Why ISS Computers Failed 324
Geoffrey.landis writes "It was only a small news item four months ago: all three of the Russian computers that control the International Space Station failed shortly after the Space Shuttle brought up a new solar array. But why did they fail? James Oberg, writing in IEEE Spectrum, details the detective work that led to a diagnosis." The article has good insights into the role the ISS plays as a laboratory for US-Russian technology cooperation — something that is likely to be crucial in any manned Mars mission.
Duct tape saves the day! (Score:5, Informative)
Once again, duct tape saves the day!
Re:Redundancy != Safety (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They didn't bring the right travel adapters. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rust proof gold anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Here we go again... (Score:5, Informative)
The computers are not Russian, but European (Score:5, Informative)
Superior Terrestial Connector Technology! (Score:4, Informative)
The connectors were not always easy to disconnect, however, after 177,000 miles and 11 years of original ownership, I never found any corrosion inside any one of them I ever disconnected for service.
Additionally, the male/female electrical contacts within the sealed connectors appeared to be made from a tinned Copper and/or Brass metal. This is important to note, as Brass, and to a much larger extent, Copper, have ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE oxide states (as surface corrosion by moisture and/or other aqueous solvents).
In other words, you corrode a Copper or Brass metal electrical connector, and it will still conduct electricity just fine. It may degrade certain frequencies of network/data signaling and alter the dB loss and impedance, but it will still conduct.
This is another reason why the top-post Nissan main battery terminal connectors for this vehicle were made from a Copper/Brass strap instead of a traditional Lead connector.
Lead oxide powders (as found on many old standard Lead top-post automotive battery terminals) are not effective electrical conductors (as anyone who has wiggled/cleaned a corroded connection to allow their car to start could attest).
Why did the design/production Engineers for the ISS not utilize Gold Plated Watertight industry standard (ISO, etc) wiring interconnects? (Even cheap RJ-45 connectors have gold-plated pins)
-That is the REAL Question.
Re:Duct Tape (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The REAL reason they failed (Score:5, Informative)
We don't do technically sound here. We make do parroting the "common wisdom" and secretly praying nobody who actually knows something will be bothered to respond.
Good form means getting and informative moderation rating without provoking an informative result. If you do provoke an informatve result, you end up in the penalty box (i.e., spend a few days actually getting work done rather than wasting time on Slashdot).
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Urgh. (Score:1, Informative)
Exactly. Isolate victims (machinery) from culprits (transpiring biological organisms) aboard space stations. Introduce cleanroom-like procedures for operations in machine area - airlocks and breath masks in machine area as a must, vaportight suits to follow if masks don't suffice.
Besides, keeping humidity at bay is something well studied in naval engineering, condensation is surely something i.e. submarine systems have to deal with, permanently. I expect tried and true solutions to come from them...
Re:The REAL reason they failed (Score:3, Informative)
Not totally immune to EMP; they'll saturate, then return to normal operation, whereas a transistor will just act like a fuse and burn out.
Re:The REAL reason they failed (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, I'm including most of them in the statement as well.
Possibly because desktop users don't see any value in windows, they either pirate it or it's installed on the machine for them.
Stick to the topic at hand, we're not talking home users. Home users don't see any value in their computers, let alone their OS.
Over time the everyday user experince has been confused by the amount of changes in the only gui they've been exposed too and consequently they think that switching to Linux brings about an uncertainty based on those experiences.
I think you're confused. The last major change to the GUI occured in 1995. There have been gradual and minor changes since then, but beyond that the OS works and acts pretty much the same as it has for the last 12 years. On the other hand, Linux is a quagmire of multiple distributions, all with their own application set, GUI and manner of keeping it all up to date. Consistency is not a word you can use when describing Linux. Hell, most of them don't even follow the LHS or LSB to any measurable extent.
Freedom isn't free, but the cost of entry is pretty low, so whilst you criticise people for not learning new things, your trapped in the same paradigm.
Hardly. As a Linux user since 1993, I'm certain I've got tons more personal AND professional experience with the product than you. In fact, I'm the one responsible for migrating a number of HP-UX systems over to Linux, primarily to save costs. Secondarily, I did that so that as the Unix team dwindles, it won't be much work for me and my team to migrate them over to Windows.
In all seriousness, they just don't get it. It's a shame, and it's just getting worse every day.
Open Source is growing up to be a business model, what's wrong with that?
My statement had nothing to do with Open Source, it had to do with the growing incompetence in the IT field.
The only shame is that Microsoft don't want to play with anyone else in the sand pit.
On a day there's an announcement that OSI has accepted two MS licenses you're going to pull out that old chestnut? Beyond that, though, citations and references to back that up? MS software works with pretty much anything that's willing to on the market. Sure, sometimes a patch or an upgrade will break something, but it's up to the vendor to ensure their product doesn't break prior to the change hitting the market, not MS.
Can you honestly say, after Microsoft has been found guilty of criminal practises, that they won't do anything to own the market.
They have? When was that? Are you referring to the farce anti-trust trial of a few years back that produced no outcome other than wasting millions of taxpayers dollars? That wasn't a criminal trial, it's a civil trial. Had it been a criminal trial, MS would have won as the DoJ did not in anyway prove their case, let alone to the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" that's required in a criminal trial (the burden is much lower in a civil trial and depends on the preponderance of evidence). All you had was the leaders of a bunch of failed businesses placing all of the blame for their failures on MS. That, and his inflammitory anti-MS statements, is why the judge's punitive judgement was overturned so quickly.
Who see the litany of broken software and change for change's sake as pointless. There are other things to do on a computer system than relearn functionality has been moved or the behaviour changed. It's just a waste of time, not learning anything new, just learning a new interface for something old with rounded corners.
What the hell are you talking about? Change for change's sake? Who does that? MS produces new OSes and applications based on a) the requests and desires of their customers and b) the growing need of business to do more with less. Thi
Re:A bit harsh on the Russians. (Score:2, Informative)
While true of their general policy, definitely not true of the two instances when they lost a crew (Soyuz 1 in 1967 and Soyuz 11 in 1971) on a mission. In both instances, there was a big state funeral (US astronaut Tom Stafford was even a pallbearer at the second) and their human spaceflight programme was brought to a halt. The Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 tragedies were well-known about in the West. No need to trouble the CIA. You could, for example, have picked up Time magazine May 5, 1967 [time.com] or July 12, 1971 [time.com].
Or maybe just the local paper. Here's [cgi.ebay.ca] an eBay auction (not mine) for a regional American newspaper reporting the Soyuz 1 crash as front-page news on the day after it happened, giving Soviet news agency Tass as the source.