Slashdot Mirror
New NASA Launch Control Software Late, Millions Over Budget (go.com)
schwit1 writes: The launch control software NASA is writing from scratch for its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket is way behind schedule and way over budget. According to ABC News, "Development of this new launch control software is now projected to exceed $207 million, 77 percent above 2012 projections. The software won't be ready until fall 2017, instead of this summer as planned, and important capabilities like automatic failure detection, are being deferred, the audit noted. The system is vital, needed to control pumps, motors, valves and other ground equipment during countdowns and launches, and to monitor data before and during liftoff. NASA decided to write its own computer code to "glue together" existing software products a decade ago -- while space shuttles still were flying and commercial shippers had yet to service the space station. Both delivery companies, SpaceX and Orbital ATK, rely on commercial software, the audit noted."
In other words, even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own. And that decision really didn't come before the arrival of these commercial companies, because when it was made a decade ago that was exactly the time that SpaceX was beginning to build its rocket. This is simply more proof that SLS is nothing more than a pork-laden waste of money designed not to explore space but to generate non-productive jobs in congressional districts.
In other words, even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own. And that decision really didn't come before the arrival of these commercial companies, because when it was made a decade ago that was exactly the time that SpaceX was beginning to build its rocket. This is simply more proof that SLS is nothing more than a pork-laden waste of money designed not to explore space but to generate non-productive jobs in congressional districts.
28-page PDF
https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-015.pdf
Note that NASA is _not_ reinventing the wheel, and they _are_ using COTS, but since Commercial Software just simply isn't up to snuff off the shelf, they have to write "Glueware". Would _anybody_ trust Microsoft with this task?
Also note that references to cost overruns includes all the work that NASA put into the Constellation Program... which was cancelled, (Well, no longer funded, after 2011.)
Launch control software is NOT commercially available for STS! Each launcher has it's own LCS because even more so that with PCs the software needs to be adapted to the launch Hardware. Ponder the hardware differences between homogeneous Falcon-9 and STS's heterogeneous mix of solid boosters and cryogenic engines. Yes, one could adapt one LCS from one launcher to another but the undertaking is more a general rewrite due to differing hardware than it is a simple recompile.
I'm not even sure that if Nasa were to ask Space-X if they could purchase a copy of their LCS that Space-X would agree. Space-X is selling a launch service to orbit, not Joe's Space junkyard and spare parts.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Ahem....no. That's the per capita cost. Total cost for the mission is about $720 million, or about $2 per person.
Comparatively, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program cost is $1.3 trillion, the Boston Big Dig cost $24 billion ($7 billion was federal money), the new Vikings stadium is expect to cost just over $1 billion (and will probably run way over). New Horizons was a bargain and exactly what NASA should be doing, not SLS.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
And NASA doesn't already do this? Since I went to work for General Electric's Space Division in 1982, the NASA projects I worked on were bid on by and awarded to private contractors. For the most part, NASA provided contract oversight, not hardware or software expertise. (In the case of GE, 3 or 4 years after I started, the defense side of the Space Division was caught doing "creative" bookkeeping. The Space Division was prohibited from bidding on government contracts and our NASA branch finished up a commercial system and closed up shop. A similar case happened in the 1980s when Rockwell or someone went overbudget on their defense contracts and started charging the overages to their Shuttle contracts. Oh, those wonderful private defense contractors ... let's privatize everything!)
Furthermore, NASA makes their technology available to private companies at no or little cost. In the case of the GE commercial system I worked on, we reused the entire image processing ground system software we had developed for NASA. (It was a very large system with an incredible amount of intellectual property in the image processing software alone--and NASA gave it away.) At a later company I worked for, we built our company's flagship product (used both on military and commerical projects) on satellite control center software we had previously developed for NASA. (And other companies made use of the original software as well. It's funny how companies aren't strict ideologues about "We Built That!" when it comes to getting something for free.) Do private military contractors offer such a return on investment to the private sector?
To be fair, Alan Stern called the four years he spent leading the development of New Horizons a blur. That was half the length of the typical development cycle for comparable probe/satellite projects, and put an enormous personal and professional strain on all the people working on it. It is not reasonable to expect people to perpetually work at that pace. The New Horizons program was a bargain largely because it put undue and unsustainable strain on the employees and contractors involved. Yes, it was a well-managed program and is a good example of cutting a lot of red tape to get a project done, but you should expect a comparable program to cost half again that much if you're not overworking your employees. The only reason the project had such a short timeline in the first place, IIRC, was because the calculated launch windows were so rare.