What O.S. does the shuttle use?

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:20:02 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

I don't suppose the Space Shuttle runs Windows. Whatever operating system
it does use must be mighty good, read *crashproof*.

I'm also sure it must be immune to virui and pestware too. So here's my
idea:

Why doesn't NASA license it for commercial use. If its good, really iron
plate, then it can't be hacked, infected, or whatever evildoers try to
inflict on the computing public. NASA could make more dough than Microsoft
and finance their next shuttle fleet just off this one project.

We all know Windows is a weak excuse for an o.s. and Linux has its
limitations. We need to keep our eye on Apple, which I hear is pretty
good, but pricey. That leaves NASA as our savior.

Is this a good idea, or what?

The onboard GPC computers are vintage 1970s IBM AP101 with I believe 128 k
of RAM. The OS is written in sort of an Assembly language that isn't
portable to anything. You really don't want it.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 04:20:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
wrote:

I don't suppose the Space Shuttle runs Windows. Whatever operating system
it does use must be mighty good, read *crashproof*.

I'm also sure it must be immune to virui and pestware too. So here's my
idea:

Why doesn't NASA license it for commercial use. If its good, really iron
plate, then it can't be hacked, infected, or whatever evildoers try to
inflict on the computing public. NASA could make more dough than Microsoft
and finance their next shuttle fleet just off this one project.

We all know Windows is a weak excuse for an o.s. and Linux has its
limitations. We need to keep our eye on Apple, which I hear is pretty
good, but pricey. That leaves NASA as our savior.

Is this a good idea, or what?

IIRC it was a specfic OS specially made for the Shuttle and the code
it was written in was Assembler. I'm most probably wrong though.



Christopher
++++++++++++
"The best way to keep one's word
is never to give it."

Napoleon Bonaparte

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 04:20:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
wrote:

I don't suppose the Space Shuttle runs Windows. Whatever operating system
it does use must be mighty good, read *crashproof*.

Or mighty old, read *simple and very well tested/understood*

I'm also sure it must be immune to virui and pestware too.

Why would that be? I think the only reason Linux doesn't have as many
virus attacks than Windows is because there aren't enough clueless Linux
users to attract the virus writers- not because of some "immunity" in the OS.

So here's my idea:

Why doesn't NASA license it for commercial use. If its good, really iron
plate, then it can't be hacked, infected, or whatever evildoers try to
inflict on the computing public. NASA could make more dough than Microsoft
and finance their next shuttle fleet just off this one project.

And if they need a lot more money for, say, a mission to Mars, they could
stun and amaze the world by finally making PacMan available to all, for a
not-so-nominal fee.

We all know Windows is a weak excuse for an o.s. and Linux has its
limitations. We need to keep our eye on Apple, which I hear is pretty
good, but pricey. That leaves NASA as our savior.

I've heard about those Apples. Never actually seen one though

Is this a good idea, or what?

Or what

Dale

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
I don't suppose the Space Shuttle runs Windows. Whatever operating system
it does use must be mighty good, read *crashproof*.

Considering it was designed in the 70's, Windows is clearly out of the
question.

Take a look at this:

http://klabs.org/DEI/Processor/shuttle/

I'm also sure it must be immune to virui and pestware too. So here's my
idea:

Why doesn't NASA license it for commercial use.

Because it's unsuited for use on "personal computers". It's primarily used
for running realtime flight control systems. It's not like it even has a
normal ASCII keyboard either.



If its good, really iron
plate, then it can't be hacked, infected, or whatever evildoers try to
inflict on the computing public. NASA could make more dough than
Microsoft
and finance their next shuttle fleet just off this one project.

Not.

We all know Windows is a weak excuse for an o.s. and Linux has its
limitations. We need to keep our eye on Apple, which I hear is pretty
good, but pricey. That leaves NASA as our savior.

Is this a good idea, or what?

Or what.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

In article ,
Dale wrote:

I think the only reason Linux doesn't have as many
virus attacks than Windows is because there aren't enough clueless Linux
users to attract the virus writers- not because of some "immunity" in the OS.

Well, that and the fact that the OS has very, very strict permissions
and any old user (and any old process) can't go ****ing around
screwing with stuff without proper permissions. So if the user
doesn't run as root, no process he initiates should, either (absent a
flaw in the code). However, being open-source, anyone who wants is
free to fix the code and post a patch, which is often distributed
within a couple days of a vulnerability being discovered, as opposed
to MS's usual practice of waiting months.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single
petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net

Dale wrote:
Why would that be? I think the only reason Linux doesn't have as many
virus attacks than Windows is because there aren't enough clueless
Linux
users to attract the virus writers- not because of some "immunity" in
the OS.

Yawn. That's such a tired claim that I'm amazed anyone even brings it
out anymore.

Linux is less prone to viruses and scumware infestations because it's
secure by design, whereas Windows is insecure by design. Just to give a
couple of examples, on Linux most people run as normal users with no
special priviledges whereas on Windows you pretty much have to run as
an Administrator or many programs simply won't work, and on Linux the
web browser is just another program, whereas on Windows it's buried
deep in the operating system. As a result, scumware which uses an
exploit in the web browser can infest any part of the operating system
it chooses. Even worse, it can arrange that Windows will automatically
reinstall it if it's removed!

Similarly, ActiveX is an insane idea that's just begging for exploits,
so is allowing people to put links to web pages into video and audio
files which the user can't even prevent the media player from opening.
Giving numerous different methods of forcing programs to run at boot
time is hardly a good idea either.

That doesn't mean that Linux is immune by any means, but good design
means there are far, far fewer avenues to exploit... and open source
means that it's far more likely that potential exploits will be spotted
and fixed before they become a big problem.

Mark

Er... Most aerospace stuff each have their own stuff custom made.

As for what kind of O.S. the S.T.S. uses.

That depends, which S.T.S.?



As for "Why doesn't NASA license it for commercial use."

Well... It might have something to do the fact most people don't do
what N.A.S.A. usually do. And they usually don't share the same
hardware either.



As for " We need to keep our eye on Apple, which I hear is pretty
good, but pricey."

Which Apple's O.S.? The Mac O.S. X?

Actually, it's not pricey at all, it's either come free with the
computer (which is not free, an eMac cost U$799), or you buy it. A
single user Panther (Mac O.S. 10.3) cost U$129, while a 5 users version
of it cost U$199 (which is U$20 per user). It Server version cost U$499
for a 10 users version (which is U$49.9 per user), and U$999 for an
unlimited amount of users version. You never shopped for an O.S., do
you ?



As for the off the shelf stuff that N.A.S.A. uses.
I think that they use those for some of the thing they done at Earth.

In article ain,
ldomain says...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:20:02 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

I don't suppose the Space Shuttle runs Windows. Whatever operating system
it does use must be mighty good, read *crashproof*.

I'm also sure it must be immune to virui and pestware too. So here's my
idea:

Why doesn't NASA license it for commercial use. If its good, really iron
plate, then it can't be hacked, infected, or whatever evildoers try to
inflict on the computing public. NASA could make more dough than Microsoft
and finance their next shuttle fleet just off this one project.

We all know Windows is a weak excuse for an o.s. and Linux has its
limitations. We need to keep our eye on Apple, which I hear is pretty
good, but pricey. That leaves NASA as our savior.

Is this a good idea, or what?

The onboard GPC computers are vintage 1970s IBM AP101 with I believe 128 k
of RAM. The OS is written in sort of an Assembly language that isn't
portable to anything. You really don't want it.


I'm pretty sure those computers have been updated (a little) since the
orginal 70s kit.

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dale wrote:

I think the only reason Linux doesn't have as many
virus attacks than Windows is because there aren't enough clueless Linux
users to attract the virus writers- not because of some "immunity" in
the OS.

Well, that and the fact that the OS has very, very strict permissions
and any old user (and any old process) can't go ****ing around
screwing with stuff without proper permissions. So if the user
doesn't run as root, no process he initiates should, either (absent a
flaw in the code).

Gee, talking about Linux here or XP? At this point much of the issue is
human factors. People run as root in both cases because "it's easier" and
they get hosed by it.


However, being open-source, anyone who wants is
free to fix the code and post a patch, which is often distributed
within a couple days of a vulnerability being discovered, as opposed
to MS's usual practice of waiting months.

Umm, you may want to actually check your facts there Herb. In general for
most security patches, MS is about as fast as Linux in releasing them.
Solaris tends to be much slower though.

Ironically, I've seen more serious intrusions with linux and other Unix
systems at my work than 2000 intrusions. And all were due to human error.


--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a
single
petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
I don't suppose the Space Shuttle runs Windows. Whatever operating system
it does use must be mighty good, read *crashproof*.


It doesn't use an OS in the sense that you're thinking.

But you are right, the flight control software is known as some of the most
bugfree code ever written. Their development process is extremely good.
And extremely expensive.


I'm also sure it must be immune to virui and pestware too. So here's my
idea:

Well, it's immune mostly because you can't get to the hardware to load it.
It's not on an form of network.



Why doesn't NASA license it for commercial use.

Because its commercial applications are extremely limited.


If its good, really iron
plate, then it can't be hacked, infected, or whatever evildoers try to
inflict on the computing public.

The problem is, OS's are popular based more on what they can do, than on how
secure they are.


NASA could make more dough than Microsoft
and finance their next shuttle fleet just off this one project.

We all know Windows is a weak excuse for an o.s. and Linux has its
limitations. We need to keep our eye on Apple, which I hear is pretty
good, but pricey. That leaves NASA as our savior.


Hardly.
Is this a good idea, or what?

Or what. I do recommending googling on HAL/S and the shuttle GPCs in
general to learn more.