultimate cause was the use of non-space-qualified electronic components. When the chips failed, the on-board computer program crashed."
We've got a contradictory summary here. Chip failure isn't a programming fault, it's a hardware problem. Stop confusing hardware and software you insensitive clod.
the ultimate cause was the use of non-space-qualified electronic components
Programming error?
Perhaps in the software used to order the parts
Is it just me, or is it the responsibility of all software engineers to find the hardware problem in order to prove to people that the cause isn't software?
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
The summary is so contradictory because it quotes from 2 articles, and each of them is completely different. One says that the parts were space-tested and fine, and the other says they were never space-certified and were definitely bad. The first one says instead that a software bug caused parts of the system to reboot. The second doesn't know what happened and just blames faulty hardware.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
In other news, U.S. radars were not responsible for the highly confusing and contradictory summary posted this morning to a Slashdot story about Russia's Phobos-Grunt probe. A thorough investigation has determined that the story's chips should have been able to withstand the radiation received when the story was transmitted through the intertubes and routed over northern Alaska. Instead, investigators blamed a typing failure on the story editors. "A series of tests showed that the editing was lousy and sloppy, and disciplinary action will be taken on those responsible," a spokesman said.
A 4 digit ID and never heard of microcode.
Seriously Gramps, the distinction between hardware and software isn't as clear cut as it was when shit was all powered by steam.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The Planetary Society entry says that two modules failed and then the main computer crashed. Probably irrelevant if the computer crashed or not if there were significant failures in the electronics. Perhaps if the computer had kept going there woud have been some communication of what had gone wrong.
One of the commenters wrote "It is rather unlikely radiation caused the failure. Russians said the failure was due to an SRAM WS512K32V20G24M from White Electronics. This part is a module containing 4 CY7C1049 chips from Cypress and is actually screened. While the Cypress part is very susceptible to Latchup," No idea if this is true or not.
(I'm assuming mil spec is fine for space stuff)
You don't happen to work at the Russian Space Agency purchasing department, do you?
mod me funny
Not even the government could save money by buying something at Radio Shack.
Okay, we still have a respectable though dwindling community of commenters, so can we please get rid of these editors who can't even be bothered to read four lines of summary text before posting ?
The headline and summary do not make sense. Come on, we're supposed to be nerds, aka intelligent, focused, attentive knowledge aggregators.
the fuck is wrong with this goddamned site?! These failures are starting to make Digg look good!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Fun to read the comments here. I've done embedded stuff and you need to be defensive. You can see at a glance who here has never done defensive programming before, or embedded or safety critical programming, all blaming the hardware. There's 3 states so you got 2 bits of input and a disallowed state comes in. Deal with it, don't just curl up and die and blame the hardware designer. There's a 12 bit A/D conversion result stored in two bytes, and there's a 14 bit number found there, deal with it don't just curl up and die and blame the ... . Theres a cycle start button and an emergency stop button and both are simultaneously on. Deal with it. You reboot a mission critical (or safety critical!) CPU and a minor auxiliary input A/D doesn't initialize, do you burn the plant down in a woe is me pity party because one out of 237 sensors aren't coming on line, or do you deal with it?
Finally radiation is a statistical phenomena. There is no such think as radiation free. If they used non-rad hardened parts, its gonna crash maybe 10000 times more often. Thats OK, you program around that, assuming you know what you're doing. Radiation hardened does not equal radiation-proof. If there was a single bit error, or a latchup on a rad-hardened unit, with a poorly programmed control system it would have failed just as well, its just that a rad hardened chip would have made it a couple orders of magnitude less likely. A shitty design that has a 1 in 20000 failure rate due to better hardware instead of 1 in 2 is still a shitty programming design, even if the odds are "good enough" that it makes it most of the time with the better hardware.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
What are the chances chips would fail in a 20-30 minute period just after launch but before Mars transfer orbit insertion ?
No, I bet this was a programming error, coupled with a near total failure to test the software.
You laugh, but how many of you low level guys had to work around buggy hardware?
I once sent a memo to my boss that I was doing the equivalent of "working around a burnt out lightbulb in software".
E.g.: How many hardware guys does it take to change a lightbulb? None, we'll just have the software work around it.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Space Micro doesn't list the prices of their components or systems, nor can I find any from anyone else. Honeywell don't list their prices either. Atmel seem to have dropped out of the field. Linear don't list the prices for their space-hardened stuff. Don't see any for BAE either, or Intersil. Empire Magnetics require a lot of personal data before they give you access to even the price classification information. Not the prices, just how they're classified.
You've got to allow for a year's worth of traveling outside of an atmosphere and then operating on Mars for the duration of the mission. This analysis of radiation for manned missions suggests you're looking at 3.5 mSv per day, then 20 rems per year in most of the places of interest.
Converting everything to rads, it's 0.1 rads per mSv and 1 rad per rem, so that's 12.75 rads to get to Mars if you assume a year-long trip, plus 20 rads for the mission, so anything with a rating of less than 32.75 rads is pretty much guaranteed to fail. However, over the course of a two years, the odds of there being a solar flare are not insignificant. To be safe, you want resistance to a further 400 rad. 432.75 rad is within the tolerance of most of the space-hardened components (some components can be taken up to 1000 rad, others up to 10,000). However, the cheapest space components would NOT survive. You're talking high-end on the space scale.
I'm going to figure that the top-line components will cost 100x that of their conventional counterparts, due to the higher-level of precision and QA that are required. It might well be a good deal more. In Russia, you've also got to pay for smuggling decent-grade hardware out of the US, as all of this stuff will be under massive amounts of regulation.
My guess is that the cuts would have saved enough that those doing the cost-cutting could buy second homes in Switzerland.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Try this one on your hardware guys:
"The main purpose of software is to make hardware reliable".
Drives them nuts...
Not even necessarily low level. I once had a weird intermittent problem in a PHP driven web system. After a couple of weeks of diagnosing (largely trying to find a case the could more-or-less reliably tickle the bug), it turned out to be an interaction of a bug in the Redhat version of that day (2001) with a bug in the particular CPU we were using. PHP code just happened to trigger it under certain conditions. Since the box was at Level 3, we had to drive an hour down there and replace the machine.
And long ago I worked on Perq workstations, which had a stack-machine CPU (the CPU was a 15x15 inch board filled with TTL). The expression stack was four chips. The system was designed around the chip spec - NEVER DO THAT!!! Chips can not be depended to go at exactly the design spec - some are slow, some are fast. As a result, every CPU had to be tested at installation with those four chips inserted in different locations, essentially in order of speed. If a fast one came after a slow one in the slots, the CPU would barf. Basically someone just kept swapping chips around until it worked.
We were just discussing some of the remarkable repairs done in software to accommodate problems in various interplanetary probes - truly amazing stuff.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/