A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old October 10th 03, 08:30 AM
Jan C. Vorbrüggen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

I agree. But if given the choice of launching with software that has
gone through many simulations versus software that has gone through
many simulations *and* several flights, I know what I'd choose.


However, if you read some of the available articles on the Shuttle's
avionics, you'll find that a lot, if not most of the bugs are found in
simulation runs. And it's pretty clear why that must be the case: the
hundred-odd flights so far have excercised only the nominal ascent/descent
code plus a very small part of the rest (e.g., on that one ATO). All the
TAL and RTLS code has only ever executed in simulation.

The last bug I can remember being mentioned that actually hit live was
for (IIRC) the Mir rendezvous, when an interative routine was numerically
unstable and didn't converge properly to the LSB.

Jan
  #92  
Old October 11th 03, 01:40 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

From Jan Vorbrüggen:
I agree. But if given the choice of launching with software that has
gone through many simulations versus software that has gone through
many simulations *and* several flights, I know what I'd choose.


However, if you read some of the available articles on the Shuttle's
avionics, you'll find that a lot, if not most of the bugs are found in
simulation runs. And it's pretty clear why that must be the case: the
hundred-odd flights so far have excercised only the nominal ascent/descent
code plus a very small part of the rest (e.g., on that one ATO). All the
TAL and RTLS code has only ever executed in simulation.

The last bug I can remember being mentioned that actually hit live was
for (IIRC) the Mir rendezvous, when an interative routine was numerically
unstable and didn't converge properly to the LSB.


I don't disagree with anything you've stated here. All excellent
points.

I see both sides of this to have been thoroughly presented. I won't
have anything else to add here unless new info comes to light.


~ CT
  #93  
Old October 11th 03, 02:43 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents


"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Jeff Findley:
snip
I'm sure NASA wouldn't release a new version of
the shuttle flight software without many simulations involving actual
astronauts at the controls of the simulators.


I agree. But if given the choice of launching with software that has
gone through many simulations versus software that has gone through
many simulations *and* several flights, I know what I'd choose.


Even if the software that has gone through many simulations and several
flights has been found to be buggy?

As I recall one of the bugs found in shuttle software was that they had
assumed some item (I think one of the antennas (K-Band?)) could rotate from
0-360 degrees, not 0-359.

Given their paradigm, they then went through all the code looking for other
places where such code might be found (i.e. code related to the rotation of
an object).

They found it, in the arm. And they discovered that if the arm had been
rotated from 0-360 degrees, this would cause a problem that would lock the
arm. Meaning the arm would have to be jetisoned.

So, imagine you're on RTF with the buggy code and it comes time to inspect
the bottom of the shuttle with the arm and boom extension. Just as your
camera is looking at that suspicious patch near the left rearwell, the arm
locks and you can't move it. You can't get closer, and you can't get away.
So, now you may or may not have damage and your one method or repairing it
is now broken.

But at least you flew the same software as before.

Conservatism has its points. This isn't one of them.

Now, one might argue that the RTF is not the time for NEW features, but
again, that might be wrong. What if the new load has features that help
flight a better AOA. So, do you risk that safety gain against a bug that
might have been missed in simulation?

You can't make across the board declarations here.

As I recall, shuttle software development was one of the few things praised
by the Roger's Commission. (Which is somewhat ironic when you think about
it since generally software development in most places is far less
disciplined than almost any other activity.)





~ CT



  #94  
Old October 11th 03, 02:45 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents


"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...

I see both sides of this to have been thoroughly presented. I won't
have anything else to add here unless new info comes to light.


There's a couple of articles on the web regarding the development of shuttle
code. I don't think the original ACM papers are available, but I know some
others are.

The number of bugs "released" by the shuttle development team I believe
numbers in the 10s, possibly 100 or so. It's an amazing process.




~ CT



  #95  
Old October 11th 03, 03:38 PM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

From Greg Moo
"Stuf4" wrote


From Jeff Findley:
snip
I'm sure NASA wouldn't release a new version of
the shuttle flight software without many simulations involving actual
astronauts at the controls of the simulators.


I agree. But if given the choice of launching with software that has
gone through many simulations versus software that has gone through
many simulations *and* several flights, I know what I'd choose.


Even if the software that has gone through many simulations and several
flights has been found to be buggy?

As I recall one of the bugs found in shuttle software was that they had
assumed some item (I think one of the antennas (K-Band?)) could rotate from
0-360 degrees, not 0-359.

Given their paradigm, they then went through all the code looking for other
places where such code might be found (i.e. code related to the rotation of
an object).

They found it, in the arm. And they discovered that if the arm had been
rotated from 0-360 degrees, this would cause a problem that would lock the
arm. Meaning the arm would have to be jetisoned.

So, imagine you're on RTF with the buggy code and it comes time to inspect
the bottom of the shuttle with the arm and boom extension. Just as your
camera is looking at that suspicious patch near the left rearwell, the arm
locks and you can't move it. You can't get closer, and you can't get away.
So, now you may or may not have damage and your one method or repairing it
is now broken.

But at least you flew the same software as before.

Conservatism has its points. This isn't one of them.


You are citing excellent reasons to do a patch. NASA is doing a full
rev.

Now, one might argue that the RTF is not the time for NEW features, but
again, that might be wrong. What if the new load has features that help
flight a better AOA. So, do you risk that safety gain against a bug that
might have been missed in simulation?

You can't make across the board declarations here.


Early on, I acknowledged the potential advantages for doing a rev. I
wasn't making an across the board declaration.

As I recall, shuttle software development was one of the few things praised
by the Roger's Commission. (Which is somewhat ironic when you think about
it since generally software development in most places is far less
disciplined than almost any other activity.)


And we can imagine what a *third* board might have to say about
shuttle software if this happens to cause an incident on -114.

No new info here from my end. I'm just clarifying what has already
been stated.


~ CT
  #96  
Old October 12th 03, 03:41 PM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents


"rk" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

As I recall, shuttle software development was one of the few
things praised by the Roger's Commission. (Which is somewhat
ironic when you think about it since generally software
development in most places is far less disciplined than almost
any other activity.)


Is this what you are thinking of, from Feynman's Appendix F?


That would be it. I thought there was also commentary within the report
itself saying similiar stuff.




--
rk, "Good judgment is usually the result of experience. And
experience is frequently the result of bad judgment. But to learn
from the experience of others requires those who have the experience
to share the knowledge with those who follow."
Barry LePatner, quoted in To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure
in Successful Design



  #97  
Old October 12th 03, 06:34 PM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

"rk" wrote:


Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

As I recall, shuttle software development was one of the few
things praised by the Roger's Commission. (Which is somewhat
ironic when you think about it since generally software
development in most places is far less disciplined than almost
any other activity.)


Is this what you are thinking of, from Feynman's Appendix F?


That would be it. I thought there was also commentary within the report
itself saying similiar stuff.


There is a five page (IIRC) Flight Software Executive **Summary** in the
Roger's report. It is in Volume II, Appendix J. It was not reproduced.
See title and link below.

"APPENDIX E. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FLIGHT SOFTWARE REVIEW BRIEFING TO THE
PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION. (Not Reproduced)."

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appj.htm

The astronauts give some illuminating insight into flight software in their
testimony in the the section below.

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5part5.htm

--

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC



  #98  
Old October 23rd 03, 12:10 AM
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!


Barbara Morgan on NBC tonight. She still want's to go, even after an
accident and a disaster. The big difference between then and now, she knows
what buttons to push now, instead of what buttons not to push.

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

Craig Fink

  #99  
Old October 23rd 03, 12:32 AM
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!


Barbara Morgan on NBC tonight. She still want's to go, even after an
accident and a disaster. The big difference between then and now, she knows
what buttons to push, instead of what buttons not to push.

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

Craig Fink

  #100  
Old October 23rd 03, 02:49 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

Craig Fink wrote in
link.net:


Barbara Morgan on NBC tonight. She still want's to go, even after an
accident and a disaster. The big difference between then and now, she
knows what buttons to push now, instead of what buttons not to push.

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!


Not going to happen in 2004. Barbara's still on 118. The new 114
crewmembers have been named, and Barbara isn't one of them.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents James Oberg Space Shuttle 106 October 24th 03 04:45 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM
NASA: Gases Breached Wing of Shuttle Atlantis in 2000 Rusty Barton Space Shuttle 2 July 10th 03 01:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.