SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Aug 14 for Dragon arrival means that my max estimate of processing time (46 days) was the correct estimate. They are making sure they have plenty of time to handle problems in order to maintain the launch date.

[Prober]

Aug 14 for Dragon arrival means that my max estimate of processing time (46 days) was the correct estimate. They are making sure they have plenty of time to handle problems in order to maintain the launch date.

sounds like you know your stuff oldAtlas Guy, well done.

[QuantumG]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.

[tigerade]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.

Well, that sounds like a modification/upgrade to their current software, not whole new untested software.  I don't think that would be a huge setback.

[Robotbeat]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.

This is at least an order of magnitude less significant than from COTS 1->2+

[QuantumG]

I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.

[Comga]

I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.

You seem to be spoiling for a fight.  "New" software vs "Modified" software vs "Patched" software.  We agree "some has changed".  Please Relax.

If NASA approved of the COTS-2+ Dragon approaching with patched software, how difficult will it be to approve tested code that does the same thing?  (My educated guess is that the patch did more than electronically limit the FOV, and the rest is easily testable on the ground.)

Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?

[Lars_J]

I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

Well then whomever made that claim doesn't understand much about software development. Those of use who do work in the software field (I do) certainly know that software is always a moving target - it continually gets improved and tweaked.

So I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal out of it. The Shuttle software continued to improve over the life of the program. MSL has already gotten at least two major software upgrades, and will get several more - and that is just one mission.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.

  Really? Look who's making unfounded claims now. Got a source?

[QuantumG]

You seem to be spoiling for a fight.

Exactly the opposite. I'm shutting down the "but.. but.. but.." arguing the inevitably follows from telling someone they were wrong.

In this case, I don't even remember who it was that said SpX-1 had no software changes, but at least three people came to the argument's defense with watered down versions.

Edit: it was...

In all of their previous flights they've done something new, and have needed new software.

Now they are not doing anything they did not do during COTS2+. So no need for new software.

Can we all just agree that this was simply wrong?

Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?

NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.

[beancounter]

You seem to be spoiling for a fight.

Exactly the opposite. I'm shutting down the "but.. but.. but.." arguing the inevitably follows from telling someone they were wrong.

In this case, I don't even remember who it was that said SpX-1 had no software changes, but at least three people came to the argument's defense with watered down versions.

Edit: it was...

In all of their previous flights they've done something new, and have needed new software.

Now they are not doing anything they did not do during COTS2+. So no need for new software.

Can we all just agree that this was simply wrong?

Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?

NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.

Really?!!  NASA has qualified SpaceX to commence their CRS contract.  Why would they now require oversight on a commercial company's software? 
Can't see it happening.  They would have had to have this written into the CRS and since it's a cargo supply contract, it's reasonable to expect that it would only deal with that.
Software would be part of a development contract i.e. COTS, which is now complete.

[BobCarver]

I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

[QuantumG]

NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.

Really?!!  NASA has qualified SpaceX to commence their CRS contract.  Why would they now require oversight on a commercial company's software? 
Can't see it happening.  They would have had to have this written into the CRS and since it's a cargo supply contract, it's reasonable to expect that it would only deal with that.
Software would be part of a development contract i.e. COTS, which is now complete.

I didn't say anything controversial.. NASA reviews the software of all visiting vehicles.

[ugordan]

They're flying a completely different profile to the ISS and they completely rewrote the LIDAR software after the hiccup on the COTS2+ flight which required them to hack the FOV so the approach could continue.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten.

So... which is it and who's moving the goalposts?

[dcporter]

Omg he said nothing was new but actually only way way way less than before is new! Goalposts!!

QG, the general idea that this should be the beginning of routine operations holds, as does the general impression that you're spoiling for a fight. This is silly.

[QuantumG]

How's this for spoiling for a fight: wait and see.

[Lurker Steve]

I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.

[dcporter]

How's this for spoiling for a fight: wait and see.

It's a deal. =)

[BobCarver]

I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.

New software is worthy of a bump in the major version number. Show me a software shop where every patch requires a new version number. Not gonna happen.

[majormajor42]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

I not sure if this quote also implies that the same sort of (update/revision... that which is being debated here) will be required every time a new CRS mission is on the way up after some physical exterior change has occurred on ISS. Does it?

Does/will NASA provide them (and ORB) with an accurate up to date model as changes take place? I would hope so.

How has this "updating" occurred on other VV's or are their Proximity Ops so different that a very accurate up-to-date model of the ISS is not necessary?

[Comga]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

I not sure if this quote also implies that the same sort of (update/revision... that which is being debated here) will be required every time a new CRS mission is on the way up after some physical exterior change has occurred on ISS. Does it?

Does/will NASA provide them (and ORB) with an accurate up to date model as changes take place? I would hope so.

How has this "updating" occurred on other VV's or are their Proximity Ops so different that a very accurate up-to-date model of the ISS is not necessary?

This is misleading, at best.  The retros on the JEM were part of the ISS model for a long time before the COTS-2+ flight.  The models are up to date.  If you watch the most recent SNC CGI video of DreamChaser flying to the station, you can see four tiny objects on the edge of the black and white docking target as DreamChaser departs.  These are of no consequence to DC, but are part of the model, even though they were iinstalled long after the JEM was launched.  There is no need to update the model, just use the current version.

The STS-127 DragonEye images showed that retro returns were going to be problematic.  I assumed that the STS-133 reflight was to test fixes, but they never released images from that approach.  How they overlooked this is a mystery.