I was actually fortunate enought to work at KSC for the Shuttle prime contractor (UnitedSpaceAlliance)in the late 90's.
After seeing the way they did software development--no formal testing, no design reviews, some groups didn't even use configuration management! This was on the system that stored and distributed the Shuttle telemetry. I actually worked up the nerve to take advantage of an opportunity to speak with a top level manager about my concerns.
Now, maybe I'm not the most persuasive speaker. I was just a guy in the trenches with some experience from the "real world" that new how to do some things better. It took all the gumption I had to pursue the issues for as long as I did, speaking with various people in all of the levels of management. Since no one else saw things as I did, I was just the guy "crying wolf".
Most people don't realize that most of the people working in the Shuttle program are not NASA employees, but contractors--most working for USA.
So it's more than just a NASA culture issue, it's also the NASA contractors and their management.
Here's a question on a related topic: How many times has NASA tried and failed to replaced the launch control system and failed. (Hint: the last one was called CLCS!). Here's some info
Incorrect.
All crew change missions are flown by the shuttle. Soyuz missions fly every 6 months to replace the Soyuz capsule with a fresh one. They fly a new one up and take the old one back. This is the type of mission that Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth flew on.
Both the Shuttle and Russian Progress capsules deliver supplies.
I've had the opportunity to see some of the work done by the offshore developers. Between communnications problems (caused as much by distance and timezones as by language) normal management screwups, and mediocre knowledge and skill, I'm not worried, at least in the short term.
In the long run, as the standard of living there rises, so will the incomes and, hence, costs.
In fact I would say that guys like you are the ones who should worry. I'm not sure how long we'll need people who provide nothing of intrinsic value.
Unionization has some serious upsides and downsides. A lot of us have probably worked at places where the conditions, hours, etc. were ridiculous.
Obviously, a group has much more bargaining power than an individual. At least in the short term, the situation for the entire group will improve. As time goes on, though, productivity and profitability become second to the needs of the union management.
Those highly competent individuals (we know who we are!) who do most of the work and, sometimes, are rewarded based upon this, will most certainly lose out when their voice is swallowed by that of the masses.
A practical solution, I don't know. A secret brotherhood?
Slashdot Mirror
After seeing the way they did software development--no formal testing, no design reviews, some groups didn't even use configuration management! This was on the system that stored and distributed the Shuttle telemetry. I actually worked up the nerve to take advantage of an opportunity to speak with a top level manager about my concerns.
Now, maybe I'm not the most persuasive speaker. I was just a guy in the trenches with some experience from the "real world" that new how to do some things better. It took all the gumption I had to pursue the issues for as long as I did, speaking with various people in all of the levels of management. Since no one else saw things as I did, I was just the guy "crying wolf".
Most people don't realize that most of the people working in the Shuttle program are not NASA employees, but contractors--most working for USA. So it's more than just a NASA culture issue, it's also the NASA contractors and their management.
Here's a question on a related topic: How many times has NASA tried and failed to replaced the launch control system and failed. (Hint: the last one was called CLCS!). Here's some info
Answer: 2 (that I know of)
Not very heavy, a little heavier/sturdier than styrofoam.
Incorrect. All crew change missions are flown by the shuttle. Soyuz missions fly every 6 months to replace the Soyuz capsule with a fresh one. They fly a new one up and take the old one back. This is the type of mission that Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth flew on. Both the Shuttle and Russian Progress capsules deliver supplies.
I've had the opportunity to see some of the work done by the offshore developers. Between communnications problems (caused as much by distance and timezones as by language) normal management screwups, and mediocre knowledge and skill, I'm not worried, at least in the short term.
In the long run, as the standard of living there rises, so will the incomes and, hence, costs.
In fact I would say that guys like you are the ones who should worry. I'm not sure how long we'll need people who provide nothing of intrinsic value.
Unionization has some serious upsides and downsides. A lot of us have probably worked at places where the conditions, hours, etc. were ridiculous.
Obviously, a group has much more bargaining power than an individual. At least in the short term, the situation for the entire group will improve. As time goes on, though, productivity and profitability become second to the needs of the union management.
Those highly competent individuals (we know who we are!) who do most of the work and, sometimes, are rewarded based upon this, will most certainly lose out when their voice is swallowed by that of the masses.
A practical solution, I don't know. A secret brotherhood?