sort of relevant...yikes if true..https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592QuoteSLS Software Problems Continue"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."jb
SLS Software Problems Continue"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
got into a side discussion about this in another thread (my bad)Quote from: jabe on 02/23/2018 11:21 pmsort of relevant...yikes if true..https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592QuoteSLS Software Problems Continue"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."jbnot a good thing...jb
A letter was sent to NASA MSFC management last week by Ben Samouha, a 30+ year veteran in software safety whose career reaches back to the Challenger era. As has been noted previously on NASAWatch there has been a significant amount of internal controversy over safety and software being developed for SLS. Clearly these safety issues remain. People are quitting instead of trying to fight the system, or in some cases, they leave after having been forced out for speaking up about their concerns. As Samouha notes:"These people have been for a long time (and still are) continuously ignoring or not properly addressing FSW Safety related observations and findings and unethically do not disclose issues to the upper management in order to show a virtual progress in order to keep their jobs. Anyone with years of experience and integrity to Safety can see through these imposters just like I did."
Quote from: Proponent on 02/19/2018 05:58 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 02/14/2018 08:21 pmOther than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle?The president's budget proposal is DOA. When US Congress is finished with it ISS will stay in orbit until (at least) 2028 and Europa Clipper will still be assigned to launch on SLS.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/14/2018 08:21 pmOther than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle?
Other than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....
Quote from: jabe on 02/24/2018 12:31 amgot into a side discussion about this in another thread (my bad)Quote from: jabe on 02/23/2018 11:21 pmsort of relevant...yikes if true..https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592QuoteSLS Software Problems Continue"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."jbnot a good thing...jbI'm thinking there is a good chance that this is now going to be what pushes EM-1 into 2021 or later. Losing core people in software in my experience is devastating. On large complex projects like this it takes a while to get new people up to speed. Just wait for the next schedule delays to be announced.
What vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)? Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?
Quote from: AncientU on 02/24/2018 05:28 pmWhat vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)? Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?Orion uses 787 type avionics.
The Orion spacecraft is no smarter than your phoneRunning 12-year-old processors*, next-gen spaceship’s tech is built for reliability, not to be state-of-the-art
The computers are running IBM's PowerPC 750FX single-core processors, which were first launched in 2002.NASA fit two of the processors into each flight computer, setting them up to run identical software and monitor each other. If the processors don't do the exact same thing, the system will stop giving commands and reset itself."The processors are obsolete already but they have the property of just getting upset by radiation, instead of being permanently damaged," said Lemke, noting that NASA has been using the processors for more than 10 years. "You could do it with something newer, but all the engineering that would go into making it work right would make it a lot more expensive for us to build it."
NASA launch system software upgrade now 77% over budget
As it builds the Space Launch System rocket, NASA is updating this Spaceport Command and Control System software for the Kennedy Space Center. However, a new report by the space agency's inspector general, Paul Martin, finds this decade-long software development effort has fallen behind schedule and is on track to exceed its initial budget of $117.3 million by 77 percent, with cost estimates now increased to $207.4 million. Moreover, the inspector general criticized NASA for not adopting cheaper, commercially available launch software already used by Orbital ATK and SpaceX to launch their rockets.To develop its new launch software, NASA has essentially kluged together a bunch of different software packages, Martin noted in his report. "The root of these issues largely results from NASA’s implementation of its June 2006 decision to integrate multiple products or, in some cases, parts of products rather than developing software in-house or buying an off-the-shelf product," the report states. "Writing computer code to 'glue' together disparate products has turned out to be more complex and expensive than anticipated. As of January 2016, Agency personnel had developed 2.5 million lines of 'glue-ware,' with almost two more years of development activity planned."
Oh, the places they'll go with the Space Launch System computers NASA just displayed in Huntsville (photos) (video)
You've heard that there's more computing power in your smartphone than what NASA used in sending Apollo to the moon? Take a look at the computing power displayed at Marshall Space Flight Center Thursday and imagine where American astronauts might go with it on board.
@AncientU. I don't really get your point. The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation. The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this.
The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?
Quote from: Khadgars on 02/26/2018 08:42 pm@AncientU. I don't really get your point. The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation. The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this. SLS software development is on the rocks and they're having a difficult time recruiting software developers. QuoteSLS Software Problems Continue"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."My point is that NASA is using old hardware and a kluged* up system of software, all being built in Alabama -- since 2006. They are hiring because everyone is quitting... There is no reason in the world that a sharp software developer would be professionally interested in this project.The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)? * Inspector General's word, not mine.
Quote from: AncientU on 02/26/2018 09:47 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 02/26/2018 08:42 pm@AncientU. I don't really get your point. The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation. The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this. SLS software development is on the rocks and they're having a difficult time recruiting software developers. QuoteSLS Software Problems Continue"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."My point is that NASA is using old hardware and a kluged* up system of software, all being built in Alabama -- since 2006. They are hiring because everyone is quitting... There is no reason in the world that a sharp software developer would be professionally interested in this project.The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)? * Inspector General's word, not mine.You forget that all the SLS flight avionics are in the upper stage unlike more recent designs.NASA is not going to find too many replacement software personnel. None standard kluged software for antiqued hardware means who ever NASA hires will have to be trained from scratch requiring more budget and time.The fun part will be figuring out how well the software functions in a full up test.
Quote from: AncientU on 02/26/2018 09:47 pmThe flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)? Pardon the question, it's been a long time so I've done any coding but memory says that if the code is written properly, then the same computer (Mars rover flight computer) won't mind more lines of code. Unless, the processing speed is too slow to run the program quickly enough to do the job in the time window necessary.Which prompts a question in my mind, are you saying the flight computer clock speed can't handle the work load?Sorry, but my worry part of the brain is trying to understand.
They could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper. Rad harden in software like more recent designs. Might find replacement software people easier, too.
Quote from: AncientU on 02/26/2018 10:25 pmThey could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper. Rad harden in software like more recent designs. Might find replacement software people easier, too.This kills the program.A large part of the difficulty hiring people is that the overwhelming majority of software folks do not work in the field of high-reliability, real-time, hardware-interactive computing. Computer Science programs around the country churn out web and app developers by the gross, but it's a totally different skill set.
I believe that if your 2018 software can run on a 2002 processor, you are not anywhere near the cutting edge software-wise.