Dart too sensitive for public release?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12319764/
quote
NASA keeps mum on space robot’s failure
DART report considered too sensitive for public release
....
The space agency distributed a new public information policy last month
specifying that information protected by ITAR is considered "sensitive but
unclassified" and that unauthorized release to news organizations could
result in prosecution or disciplinary action.
end quote

It appears there is more to the story than what is presented in Mr.
Oberg's story. A quick look at the NASA web site shows:

http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/se...de=dart+report

That many of the DART documents appear to have the date of "30 Mar 06",
when in fact the documents are from various dates prior to March 30, 2006.

Pure speculation, but it appears that these documents may have been pulled
off the NASA web site, then put back on the web site on March 30th of this
year. Hence the wrong date.

Did NASA post-facto edit these documents?

Did all the documents make it back on to the NASA web site?

Are previously released documents too sensitive for public release?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Maybe its the same technology as used for that shambolic anti missile test
that was fudged so nobody knew it was a failure!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Craig Fink" wrote in message
news

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12319764/
quote
NASA keeps mum on space robot’s failure
DART report considered too sensitive for public release
...
The space agency distributed a new public information policy last month
specifying that information protected by ITAR is considered "sensitive but
unclassified" and that unauthorized release to news organizations could
result in prosecution or disciplinary action.
end quote

It appears there is more to the story than what is presented in Mr.
Oberg's story. A quick look at the NASA web site shows:

http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/se...de=dart+report

That many of the DART documents appear to have the date of "30 Mar 06",
when in fact the documents are from various dates prior to March 30, 2006.

Pure speculation, but it appears that these documents may have been pulled
off the NASA web site, then put back on the web site on March 30th of this
year. Hence the wrong date.

Did NASA post-facto edit these documents?

Did all the documents make it back on to the NASA web site?

Are previously released documents too sensitive for public release?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Brian Gaff wrote:
Maybe its the same technology as used for that shambolic anti missile test
that was fudged so nobody knew it was a failure!

Brian

The reported facts about DART are consistent with a software
issue of some kind. Software fails when it has not been
adequately tested. (The failure mode itself could seem
embarrasingly simple and therefore stupid.) Someone could
very well be using the convenient security excuse to cover
their hindquarters.

But why? The report would be read by the hindquarter-covering
person's higher-ups. Unless it is the higher-ups who are now
protecting *their* posteriers.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

The reported facts about DART are consistent with a software
issue of some kind. Software fails when it has not been
adequately tested.

No, software usually continues to execute, or executes to completion,
in which case the end state may or may not result in a lock up,
or an infinite loop.

Usually it's the software engineers that fail.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

The reported facts about DART are consistent with a software
issue of some kind. Software fails when it has not been
adequately tested.

No, software usually continues to execute, or executes to completion,
in which case the end state may or may not result in a lock up,
or an infinite loop.

Usually it's the software engineers that fail.

Program managers who fail to test to find faults in
complex software are the ones who should be blamed.
No software engineer can design perfect algorithims that
work perfectly in every circumstance, especially when
the circumstance is rangefinding and/or pattern recognition
in low earth orbit using detectors and guidance systems
that may have originally been designed for other purposes
and were brought together in a hurry on a limited budget
and tight schedule.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Ed Kyle wrote:


The reported facts about DART are consistent with a software
issue of some kind. Software fails when it has not been
adequately tested.

No, software usually continues to execute, or executes to completion,
in which case the end state may or may not result in a lock up,
or an infinite loop.

Usually it's the software engineers that fail.


Program managers who fail to test to find faults in
complex software are the ones who should be blamed.

Actually it's mathematics and nature itself that is to blame,
that pesky two to the power of two recursively iterated thing.

No software engineer can design perfect algorithims that
work perfectly in every circumstance, especially when
the circumstance is rangefinding and/or pattern recognition
in low earth orbit using detectors and guidance systems
that may have originally been designed for other purposes
and were brought together in a hurry on a limited budget
and tight schedule.

Your lack of understanding of software and hardware is stunning.

But by all means, keep posting about something you know little about!

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Ed Kyle ) wrote:

: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
: Ed Kyle wrote:
:
: The reported facts about DART are consistent with a software
: issue of some kind. Software fails when it has not been
: adequately tested.
:
: No, software usually continues to execute, or executes to completion,
: in which case the end state may or may not result in a lock up,
: or an infinite loop.
:
: Usually it's the software engineers that fail.

: Program managers who fail to test to find faults in
: complex software are the ones who should be blamed.

Blame alone won't fix the problem nor will it prevent similar problems in
the future.

: No software engineer can design perfect algorithims that
: work perfectly in every circumstance, especially when
: the circumstance is rangefinding and/or pattern recognition
: in low earth orbit using detectors and guidance systems
: that may have originally been designed for other purposes
: and were brought together in a hurry on a limited budget
: and tight schedule.

Right, interface problems between designed modules do occur with badly
designed software, but someone must see the big picture and they should be
involed with the testing, at least on defining the expected results.

Personally, this is why I like the Rapid Prototyping Model rather than the
Waterfall Model when developing SW. The former allows for problems to be
worked out early and if done right mitigate risk early on as well. The
latter can have it be months or even years before the first 'drop' where
anyone can see results and by then a lot of work could be in something
that is basically bad. Then comes the work of trying to fix rather than
redo. Rapid Protyping or the Spiral Model allows for less redo which tends
to save time and make a better product.

Eric

: - Ed Kyle

Thomas Lee Elifritz ) wrote:
: Ed Kyle wrote:

: The reported facts about DART are consistent with a software
: issue of some kind. Software fails when it has not been
: adequately tested.

: No, software usually continues to execute, or executes to completion,
: in which case the end state may or may not result in a lock up,
: or an infinite loop.

: Usually it's the software engineers that fail.

That was my thought. Software fails when programmers don't write decent
code. Testers, though they are needed to just be sure, aren't the
'problem' of bad software development.

Eric

: http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"Craig Fink" wrote in message
news

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12319764/
quote
NASA keeps mum on space robot’s failure
DART report considered too sensitive for public release
...
The space agency distributed a new public information policy last month
specifying that information protected by ITAR is considered "sensitive but
unclassified" and that unauthorized release to news organizations could
result in prosecution or disciplinary action.
end quote

It appears there is more to the story than what is presented in Mr.
Oberg's story. A quick look at the NASA web site shows:

Why does NASA have to be involved in a demonstrator which is obviously a
cover-up for a military program?


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Perhaps the biggest problem is that NASA's work can be made to look
like a coverup for a military program, even though no such coverup -- or
any NASA involvement -- would really make much sense. Having the
DART actually hit the target satellite, and having NASA keep refusing to
acknowledge that, makes them look as guilty as space sin.




"Lord Vain" wrote
Why does NASA have to be involved in a demonstrator which is obviously a
cover-up for a military program?