Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Launch To International Space Station Delayed For Code Tweaks

RogerRoast writes "The first private spaceship launch to the International Space Station has been delayed, possibly by at least a week, the vehicle's makers announced Monday. The commercial spaceflight company SpaceX was set to launch its Dragon capsule atop a Falcon 9 rocket April 30 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida." The article quotes SpaceX lead Elon Musk's twittered explanation: "Am pushing launch back approx a week to do more testing on Dragon docking code. New date pending coordination with @NASA."

26 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sure... by azalin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe the just noted half the libraries were in metric

  2. Release schedules by azalin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When is any project ever on time? It's not like they can release beta grade software and release an automatic update to fix it later. If they mess this up, it's going to cost them and maybe, just maybe the engineers plea for proper testing has been answered (a little late though)

    1. Re:Release schedules by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

      ...and maybe, just maybe the engineers plea for proper testing has been answered (a little late though)

      Not late. Hopefully, just in time. Late would be after launch and, then uh oh...

  3. Yikes! by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Last minute code tweaks" never go well.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Yikes! by Like2Byte · · Score: 5, Funny

      heh.

      Reminds me of that song, "99 instances of bugs in the code..."

      99 instances of bugs in the code...
      99 instances of bugs, ....
      code one out, mark it out,
      106 instances of bugs in the code...
      106 instances of bugs in the code...
      106 instances of bugs, ....

    2. Re:Yikes! by blueturffan · · Score: 2

      Sorry, ASAP is an FLA, but FLA is a TLA.

    3. Re:Yikes! by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      In theory, yes, it should have gone through more extensive testing. But business timelines don't always allow that.

      I cultivated a great relationship with our QA dept. While I had the ability and authority to bypass QA and put something in production, I only did that in one or two emergencies over 16 years. The rest of the time, I made sure my code went through QA, even if it was an abbreviated test, and I (almost) always gave them a list of things I thought they should test, to which they would add their own tests. And I never gave them a hard time or had a bad attitude about them finding bugs or suggesting improvements to the work flow, UI, wording, etc. I gave them code with few bugs, they gave me valuable feedback and kept most of my bugs from reaching production.

      JMHO, but that's how development & QA should work.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  4. Better to fix it first by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Better they found it now and missed the deadline than went anyhow and exploded. You do not get too many second chances in space.

    1. Re:Better to fix it first by Theophany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly. If only the same had happened with Challenger.

    2. Re:Better to fix it first by joh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Has nothing to do with "exploding". The problem is the automatic docking (actually berthing) and I've read they still have too many false emergency aborts in testing. They don't want to go all the way to the ISS just to have it pull back for no good reason automatically.

      Anyway, if they have their software and their testing not ready one week before launch, this isn't good at all. They should better put if off for a month or so.

    3. Re:Better to fix it first by jamesbulman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've checked in the fix...

      //bugfix: Stop abort code messing up docking
      //if(doAbort)
      //{
      // DoAbort();
      //}

  5. Re:Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    He's doing an absolutely fantastic job with his two post-paypal start-ups. I already have quite a few shares of Tesla, and when SpaceX goes public I'll pick up as well.

    not sure telsa is a wise investment choice, always seem to be on the brink of going broke

  6. Where is their spirit of adventure? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cowards!!! Launch early, launch often. (Or just give the coders the honor of being test pilots. That will make those code monkeys program it real good the first time...)

  7. NASA behind this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not that SpaceX is infallible - but I think it's NASA behind this requiring an insane amount of testing. They employ the Monte Carlo method of testing which basically tests every (or at least a random sample) value of each input variable and the combinations there of. I don't care who you are, but that method of testing is going to result in "issues" coming to the surface. The problem is that the issues will be extremely rare if not practically impossible. And Musk is not in a position to criticize them, since he wants their business for cargo and crew services.

    Not saying this kind of testing isn't valuable, but it doesn't lend itself well to schedules.

    1. Re:NASA behind this by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Space travel has a long history of "extremely rare if not practically impossible" issues coming up to bite you. Missions have been lost because of a single missing comma in the code. So, there is reason for this caution, and neither you nor Elon Musk is going to be able to change it.

    2. Re:NASA behind this by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

      Can't say I blame them for all the testing, given the potential risks involved. It's frustrating as hell to put up with the delays, but we space geeks ought to be used to that by now.

      One thing I'm curious about is whether or not they're going to try recovering the booster stages on this launch. Musk has said in the past that they're going to "keep trying until we get it right," but with all they've got riding on this mission already, I wouldn't be surprised if they skip that in order to concentrate everything on rendezvous and berthing. Still, it would be quite a feat if they could pull off that stunt as well on this launch.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    3. Re:NASA behind this by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not that SpaceX is infallible - but I think it's NASA behind this requiring an insane amount of testing. They employ the Monte Carlo method of testing which basically tests every (or at least a random sample) value of each input variable and the combinations there of. I don't care who you are, but that method of testing is going to result in "issues" coming to the surface. The problem is that the issues will be extremely rare if not practically impossible. And Musk is not in a position to criticize them, since he wants their business for cargo and crew services.

      Not saying this kind of testing isn't valuable, but it doesn't lend itself well to schedules.

      This is how you test mission critical systems. No, this is how you must test mission critical systems, regardless of schedules. The key adjective here is "mission critical". This ain't a Heroku web deployment just so you know.

    4. Re:NASA behind this by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASA and Russia are extremely cautious when it comes to anything ISS-related for very good reason. If this thing really screwed up and seriously damaged ISS to the point where they had to abandon it, it would probably end the era of human spaceflight and lead to big budget cuts for both agencies.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  8. I can see the headlines now by crazyjj · · Score: 2

    "ISS Seriously Damaged Because That Fucking Moron Peter Forgot To Do Garbage Collection."

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  9. Re:Sure... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, but which half?

    An imperial half.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  10. if it were open source by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    im sure you'd see git comments like
    --removed sound-activated LED code
    restored sound activation code. needed for espresso.py

    --removed callbacks, class for rancilio espresso maker. please stop this.
    --added pizza ordering support for dominos, stub for pizza hut

    --removed food related code for pizza, chinese food, references to 'the luther'.
    -- removed orbital re-entry positioning code. two can play this game
    -- re-added orbital code. this is not funny. please stop.
    -- added DMX512 dance-floor lighting control module, arduino support for twitter potted plant control

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  11. Re:Sure... by craigminah · · Score: 2

    I too worked in the space launch business and delays always are lastg minute because they cost so much and everyone is waiting for someone else to be the reason for the delay. If there was a delay due to cryo problems the coding issue would never come to light as they'd feverishly work to get it done while launch is delayed due to "cryo issues."

  12. Life support systems require more rigorous testing by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Life support systems require more rigorous testing than simple Monte Carlo. They generally require component testing, bounds case testing, and branch path analysis of the code so that every line of code gets hit during testing.

    I've worked on two projects that qualified as life support systems; one was an MRI console for a GE Medical Systems MRI machine (back when it was still being called NMR before it was politically corrected to remove the word "Nuclear"), and the second was a blood gas analyzer. Incorrect operation of the code in either of those cases could have resulted in someone dying as a result of a doctor getting misinformation.

    The amount of testing and the rigor of the testing involved in both of those projects was unbelievable. Even then, we were required to carry liability insurance out the wazoo on both projects in case we screwed up the code. There's a reason medical equipment is so expensive.

    Space systems that can ram into an occupied space station, and which are intended to some day carry humans to orbit qualify as life support, even if they are being sent up with a load of supplies instead of a human crew. Monte Carlo won't cut it any more than it will for a system call fuzzer trying to find a sequence of three system calls in a row that , if they are called with precisely the right parameters, will trigger a kernel panic.

    -- Terry

  13. Title is wrong, /. SOP by paramour · · Score: 2

    TFA says the delay is for hardware in the loop testing, not code tweaking.

    One hopes normal end-to-end testing was done long before this, but given the costs and logistics of assembling the actual hardware this final phase of testing pretty much has to wait until shortly before launch.

    I'm a developer and am pretty much in the camp of "if it complies and boots, ship it", but I appreciate the need for QA. When you're shooting a missile at a fragile target keeping a crew alive 200 miles above earth just maybe before you sign off on the launch you want to finish testing. It's the low delta-v docking code they're testing apparently, but docking coupling damage has happened in the past, and that or just a failure to dock would be kind of a big deal.

  14. Tests, not tweaks! by wjsteele · · Score: 4, Informative

    No where in Elon's Tweet or in the referenced article does it say they need to tweak the code... it says they need more time to "test" it.

    Bill

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  15. Much better article by joh · · Score: 2

    NASAspaceflight has a much better article than TFA. Go read it, if you're interested in details and facts.