SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon COTS Demo (C2+) GENERAL DISCUSSION

[TrueBlueWitt]

The question here is.. did SpaceX underestimate the difficulty developing and testing the software and subsequently under allocate resources?

[oiorionsbelt]

The only software issues that have been reported are "Dragon runs away", overly cautious etc.
Perhaps that's all it is, but that would take time to verify.

[Jason1701]

The question here is.. did SpaceX underestimate the difficulty developing and testing the software and subsequently under allocate resources?

I would say that's likely, as this is the most complex thing they have ever done. They may have been using all of their resources all along.

[Robotbeat]

The question here is.. did SpaceX underestimate the difficulty developing and testing the software and subsequently under allocate resources?

I would say that's likely, as this is the most complex thing they have ever done. They may have been using all of their resources all along.

Don't forget about NASA, too. This is the first time NASA has helped along a company like this in the same way. The NASA software folk didn't even know C++, according to Antares.

[docmordrid]

No C++? What do they use, Ada?

[Garrett]

The question here is.. did SpaceX underestimate the difficulty developing and testing the software and subsequently under allocate resources?

Following a question of mine on another thread, manboy replied with some useful info on how the ATV also had many slips:

2003-01-31 - Expected launch in Sept 2004
2004-03-30 - Expected launch in 2005
2005-03-28 - Expected launch in Spring of 2006
2006-09-27 - Expected launch in 2007
2007-06-15 - Expected launch in mid-June 2008
2008-02-27 - Expected launch on March 8th 2008
Actual launch was on March 9th, 2008

So the short answer, as always, is that this stuff is really hard. SpaceX is actually doing quite well when compared to the ATV slips above.

Also, Elon gave an analogy in one of his recent interviews. He compared such an operation as being similar to developing a new computer program, where the code is written in chunks by different people, which are tested together on one computer and is then expected to run on another computer, flawlessly, the first time.
Or something like that. He might have been referring to the whole Falcon+Dragon setup rather than just the Dragon software, but you get the idea.

[QuantumG]

No C++? What do they use, Ada?

A mere ten years ago, when I did some realtime system programming, C++ was considered the wrong tool for the job.. of course, the C99 standard hadn't completely smothered the C language with uncertainty and doubt yet... it was a different time.

[Jorge]

The question here is.. did SpaceX underestimate the difficulty developing and testing the software and subsequently under allocate resources?

I would say that's likely, as this is the most complex thing they have ever done. They may have been using all of their resources all along.

Don't forget about NASA, too. This is the first time NASA has helped along a company like this in the same way. The NASA software folk didn't even know C++, according to Antares.

More precisely, the NASA software folks working MCC interfaces don't know C++. They don't need to; it's all C and Fortran.

There are plenty of NASA software folks who know C++, but they don't work in MCC and therefore have no reason to interface with SpaceX.

[Wayne Hale]

That's funny.  Most of the MCC applications programs are written in C++

[Jorge]

That's funny.  Most of the MCC applications programs are written in C++

They are? I thought ROSS, MSKView, CRANS, ELOG, and the ISP libraries were still written in C. (Or at least, the last source code I saw was in C). Didn't think the bulk of it would go C++ until MCC21.

[jabe]

Spacex delay is trending on twitter..looks like launch has some interest
jb

[corrodedNut]

Thank God it's above "Mileys Heart is Full of Love"

[kevin-rf]

I always wondered why I did not rely on Twitter for breaking news, looking at that list, I now know why... Bleeheck!!!

[kevin-rf]

I think this is an awesome Twitter Dragon Post!

[mr. mark]

Ok, just for fun, let's play devil's advocate. Say they launch on May 10th, which they most likely will not. NASA is concerned that Dragon will not have enough time to complete it's COTS 3 objectives if there is a slight aberration and needs to give a second try. Why would SpaceX even consider this date?

[Robotbeat]

If it is software review, I doubt we will see a launch before June. Being a software issue, we should have a Poll on who fly's first, Antares or SpaceX.

Why so long? It's not necessarily a big official review. If you're not privy to why they're doing the software testing, I don't see how you could possibly know it'd take that long.

Want the brutal truth? Most software developers are not very good engineers. And even very good software developers don't make very good engineers. If you want good software developers that are good engineers, go get some electric engineer that also knows how to program.
Most software "engineers" are disconnected from the real world.

Heh, I don't disagree with that. Would say more, but this is an update thread.

[mmeijeri]

Want the brutal truth? Most software developers are not very good engineers. And even very good software developers don't make very good engineers.

So far, so good. Note that the reverse is also true. I know some brilliant engineers and scientists who aren't good programmers. They could undoubtedly learn to be excellent programmers, but right now they are not.

If you want good software developers that are good engineers, go get some electric engineer that also knows how to program.

Eh no, most engineers (and most scientists) who write code write crappy code, like most people who write code. The education system doesn't do a good job of turning out professional programmers, but at least someone with a CS degree has a better chance of being a good programmer than an electrical engineer.

There are exceptions, and I know a few (a civil engineer, an aeronautical engineer), but in general I have to clean up the mess left behind by engineers who confused sw development with Programming 101. Yes, Programming 101 is easy, sw development isn't. It's not as difficult as thermodynamics or general relativity, but it is still a profession you have to learn.

Companies that develop technical software tend to learn the hard way that they shouldn't hire electrical engineers to write software. They should hire software developers to write software, just as they have to hire technical writers to write manuals, not electrical engineers. Cross-training is possible / valuable / important, but pretending one professional can do another professional's job without training is ridiculous.

[kevin-rf]

Who makes better programmers is like the MBA argument.

You have an MBA great, what other degrees and experience do you have?
An MBA is a great supplement, but you need the background experience and degrees in the fields before you can really benefit from the MBA.

My personal opinion of software is the same way. You need some sort of CS degree, but you also need a complementary degree and understanding of science or market you will be writing the code for. Only then can you fully leverage that CS degree and avoid the friction of not having an in-depth knowledge causes.

That said, I have seen all spectrum of software developers and regular engineers. Heck I even know some mechanical engineers I wouldn't trust to fix my mower (though the temptation to rent a wood chipper and let them have at is great).

I am positive SpaceX has hired developers that have the training and experience to balance both sides of the equation. They have hired the correct people.

 

[mmeijeri]

The piece of paper isn't important, what's important is if people are good at the job in question. I think it is false to say that someone with a CS degree is likely to be a good programmer (sadly), but even more false to say someone with an EE degree is likely to be, and more false still to say that the EE is more likely to be a good programmer than the CS graduate. I do believe that a good programmer is more likely to have a CS degree than an EE degree, but that's not the same thing.

As for SpaceX hiring the right people, I certainly hope so and I have no reason to believe they don't. The software problems do worry me though.

[happyflower]

More precisely, the NASA software folks working MCC interfaces don't know C++. They don't need to; it's all C and Fortran.

FORTRAN? Whoa! Do they still use those 5 inch floppies too?