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.
That last few sentences were really inacceptable. Could someone edit this?
even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own.
NASA decided to use existing software that was known to work and was fully understood rather than rely on commercial software which could be total shit. besides, they wouldn't be purchasing the software, they would be licensing it which means they would likely have to pay $X for Y computers for Z years. also, what happens when they want to add feature XYZ and they are unable to? freedom isn't free... it's 207 million dollars.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
. . . .and when the FBI started to develop its' own case manager, the "Virtual Case File", which was one of the more spectacular failures in Government IT Development.
When the post-mortem finally comes in, I'd be more than willing to bet that it was due to (1) lack of formalized baseline requirements to hang an initial design on, and the real program-killer, (2) constant requirements creep. Because contractors are unwilling to tell a Federal Customer "no" (because it usually results in decreases in funding in the next task order, or re-allocation of slots to another contractor. . .), there's a constant "just add this one little thing". Over and over again, until you have an unworkable mess and a design that looks nothing like the initial requirement.
The same kind of pressures destroyed the Navy A-12 "Avenger" attack jet in 1991: constant scope creep, until the aircraft was too heavy to fly off an aircraft carrier. The resulting legal fight lasted 13 years. . .
Yes, I'm sure you're going hungry because an average of $0.20 per year over ten years was sent on learning about a whole new class of planet that may represent the dominant form of equilibrium celestial body in the universe.
Things like NH are exactly what NASA should be doing.
Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose SLS. But you know, it's perfectly understandable that they keep ending up going down these roads. They have too much infrastructure and too much personnel focused on building large rockets. The infrastructure especially, as you can't just "lay off" (or phase out) it like you do with people, and it costs you money to maintain. And the people making the decisions - congressional representatives - aren't experts, they're just ordinary people, and thus easily swayed by arguments made by advocates of these jobs (direct and indirect) in their districts.
It's understandable. But it needs to be fixed.
There's long been resistance to the privatization of rocketry. We remember the first privatization battles back in the Shuttle era, and how much resistance there was to letting Atlas and Delta go private rather than just disappear altogether. Indeed, the new battle in much of the launch market isn't so much over privatization as it is over "old school" vs. "new school" private companies, with the former offering evolved expendable launch vehicles with generally good track records but high price tags, and the latter offering ground-up vehicles with short launch histories but very low price tags.
Regardless of how this battle goes, there really isn't a place for NASA in it, any more than there would be a place for a government car maker to compete with giants like GM, Ford, etc and upstarts like Tesla in terms of making passenger cars. There certainly could be grounds for a government agency to conduct basic research that can advance automotive technology, things that private companies wouldn't pay for because it doesn't provide a short-term fiscal payoff or would help their competitors as much as it would help them - public health and safety, advanced concepts for the future, etc. But they shouldn't be making cars.
The same applies to NASA, only moreso. There's a *lot* of basic research in the aerospace industry that's either too expensive for its risk level or only associated with long-term payoff for them to conduct. And this is where NASA should be: planetary science and advanced concepts. But getting there is difficult, as it means having both an administration and congress who recognize the need to reorient NASA and are willing to accept the economic pain involved in doing so. It doesn't necessarily mean budget cuts - but it means closing facilities, selling off hardware for well less than you paid for it, and jobs leaving certain areas, even while new facilities open, new people are hired elsewhere, etc.
SpaceX wants to take over the private launch industry and use the money to go to Mars? The reaction shouldn't be "Oh noes! That's our goal, back off!", it should be "Awesome, that will save us a ton of money! How can we help?" And then let them spend their money on the glamorous stuff while NASA works on the less glamorous stuff behind the scenes. "That's a nice looking gigantic methane-fueled engine you've got there - we could hear it for miles when it fired up! So anyway, what do you think of this long-lifespan dirt scoop we made to dig up mucky ice for the habitat? And this water nanofiltration system to maintain electrolyte concentrations in the necessary levels in the electrolysis unit - want to see it? Oh, you're too busy playing with engines? Oh okay..."
Hourglass says she knows a kid in Iowa who grows up to be president.
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.
I'm wondering where you buy commercial software to control the hardware support systems for a space launch system that doesn't even exist yet.
Same here. A search on the Google Play store came up empty.
Yes, the article seems to be trying to manufacture outrage out of nothing.
It's a make-versus-buy decision. Industry does these decisions all the time. When your applications are unique, the decision tends to go toward "make your own;" when your application is something that many other people also do, the decision tends to go toward "buy the commercial product".
Buying off the shelf comes with hidden costs unless what is available exactly meets your need-- if you need to write a new contract for every change (and since you still haven't designed the system you're launching, there will be a lot of changes needed, as you keep refining requirements) every single change is a chance for the vendor to demand large dollar payments.
And the article's statement "why doesn't NASA just use what Space-X used" is absurd. Ten years ago, Space-X was an unknown company who had just launched their first rocket. Which failed. As did their next launch. And the one after that.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
No, the submitter has 3rd grade reading comprehension skills and an agenda. And it's in the summary which suggests that software was available, TFA quote is actually "Commercial software products would be a better option for NASA as well, according to the audit, especially given recent advances in the area." Note the use of future tense, not past unreal conditional. IOW, it still might be more economical at this point, but it wasn't an option when the project was started.
The commercial firms which are servicing the space program had never delivered a payload to orbit at the time of the original design specification and plan, and had no tested software at the time. NASA, otoh, had subroutines already written which had been tested and vetted for decades, over hundreds, if not thousands, of successful launches and NASA wanted to use those [tested] routines in their new launch control system. The contract was to put them all together into a cohesive whole. Not a trivial task, but also not writing from scratch.
More importantly there is no COTS software in this arena. This is not Word with a custom skin. This is piece by piece built based on the unique hardware and control systems which are part of the critical safety path of the launch sequence. Even if SpaceX or another space transport company has software they use, it would have to be stripped, rebuilt, and re-tested for the configuration at the KSC launch complex to be used for these flights.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?