Space Station BSOD 254
Lostman writes: "CNN has an article that details a computer glitch that has occured at the international space station. The problem disrupted all communication from the command computers on the station. Although NASA knows that this was because an onboard server had crashed, the cause of this was not immediately known." See also space.com, the BBC, or NASA's status update. NASA is using Windows for most of their computing functions, as mentioned here.
micheal! great troll! (Score:2)
This just gives credence to my theory that the Troll High Council is the Slashdot editors themselves.
I want to know what region their DVD players are! (Score:2)
Well.. (Score:2)
At least there is a separation for life support and some of the other more critical systems (though you'd think that satellite tracking and rudimentary communication would be separate as well..)
This reminds me of a couple of things. I recall that one time, the space shuttle didn't launch because a bunch of computers (8 or 9) detected some sort of fault, and called the launch a `no-go.' There was another computer made by a different company that was looking at the same data, but it put up a `go' status. It turned out that the other computers were wrong -- the situation had indeed been a `go.' The parallel here is that the station has three command and control computers that are basically identical, and apparently running the same software. The software is probably a single point of failure..
I wonder if the problem is because they are running some sort of monolithic application that can pretty much do everything. It's probably better to have a number of individual processes -- that way, if one thing crashes or goes completely nuts, the operating system can prevent them from knocking out other processes.
I also heard from one report or another that the issue was with connecting to the database -- another potential single point of failure.
Hmm.. Maybe we can still blame this on Microsoft
Of course, if you have mostly-good software interacting with mostly-good hardware, some really bad things can occasionally happen, as we've seen with the hard disk corruption problems that have been cropping up with Linux 2.4 and VIA motherboard chipsets..
--
Re:Well, it's April 26th today... (Score:2)
--
"reinstall-life-support-[Y/N]?" (Score:2)
- CHOICE
/T:Y,5 Reinstall life support
The question mark and the key choices of [Y/N] appear by default (though the key choices are configurable). And, the "/T:Y,5" bit configures CHOICE to automatically default to "Y" if no key is chosen within 5 seconds (I figured that would be kinda helpful, given that it is life support we're talking about here).P.S. I'm looking for a new job in Web Development. I invite you to check out my portfolio [vt.edu] of hand coded HTML / JavaScript / CSS.
Alex Bischoff
---
Don't worry! (Score:3)
Oh... wait a sec! :-)
---
Here's the link you want. (Score:4)
There is no mention what OS the thinkpad in the picture is running. For all we know that might be the "server" they are talking about... http://www.mdrobotics.ca/rws.htm [mdrobotics.ca]
The web site runs linux [netcraft.com], though... :)
Re:Linux? (Score:2)
Marketing .. (Score:2)
Can you imagine what MS marketing will make out of this if this turns out to be a Linux box ? (they have been aboard shuttles, so why not on the station).
My point here is that mentioning MS now, should absolutely not be considered MS bashing, but rather just mentioning the obvious. That MS server *do* crash for no apparent reason, a fact that you can't find mentioned anywhere on this site. [microsoft.com]
--
Don't use nuclear weapons to troubleshoot faults. [cryptome.org]
Re:Was it even Microsoft? (Score:2)
Note: When we were building a Solaris based system for Atlas V launch systems ( used Java too ) we had a OS configuration/hardware issue that had all the Microsoft advocates chanting about using Windows. Then I mentioned that this was the first OS based issue we've had in the entire development effort. They shut up. Funny how it's common and accepted for Windows to screw up and management doesn't care. Because Microsoft apps don't run on *nix systems they want to rip it out at the first chance....Ignorance or what! )
I hope we find out because this kind of PR will only force the offending parties to do better work next time. Unless it really is Microsoft, they'll say NASA needs to put up a new space station running Windows 2000 or heXPee. IMHO.
LoB
and NASA thought Tito could be disruptive... (Score:2)
My guess is that it'll take about 3 crashes before the server is replace with Linux or Solaris. Probably 5-10 issues with the client machines before many of those go.
Then again they could just not use them and just have a screen saver running. They'll still have to reboot them every few days or so but that could be put into the regular schedule.
LoB
Windows, it's worse than that! (Score:3)
It totally blew my mind. This was about 14 months ago.
---------------------------
Re:Why it crashed (Score:2)
And a good comms method to get their new install key.
Re:Windows, it's worse than that! (Score:2)
For the same reason they haven't pointed out that you can't run NT on a 486; because it's not true.
-
Sort of predictable... (Score:2)
There was a bit of news a couple of years ago about some weenie at NASA who issued an edict that only Windows systems should be used. Of course, all of those tried-and-true applications that were successfully running on Macintosh, UNIX, and other systems were destined for the trash can after that order was issued. Looks like our space program is now beginning to see the fruits of that wise decision.
--
Re:Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:2)
SHIP'S LOG 29 DEC [nasa.gov]
We are apparently out of memory space on the disk, although we're not sure exactly how NT manages its memory.
SHIP'S LOG 22 FEB [nasa.gov]
At about 2200, we were reconfiguring some mail files which, with a lot of help from Windows NT, got put in the wrong place during the backup procedure.
Re:Two problems with your example. (Score:2)
"NT played no role in the Yorktown?s LAN crash, Baker said."
Surely you read the paragraphs that immediately follow your quote:
Re:What really happened (Score:5)
Great...so the ISS is really a giant pinball machine with one of the flippers locked up, so we need to get it to go "TILT" and shut down so we can reset it? :-)
---
Re:Windows bashing (Score:2)
So, on NT4, at least, 99% of BSODs were not caused by hardware or driver problems. More like 50% of the non-preventable stuff.
For more information, you'll have to dig out the 1999-era copy of InfoWorld where this was published.
--
Re:Let's play "Bet Your Life" (Score:3)
Yeah, memory protection is for wusses.
Seriously, tho, in a former life as a network guy in the early 90s, I saw far more NetWare ABENDs than I've saw NT Bluescreens. It was generally OK file+print, but if you tried to run any slightly non-standard NLM (AppleShare, OS2 namespace, backup software, btrieve, CD-ROM drivers, etc) you had to keep your fingers crossed. I guess that goes to show if you keep a product in maintenance for 10 years or more, anything can become rock stable.
--
Re:Windows bashing (Score:3)
NT servers don't use the Nvidia drivers and aren't expected to do things like optimize video playback. They generally run a rather generic unaccellerated SVGA driver. I've seen lots of bluescreens on servers, and none of them that I recall could be traced to the video drivers. There's the usual SCSI and NIC driver issues that could crash any OS, and for a long time in the NT 4.0 series, there was some issue in NTFS.SYS that caused systems to fall over.
I'll accept that it's somewhat stupid to have a mandatory GUI on a server, but I don't think this is the stablility issue that the NT-haters club makes it out to be. NT has/had plenty of larger reliablity problems.
--
Only one was down. (Score:2)
Three redundant computers did not, actually, go down. ONE of the Command and Data Handling computers shut itself down, and Cmdr. Helms was unable to shunt functions it performed through the other two computers on the first day of troubleshooting. So, only one was actually down; the other two were part of the problem, or part of the solution, depending on your point of view, but they were not actually "down".
----
lake effect [lakefx.nu] weblog
Space Station Command and Control Systems (Score:2)
There are more than 100 computers on the space station, just counting built-in. Indeed, each individual experiment rack -- about the size of an apartment fridge -- will include its own computer and custom software written for that experiment, all intended to link into the ISS network for data transmission and science interface. Many of the racks in Destiny (and future modules like Columbus and Kibo) provide station functions such as robot arm control, and each of these has its own computer as well.
But the core functions are called CDH (Command and Data Handling) [honeywell.com], including everything from navigation to turning the lights on and off: really, it's just the network infrastructure. Cabling is Thinnet. These computers are provided to NASA under contract by Honeywell, and are called MDMs, for Multiplexer/Demultiplexer. Think of a rack-mount swappable-processor system and you'll be close. These run the RTOS (Real Time Operating System) called VxWorks [windriver.com] (from Wind River) -- the same RTOS used on the successful Mars Pathfinder mission, and custom software written by Honeywell and specific system vendors using Matrixx [windriver.com] from the same vendor.
The crew use laptops, and there are quite a number of them judging by photographs, many seemingly permanently linked into one or more MDM functions. Since the MDMs have no other interface to the crew, this makes sense. The laptops that link to the MDMs use Sun Solaris and a custom client that provides data feedback and a semi-graphical user interface, depending on function. These laptops go by the generic name PCS (Portable Computer System) [spaceref.com] and conform to specifications set during the mid-1990s. The PCS model in use is the IBM Thinkpad, and contrary to popular belief, these models have evolved along with the Shuttle and Station programs -- just more slowly than the commercial market. Models need to be constructed with higher-quality components and undergo flight qualification. The laptops available to Expedition One were (I believe) at least Pentium I-MMX class machines.
Some of these laptops are dual-boot with Windows NT on the other partition. Windows NT does have a function on the space station, but it is in no way linked to the command and control systems as outlined above. The major purpose it serves seems to be e-mail, but probably also record-keeping and recreation in the form of games or playing portable media such as CDs or DVDs. (There is also a built-in DVD player in one module that the astronauts can gather around for "movie night".) Windows NT can behave perfectly well when given a known, well-defined set of hardware and a well-tweaked configuration. The astronauts have access to spare hard drives that have images created on Earth using Norton Ghost. In one incident during Expedition One this was insufficient, and a spare hard drive was sent up during the current shuttle mission in order to bring that laptop back into service. But since they have plenty, it probably did not materially affect operations to be missing one.
----
lake effect [lakefx.nu] weblog
Re:Deep link (Score:3)
Now what do you guys make of this?
... This would have been much easier with some bootable media that could run Windows. (Or if Shep was not indoctrinated by that "other" operating system).
According to this Expedition One crew debriefing [google.com], Shep answered a provocative question thus:
Ops LAN
? Was the service pack distribution system easy to follow?
Shep: Yes. No problems.
Sergei: I'd like to have a little more explanation of what is in the service pack.
Shep & Sergei: That way we would have known if it was really critical to load the new version or not.
? Was the desktop configuration (SSC Client, SSC File Server) easy to navigate? Any suggestions on how to improve the desktop layout?
o Shep (joking): Go to a Mac OS.
This fits with the wording: Shep is a Mac user. The log is tweaking him for being less technical because he uses a Mac. It's unclear if this section of the log was written by one of the cosmonauts, or possibly Shep tweaking himself. But he's known to have a real sense of humor.
----
lake effect [lakefx.nu] weblog
Re:Screenshots! (Score:2)
Re:Deep link (Score:2)
Re:Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Operating Systems (Score:2)
I would have though that with the resources needed to build an orbiting spacestation they'd have enough human resources to either build their own specialised OS, or customize some existing one (perhaps something like QNX).
One can only fear what happens when they upgrade to one of the new microsoft leases based licenses so when their link goes down and they can't contact microsofts license server the entire space station shuts down
Re:Scary stuff? (Score:2)
--
Re:Windows bashing (Score:2)
When trying to change my NT Domain password and my Netware 5 NDS password at the same time using the password change function did not BSOD, but simply rebooted the PC without changing the password anywhere.
HP PrecisionScan 3.x and the HP official Win2000 drivers for the HP LaserJet 5/5M Standard printer do not get along. If the printer drivers have been on the PC at ANY TIME, even if they have been removed, running PrecisionScan reboots the PC. In addition, HP's crappy little MacroMedia installer program will reboot the PC when Autorun grabs it. If you skip the MacroMedia crap like anyone who is sick to death of HP's dog-shit quality installers, you can't get the install to complete. It will not accept any install location as valid. Granted, the HP problem has to do with their arrogance any sloppy coding, but Win2000 is supposed to be so incredibly stable, it shouldn't let a minor program like that crash the PC.
--
Re:Windows bashing (Score:2)
--
Unknown crash (Score:2)
Space Stations of the World, Unite!
Kevin Fox
--
Oh *PLEASE*! (Score:2)
2) Yes, NASA uses Windows.. they use windows 95 on their laptops aboard the station.... because they have long-standing procedures on how to use these notebooks reliably. When they crash, they know how long it takes to reset them, and just what to do, etc.
But please don't just make it out like Windows fucked up the ISS. That's silly.
Windows bashing (Score:2)
I wouldn't want to trust windows 2000 with my life, but I haven't yet seen a BSOD on it
I think the odd thing is that they have three systems, but they're all the same OS. Usually, these control systems are implemented three different ways, so that whatever bugs are present don't affect all of them.
Windows 2000 would be a much saner choice, IMHO, if backup #1 was linux and backup #2 was another unix.
Official reports of mundane activity (Score:4)
Re:Back online (Score:2)
Apparently a single server is malfunctioning. Problems include not being able to communicate with the Station, command the new robot arm, nor turn off the Station navigation system. The Shuttle also cannot lift the orbit while the Station navigation system is flying the Station.
A NASA page [nasa.gov] says:
We discussed some of the ISS computers in an April 4 article about ISS logs [slashdot.org], although not the C&C computers. Apparently there is a malfunction of the Control & Data Handling [erau.edu] C&C MDMs, not merely communications to the PCS C&C laptops. The 6MB PDF ISS overview [nasa.gov] describes CDH in Section 2.
Re:Windows bashing (Score:2)
Errrr ... the fact that they *CAN* crash the operating system.
Now, while this may be acceptable behaviour in a high performance workstation (maybe ...), it is completely unacceptable in a mission critical server.
IIRC, this started in NT4, prior to that (ie 3.51) it was not possible. It is certainly not possible in many other well designed mission critical OS's.
Basically, the driver should not be in kernel space where it can cause that damage.
Hmmm. Thinnet (Score:2)
We should be careful about jumping to conclusions about this being an NT BSOD problem. That usually isn't an all day affair to fix. Now, a bad terminator resistor on thinnet segment or a crimped cable, or a slightly wacky transceiver could cause a tricky to diagnose problem. One of the big wins for 10*BaseT*, aside from using standard phone cable, is that error detection and isolation is much easier in a hub and spoke topology than it is in a bus.
Re:Hmmm. Thinnet (Score:2)
In other news (Score:4)
Re:What really happened (Score:2)
Re:What really happened (Score:2)
PCS laptops (Score:2)
I have no idea what the arm and stuff is running and how it communicates with everything else.
I think there are also a couple thinkpads that are Windows only, but they are just used for email and reading documents and stuff (nothing mission critical).
Re:Odd (Score:3)
hmm. (Score:3)
In this case, the problem was not with the interface software OR interface computer (thinkpad) but with the core system (they were still not sure whether it was software or hardware last I checked). Not only that, but the software of the Thinkpad was not provided by a "monolith^H^H^H^Hpoly" unless you consider Sun Solaris a monopoly.
I guess I always did think of HAL as an OS and not an interface. That is an interesting revelation to me, but that still doesn't change the fact that the interface didn't cause the problem and the fact that the interface wasn't supplied by a monopoly.
What really happened, and FUD even by /.ers (Score:5)
What really happened is the US control module computers stopped responding to any inputs from the ground. They weren't able to control the station or tell it to shutdown or anything. Their plan to fix it (last I heard) was to have the Russian control module move and shake the ISS around until the US system thought it was out of control and went into what is called Free Drift Mode. In this mode, it can be completely controlled by the Russian module and we can debug the system and bring it back online.
Send sysadmins into space (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be better to use whatever system is best for the job, and send a computer guy up there to maintain it?
(Yes, I admit it, I'm only suggesting this because it increases my chances of getting into space from zero to negligible.)
--
A little ironic, no? (Score:2)
And yet these are the same people who chose a Microsoft product as their OS... Scary.
Re:Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:5)
Micro~1.oft spent a lot of time, energy and money to ensure that their OSes were dominant on the ISS. They have spent millions of $$$ just to place a few hundred copies on the ISS, in the space flight centre, and in the russian control centres. The reason for this massive cost was to use the ISS as a giant marketing tool, and they even created a whole marketing campaign around it.
Windoze is not the only OS on the ISS, but it is dominant. There are some *nixes running critical communication processes, such as the main link from the station to ground points, and these have not had many problems at all.
When the M$ servers started crashing [theregister.co.uk], the whole micr~1.oft in space campaign was put on hold. If you read the logs created by the station crew, they are pretty upset having to spend entire days trying to fix micr~1.oft problems. NASA has a direct line into the best and brightest engineers at M$, but even they are clueless as to why certain processes hang, why backups fail to happen, why entire directories are blown away with no trace, or why new patches cause driver conflicts.
Since the Register article highlighting the ISS problems in the logs, micr~1.oft has been putting pressure on NASA to redact all mention of micr~1.oft. Certainly someone has been archiving copies of the logs since they appeared, so they can diff them later and see when NASA bows to micr~1.oft pressure.
As you noticed, none of the mainstream reporting now mentions micr~1.oft by name, that is due to a pressure campaign by one of the largest advertising bugdets in the US. But when the logs are posted for these events, you will notice a great many references to the machines running micr~1.oft, even if the name of OS is redacted out. If you do a little research, you will see these machines are running either DoS [nasa.gov] or windoze.
the AC
Re:Two problems with your example. (Score:2)
user error - entering an illegal value in a DB
app error - DB accepting illegal value
OS error - OS crashing because of divide by 0 because of previous errors.
The first is understandable.
The second is unacceptable (should have been caught in test).
The third is unforgivable.
Re:Two problems with your example. (Score:4)
Here's the article [gcn.com] about the Yorktown.
I used to work for a defense contractor, so I know how these things should be tested. You don't just test on good inputs, you test with bad ones. That's why I said that the app crashing was unacceptable. However, nothing should ever cause an OS to crash, especially in a military environment.
It doesn't have to be a BSOD, it could be some other failure mode, which is what appeared to happen to the Yorktown.
Re:WINDOWS!!!! (con't) (Score:2)
Control: Yeah, thats right, that old 386 BIOS does'nt support CDROM booting but damn it's got some rad rad protection!!. Just run winnt
ISS: OK, so how do I get to the CDROM?
Control: Well you boot off the MSDOS boot floppy that has CDROM drivers of course.
ISS: OK, done that... ahh control it started copying over that boot disk and is now complaining that it cannot find command.com and is asking me where to find it. It asked me to label these disks 1 to 3 NT something or other, so I'll boot of this first one...
Control: No ISS, that won't work, it actually copies those floppies 3, 2 and then 1 (boot). Do you have another MSDOS boot floppy with CDROM drivers?
ISS: No, but Igor says he has the "Deb-Ian(?)" boot floppies and that I can "ftp install it from his Notebook?!?!????", he rekons that we can install "Lee? Nooks?", do something to the NT CD, create a FAT partition, copy the i386 dir to it, set it bootable with eff-disk and "sys it" from FreeDOS(?), reboot and then install NT from there????
Control: Stand-by ISS, we have MS support on the line, we have been placed in a queue and will be answered by the first available opperator, she's saying something about us being a valuable customer, just a sec... ummm, you guys would'nt happen to have a Visa or Mastercard handy?
/. journalism strikes again... (Score:2)
In all seriousness though, I know that we can change our preferences to ignore articles from certain editors, but perhaps an editor moderation system would increase the quality of headlines and submissions around here. While most publications make headlines inflamatory and eye catching, few blatently lie like
Re:micheal! great troll! (Score:2)
The majority of rants . . . er articles on slashdot are often incorrect, biased, pure propaganda, reactionary, immature and half-baked.
Re:Windows, it's worse than that! (Score:2)
Not true! The article suggests that this was an NT failure. From the M$ site the minimum system requirements for NT are "At least a 486-DX2 33MHz processor"
Re:Deep link (Score:2)
Happy Funtime Conspiracy Corner (Score:5)
Not that I believe this at all, but it occured to me and I figure it's amusing enough to share.
"Sorry, Dennis. That darn computer system crashed again, we just can't let ya launch right now. We figure it'll be fixed by... oh... October." <sotto voce: Frank, have you finished the bluescreen plan for Friday yet?>
Re:Deep link (Score:5)
-----
Well, it's April 26th today... (Score:2)
...maybe they were really Really REALLY stupid and got infected with Chernobyl [yahoo.com]. The articles say the crash happened Wednesday in USA time, but what time zone does the ISS use for its computer clocks?
Plus there's that M$ support site infected with FunLove [theregister.co.uk]. Or maybe it was just a hardware failure...
Re:Windows, it's worse than that! (Score:2)
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
Re:Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:5)
hc
They're probably using Coax (10Base-2) (Score:3)
Coax would have the advantage of plenty of shielding from electromagnetic interference. Otherwise, no advantage.
If you're reading this NASA, here's some advice. Buy some little metal doohickeys for the back of each networked computer. These doohickeys fit around a coax cable, can be screwed into the back of a power supply, and cost about 5 cents. In my experience, using these helps stabilize the cables a lot, and you get more uptime that way.
IBM Thinkpads with MS OS (Score:2)
Odd (Score:4)
That's a space oddyssey, er, oddity.
And the software in question is provided by a huge monolith^H^H^H^Hpoly...Re:Scary stuff? (Score:2)
Set up your main e-mail server to be Sparc Solaris running sun's sendmail, your secondary e-mail server as Alpha Linux running sendmail, and your tertiary e-mail server to be Intel OpenBSD running qmail.
No trivial task for the ISS people, but if they had 3 programming groups working on 3 implementations of the same communications code, but each for 3 different platform/OS's, your redundancy wouldn't be as restricted to software issues.
Going 3 times over budget isn't bad, is it?
-f
Re:New definition for BSOD (Score:2)
This is why satellites eventually lose their orbit and burn up in the atmosphere. They experience decceleration due to air resistance.
Re:Windows, it's worse than that! (Score:2)
First, of all, this has been hashed before on /. [slashdot.org]
Second, it's not that the P3/P4 is more sensitive to radition. It's that the i386 and i486 [google.com] have been around long enough to have had the military and NASA pay for radition hardening, not to mention low power consumption which is just as important in space.
hardened cmos device [intel.com] - with actual rad specifications.Re:Assembly language on ISS (Score:5)
Real time software for mission critical systems is written in Ada. That's a no-brainer. If there is any assembler, it's tiny, of severely limited scope, and meticulously tested. In fact, having worked with some very low level networking code for ISS (in Ada), I doubt there's any assembler in there at all.
As to the 386's, they're rad hardened and known reliable. And, unlike the home computer I bought a couple of months ago that's state of the art, whether I need state of the art or not, the jobs these CPUs had to do simply didn't require anything faster than a 386, even given a hefty allowance of spare cycles and memory for future growth.
We bought what we needed (in space, rad hardening is not optional) and we didn't buy what we didn't need. That's not $400 hammers, that's the definition of responsible stewardship of the public's money.
NASA vs. Tito (Score:2)
It's no secret that NASA isn't too keen on Tito's planned visit to the station. Looks like their choice of Windows will help them out in this regard!
--
Re:Scary stuff? (Score:3)
Re:Great idea! (Score:2)
Re:Hard up for stories? (Score:3)
The laptops run x86 Solaris, not Windoze (Score:2)
Also he writes that the computer that crashed were not the laptops:
Let's play "Bet Your Life" (Score:2)
We simply cannot have peoples lives being dependant on software that can crash. In a business context, we can get used to crashes, after all it is only data, and it is only the livelyhood of the bussiness at stake. It is only maybe millions of dollars. In space, it is lives.
Which OS would you be willing to literally bet your life on?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Screenshots! (Score:2)
You use a camera. Check out this short Register story [theregister.co.uk], which has a link to a very high rez photo where you can sorta make out the error messages, especially if you are familiar with the system.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Update RE: Let's play "Bet Your Life" (Score:2)
The IBM Thinkpad laptops to which you refer, [are] called PCS (Portable Computer System) [and] are used throughout the station. They are indeed 486 based laptops. However, they are running Sun's Solaris OS for x86, and the OpenWindows WM, and a custom application that provides a graphical interface to the various on-board systems.
It is not unusual for a project of this size and scope to be using technology that seems dated to the man-on-the-street. [...] The PCS runs its own applications, which have very little to do with the actual main function operations in a module. [...] The laptop's processor is not involved in the calculation, monitoring or execution of the station's processes. [...] The computers that crashed (the C&Cs) and the PCS laptops are not the same computers
So usual original assumption was wrong. But that still leaves us with the other question of what *are* they running on the main system.
And the Original question of what you would bet your life on is also still interesting.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Windows, it's worse than that! (Score:2)
Re:Windows, it's worse than that! (Score:2)
Re:Assembly language on ISS (Score:2)
I just wanted to point out that the other alternative is sometimes the better path. See what issues you have and then use good engineering to make them non-issues. For many years, the process has been: "Well, we are going to put this into space. Okay, well let's have Lockheed Martin (now BAE NA), or Honeywell or Sandia make a radiation hardened version and we will fly that."
It really is not that difficult to build simple circuits that perform EDAC, measure current levels, and reset units.
The other thing is that a number of times, the result of radiation hardening is not that the device is less susceptible to most SEEs, but merely total dose. That was the case with the ADSP21020 and that is pretty useless in my opinion. You can put some simple shielding around the device (like the SEi (now Maxwell)RadPack(tm), but simpler) and decrease the amount of dose that the device will see in space significantly.
Re:Assembly language on ISS (Score:4)
That is incorrect.
Microprocessors (electronics in general also) have a wide variety of radiation response out of the box. For instance, the AMD K6 is known to be pretty bad for single event latch-up and not very usable. On the other hand, the PC603 actually is not to bad right off a commercial foundry line.
With this in mind, there are also a number of ways to mitigate radiation effects, including latch-up protection circuits, EDAC, redundancy, cold sparing, etc. These methods can remove the number of effects that propogate to the subsystem or system level.
Radiation hardening in many instances can also succeed in preventing effects from reaching the system level, but there are a number of penalties to pay. Schedule is often the biggest (as you know, many rad hard processors are very old), cost (this stuff isn't cheap since it is boutique), performance (many rad hard processors can't perform to the speed of their commercial brothers because of layout changes, extra resistance etc.), and also many times the required power and size can be affected.
Now we are presented with two paths: 1) radiation harden a processor, 2) measure the rad effects of a commercial processor and mitigate them with extra circuitry (which has its own extra liabilities in cost, power, size, but typically are much lower).
In some instances, rad hard is the right choice (in human flight missions, it tends to be a good choice, but not always), and in some commercial products with some workarounds are best.
Simplifying the issue to "rad hardening is not optional" is wrong...it is optional, but if you say "radiation effects must be dealt with", then I agree with you.
See also (Score:2)
Re:Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:2)
Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:5)
Re:Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:5)
Now, I've been around Slashdot for a long time, as well... like you, before the Andover buy-out. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to be objective. The author fscked up here. I'm not saying /. should praise M$... frankly, M$ has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. I simply think that Slashdot should try to report *true*, *accurate* stories. Is that so much to ask? A little journalistic integrity (I know, I know... naive... :)
Back online (Score:3)
Re:Operating Systems (Score:3)
The worst part is that whenever they upgrade a piece of hardware, they have to re-register with Microsoft. Since their comm is no longer working, they have to use Morse Code by blinking a flashlight out the window.
---
Was it even Microsoft? (Score:3)
I mean really, people. Sure, we've all had bad M$ experiences, but blame the NASA engineers for a poorly designed redundancy, and let them blame their supplier.
would it kill them?? (Score:4)
While they're at it, maybe add the fact that the Canadarm2 is the big brother of the Canadarm that each space shuttle has. Maybe that it has 2 "hands", one on each end, that will allow it to "inchworm" its way along the outside of the station. Perhaps mention that Canadian Chris Hadfield, the first Canadian spacewalker (as of this mission) is the one who installed the arm??
You'd think every American news editor has a spark plug up their GI orifice that gives them a shock anytime they allow "Canada" to get into print. Sheesh.
Mr. Ska
I slit a sheet
A sheet I slit
Re:Sig (Score:3)
Hmmm... "Klaatu, Barata, N<cough>" There you go. Works like a charm... : )
The question is... (Score:2)
Re:Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:2)
Re:Windows bashing (Score:3)
Your HP situation highlights 99% of Windows 2000 BSODs: faulty drivers. If you only use HCL-approved hardware and signed drivers, you aren't going to get any BSODs, unless you have faulty hardware.
I believe that the ISS is using NT4.0, in which case I'm not surprised. While somewhat stable, it pales in comparison to Windows 2000.
-------
-- russ
"You want people to think logically? ACK! Turn in your UID, you traitor!"
Crashed computers don't use Windows (Score:5)
Why 386 chips? Because they have been tested and been found to be relatively radiation tolerant. More current chips are likely to be subject to more radiation-induced faults due to smaller transistor size.
Scary stuff? (Score:3)
As far as I can see, wouldn't that put the crew into a really hairy position? Without support from the ground, how they'd have no way to know how to try diagnosing / fixing the problem. And if they couldn't get it going... well, perhaps they'd all just goof off for a while, like when the boss takes a day off sick ;) ... but wouldn't they have serious problems, say, preparing for the next shuttle or Soyuz docking?
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
Re:Bad form, Slashdot... (Score:5)
This isn't a journalism site, it's a bulletin board system. Jon Katz is the only one who really writes stories of his own, each time. Most of the rest of the stories are just links to other sites. So yes, that's why slashdot evangelizes about Linux 24/7 and bashes Microsoft. Sure, we all realize that NASA didn't just pick Windows to run space shuttle operations just cause it was easy to use. I'm sure plenty of considerations went into how well it would work versus other OS's. But it's still fun to discuss whether they made the best choice possible, which is what slashdot is so popular for. Discussion.
Re:Official reports of mundane activity (Score:3)
The computers were running, but were unable to access data in their memory banks because of the downed server.
Danger Will Robinson! Danger Will Robinson! Memory banks unreachable!
Re:Window Cleaning? (Score:3)
In that case forget it. I'm not setting foot on that death trap! I think I'd rather take my chances on Mir! Oh wait, too late....
Personally, I'd still rather take my chances on Mir!
But here's the twist... (Score:5)
Total energy/mass of an object in orbit is 1/2 v^2 - GM(earth)/r; you get a circular orbit when the kinetic energy is equal to half the (negative) potential energy, i.e. v = sqrt(GM(earth)/r). The total energy of an object in an orbit (as opposed to an escape trajectory) is always negative.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Re:Crashed computers don't use Windows (Score:5)
For gods' sakes, someone with some karma mod this thing up. /.'s reaction to this story, in the complete absence of the relevant facts, was kind of distressing- so many instant Windoze bashers popping up, the usual modding-separating-wheat-from-chaff system failed completely. The only systems aboard ISS running Windows that I am aware of are some of the laptops, which are not the sole interfaces to any critical system, and servers for some relatively minor tasks, like e-mail I believe.
I assume this choice was made for the sake of simplicity. I don't agree with running windows at all, but so far as I know they're being fairly sensible about it. Those referring to NASA decisions that 'everything would run windows', or massive M$ marketing campaigns, please provide some sort of reference if at all possible...
Side note: there are other means of communication with ground, even if Endeavor weren't parked there. They just switched to the shuttle as the simplest thing. If all else fails, amateur radio should always be usable...
Repeat of question I posed in an earlier article: Apart from simple answers like 'More testing' and 'be more careful', do any of you have suggestions for how NASA's software might be made more robust? Of late software problems have caused more trouble than hardware, which seems odd.
Deep link (Score:5)
Now what do you guys make of this?
"Used the startup disk in the onboard software suite, but could not find a particular file while hunting around with DOS. This would have been much easier with some bootable media (CD-ROM?) that could run Windows. (Or if Shep was not indoctrinated by that "other" operating system). We may need an emergency boot capability again. After 5+ attempts, finally got the hard drive to take an image off the ghost CD. One of the Autoloader floppies went down, but SSC 2 is now running normally. ( 3+ hours troubleshooting). "
Guesses? Bets?