Elecraft

Re: Buggy software OT

Classic

List

Threaded

15 messages Options

Fred Townsend-2

Re: Buggy software OT

I think there is a big difference in flight software. In Boeing airplanes
the pilot is assisted by software. In Airbuses the pilot is allowed to fly
the airplane if the software thinks he/she is qualified. There has been at
least one airbus crash blamed on software and several other questionable
crashes.
Unix has a dam-it key. (Dam it let me do this even though you (the computer)
think it's wrong.) I bet the airbus pilots wish they had one too.

Fred, AE6QL

-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ANDY
NEHAN
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:19 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] Buggy software

Many moons ago I worked at a bank (software dept) and we had been running a
daily check reading program reading the magnetic line from a check and
sorting accordingly. Well this program read 600,000 checks a day - every
working day of the year (that's about 250) then after it had been running
about 6 years it fell over one day - a particular combinations of checks and
the way they were batched. Now that sounds to me like a LOT of testing
(600,000 * 250 * 6 = 900 million). So to expect all software to be perfect
is not realistic. As to not using or trusting software - well whatever you
do don't fly as all modern aircraft are software platforms!!
Andy G4HUE

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: Buggy software OT

The Airbus software won't let the pilot do anything that might break the
airplane. The Boeing software doesn't have the same limits.

I believe there are accidents attributed to both.

For critical systems, there are often two different programs, written by
different groups of programmers, either of which can "fly" the
airplane. The assumption is that they'll have different bugs.

On 1/17/2015 12:40 AM, Fred Townsend wrote:
> I think there is a big difference in flight software. In Boeing airplanes
> the pilot is assisted by software. In Airbuses the pilot is allowed to fly
> the airplane if the software thinks he/she is qualified. There has been at
> least one airbus crash blamed on software and several other questionable
> crashes.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

KENT TRIMBLE

Re: Buggy software OT

Otherwise known as the strategy perfected by JPL in 1998 for the Mars
Climate Orbiter . . . one in English units and the other in metric.

K9ZTV

On 1/17/2015 12:13 PM, someone wrote:
> For critical systems, there are often two different programs, written
> by different groups of programmers, either of which can "fly" the
> airplane. The assumption is that they'll have different bugs.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: Buggy software OT

Totally different. This was not "flight software" -- and it wasn't all
software, either.

I'm sure we're over the OT limit, but it's really difficult for those of
us who did this for a living to read posts from people who don't know
what it takes to actually do.

On 1/17/2015 10:54 AM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:
> Otherwise known as the strategy perfected by JPL in 1998 for the Mars
> Climate Orbiter . . . one in English units and the other in metric.
>
> K9ZTV

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

KENT TRIMBLE

Re: Buggy software OT

Good quips always sail over at least one person's head.

K9ZTV

On 1/17/2015 1:09 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:

> Totally different. This was not "flight software" -- and it wasn't
> all software, either.
>
> I'm sure we're over the OT limit, but it's really difficult for those
> of us who did this for a living to read posts from people who don't
> know what it takes to actually do.
>
> On 1/17/2015 10:54 AM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:
>> Otherwise known as the strategy perfected by JPL in 1998 for the Mars
>> Climate Orbiter . . . one in English units and the other in metric.
>>
>> K9ZTV
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4260/8946 - Release Date: 01/17/15
>
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

daleputnam

Re: Buggy software OT

In reply to this post by Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Is that software for a single... or a pair of trotters?
Or... is it actually for a surrey? Fringed?
So many questions... so few answers......

;-O

Have a great day,

--... ...--
Dale - WC7S in Wy

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: Buggy software OT

In reply to this post by KENT TRIMBLE

Good quip, but it doesn't agree with the findings of the Mars Climate
Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board.

Facts can be so inconvenient.

On 1/17/2015 11:15 AM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:
> Good quips always sail over at least one person's head.
>
> K9ZTV

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Bill Gerth

Re: Buggy software OT

Then, would you be so kind as to enlighten us?

73,
BILL
W4RK

On Jan 17, 2015, at 1:41 PM, "Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Good quip, but it doesn't agree with the findings of the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board.
>
> Facts can be so inconvenient.
>
> On 1/17/2015 11:15 AM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:
>> Good quips always sail over at least one person's head.
>>
>> K9ZTV
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

KENT TRIMBLE

Re: Buggy software OT

In reply to this post by Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Facts can also be factual.

Kent K9ZTV

/On November 10, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation
Board released a Phase I report, detailing the suspected issues
encountered with the loss of the spacecraft. Previously, on September 8,
1999, Trajectory Correction Maneuver-4 was computed and then executed on
September 15, 1999. It was intended to place the spacecraft at an
optimal position for an orbital insertion maneuver that would bring the
spacecraft around Mars at an altitude of 226 kilometers on September 23,
1999. However, during the week between TCM-4 and the orbital insertion
maneuver, the navigation team indicated the altitude may be much lower
than intended at 150 to 170 kilometers. Twenty-four hours prior to
orbital insertion, calculations placed the orbiter at an altitude of 110
kilometers; 80 kilometers is the minimum altitude that Mars Climate
Orbiter was thought to be capable of surviving during this maneuver.
Post-failure calculations showed that the spacecraft was on a trajectory
that would have taken the orbiter within 57 kilometers of the surface,
where the spacecraft likely disintegrated because of atmospheric
stresses. /

/_The primary cause of this discrepancy was that one piece of ground
software supplied by _Lockheed Martin
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin>_produced results in a
_United States customary unit
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units>_("American"),
contrary to its Software Interface Specification (SIS), while a second
system, supplied by _NASA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA>_, that
used those results expected them to be in metric units, in accord with
the SIS. _Software that calculated the total impulse produced by
thruster firings calculated results in pound-seconds. The trajectory
calculation used these results to correct the predicted position of the
spacecraft for the effects of thruster firings. This software expected
its inputs to be in newton-seconds.^[16]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#cite_note-Mishap-17> /

//

/The discrepancy between calculated and measured position, resulting in
the discrepancy between desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had
been noticed earlier by at least two navigators, whose concerns were
dismissed. A meeting of trajectory software engineers, trajectory
software operators (navigators), propulsion engineers, and managers, was
convened to consider the possibility of executing Trajectory Correction
Maneuver-5, which was in the schedule. Attendees of the meeting recall
an agreement to conduct TCM-5, but it was ultimately not done./

On 1/17/2015 1:41 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:

> Good quip, but it doesn't agree with the findings of the Mars Climate
> Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board.
>
> Facts can be so inconvenient.
>
> On 1/17/2015 11:15 AM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:
>> Good quips always sail over at least one person's head.
>>
>> K9ZTV
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4260/8946 - Release Date: 01/17/15
>
>

Merv Schweigert

Re: Buggy software OT

In reply to this post by KENT TRIMBLE

Used to think it was reading comprehension, but........

K9FD/KH6

> Good quips always sail over at least one person's head.
>
> K9ZTV
>
>
> On 1/17/2015 1:09 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
>> Totally different. This was not "flight software" -- and it wasn't
>> all software, either.
>>
>> I'm sure we're over the OT limit, but it's really difficult for those
>> of us who did this for a living to read posts from people who don't
>> know what it takes to actually do.
>>
>> On 1/17/2015 10:54 AM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:
>>> Otherwise known as the strategy perfected by JPL in 1998 for the
>>> Mars Climate Orbiter . . . one in English units and the other in
>>> metric.
>>>
>>> K9ZTV
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4260/8946 - Release Date:
>> 01/17/15
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
> .
>

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: Buggy software OT

In reply to this post by KENT TRIMBLE

This needs to stop here, but since Kent is saying that I don't
understand, I'm going to reply. Once.

We were talking about how a hypothetical airliner control system would
have two different programs, written by different groups, running
parallel, with either program capable of flying the plane. Part of the
flight system could crash that the pilots and passengers would not
notice. Airplanes in flight have to have controls that work in
milliseconds without a glitch.

With MRO, we have Lockheed software doing navigation, but not "flying"
the spacecraft. JPL software flew the spacecraft, but did not
navigate. If JPL did their own redundant navigation, the error would
have been caught.

It's not like they didn't have time, there was a week between the
calculation and the burn.

The facts in the Wikipedia article are correct, it just doesn't describe
a system that has any redundancy.

I will not comment further on this topic on list. We're way over the
limit on off-topic posts.

73 -- Lynn

On 1/17/2015 12:30 PM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:

> Facts can also be factual.
>
> Kent K9ZTV
>
> /<snip>/
>
> /_The primary cause of this discrepancy was that one piece of ground
> software supplied by _Lockheed Martin
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin>_produced results in a
> _United States customary unit
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units>_("American"),
> contrary to its Software Interface Specification (SIS), while a second
> system, supplied by _NASA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA>_, that
> used those results expected them to be in metric units, in accord with
> the SIS. _Software that calculated the total impulse produced by
> thruster firings calculated results in pound-seconds. The trajectory
> calculation used these results to correct the predicted position of
> the spacecraft for the effects of thruster firings. This software
> expected its inputs to be in newton-seconds.^[16]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#cite_note-Mishap-17> /
>

Dick Dievendorff-4

Re: Buggy software OT

In reply to this post by KENT TRIMBLE

I remember some of the history of IBM's smallest program:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14

In addition to the changes my friend John Pershing mentions, I recall bug reports due to inadequate comments, and because the number of changes per line of code was high, IEFBR14 was high on a list of modules that needed a rewrite...

Software work helps one with humility...

73 de Dick, K6KR

> On Jan 17, 2015, at 14:30, KENT TRIMBLE <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Facts can also be factual.
>
> Kent K9ZTV
>
>
> /On November 10, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board released a Phase I report, detailing the suspected issues encountered with the loss of the spacecraft. Previously, on September 8, 1999, Trajectory Correction Maneuver-4 was computed and then executed on September 15, 1999. It was intended to place the spacecraft at an optimal position for an orbital insertion maneuver that would bring the spacecraft around Mars at an altitude of 226 kilometers on September 23, 1999. However, during the week between TCM-4 and the orbital insertion maneuver, the navigation team indicated the altitude may be much lower than intended at 150 to 170 kilometers. Twenty-four hours prior to orbital insertion, calculations placed the orbiter at an altitude of 110 kilometers; 80 kilometers is the minimum altitude that Mars Climate Orbiter was thought to be capable of surviving during this maneuver. Post-failure calculations showed that the spacecraft was on a trajectory that w
ould have taken the orbiter within 57 kilometers of the surface, where the spacecraft likely disintegrated because of atmospheric stresses. /

>
> /_The primary cause of this discrepancy was that one piece of ground software supplied by _Lockheed Martin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin>_produced results in a _United States customary unit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units>_("American"), contrary to its Software Interface Specification (SIS), while a second system, supplied by _NASA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA>_, that used those results expected them to be in metric units, in accord with the SIS. _Software that calculated the total impulse produced by thruster firings calculated results in pound-seconds. The trajectory calculation used these results to correct the predicted position of the spacecraft for the effects of thruster firings. This software expected its inputs to be in newton-seconds.^[16] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#cite_note-Mishap-17> /
>
> //
>
> /The discrepancy between calculated and measured position, resulting in the discrepancy between desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had been noticed earlier by at least two navigators, whose concerns were dismissed. A meeting of trajectory software engineers, trajectory software operators (navigators), propulsion engineers, and managers, was convened to consider the possibility of executing Trajectory Correction Maneuver-5, which was in the schedule. Attendees of the meeting recall an agreement to conduct TCM-5, but it was ultimately not done./
>
>
>
>> On 1/17/2015 1:41 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
>> Good quip, but it doesn't agree with the findings of the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board.
>>
>> Facts can be so inconvenient.
>>
>>> On 1/17/2015 11:15 AM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:
>>> Good quips always sail over at least one person's head.
>>>
>>> K9ZTV
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4260/8946 - Release Date: 01/17/15
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Phil Wheeler-2

Re: Buggy software OT

In reply to this post by KENT TRIMBLE

I wonder if the design not being done to spec
/
//The primary cause of this discrepancy was that
one piece of ground software supplied by _Lockheed
Martin
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin>_produced
results in a _United States customary unit
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units>_("American"),
contrary to its Software Interface Specification
(SIS),/

qualifies as a "bug" -- vs. a design mistake?

Phil W7OX

On 1/17/15 12:30 PM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:

> Facts can also be factual.
>
> Kent K9ZTV
>
>
> /On November 10, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter
> Mishap Investigation Board released a Phase I
> report, detailing the suspected issues
> encountered with the loss of the spacecraft.
> Previously, on September 8, 1999, Trajectory
> Correction Maneuver-4 was computed and then
> executed on September 15, 1999. It was intended
> to place the spacecraft at an optimal position
> for an orbital insertion maneuver that would
> bring the spacecraft around Mars at an altitude
> of 226 kilometers on September 23, 1999.
> However, during the week between TCM-4 and the
> orbital insertion maneuver, the navigation team
> indicated the altitude may be much lower than
> intended at 150 to 170 kilometers. Twenty-four
> hours prior to orbital insertion, calculations
> placed the orbiter at an altitude of 110
> kilometers; 80 kilometers is the minimum
> altitude that Mars Climate Orbiter was thought
> to be capable of surviving during this maneuver.
> Post-failure calculations showed that the
> spacecraft was on a trajectory that would have
> taken the orbiter within 57 kilometers of the
> surface, where the spacecraft likely
> disintegrated because of atmospheric stresses. /
>
> /_The primary cause of this discrepancy was that
> one piece of ground software supplied by
> _Lockheed Martin
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin>_produced
> results in a _United States customary unit
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units>_("American"),
> contrary to its Software Interface Specification
> (SIS), while a second system, supplied by _NASA
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA>_, that used
> those results expected them to be in metric
> units, in accord with the SIS. _Software that
> calculated the total impulse produced by
> thruster firings calculated results in
> pound-seconds. The trajectory calculation used
> these results to correct the predicted position
> of the spacecraft for the effects of thruster
> firings. This software expected its inputs to be
> in newton-seconds.^[16]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#cite_note-Mishap-17>
> /
>
> //
>
> /The discrepancy between calculated and measured
> position, resulting in the discrepancy between
> desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had
> been noticed earlier by at least two navigators,
> whose concerns were dismissed. A meeting of
> trajectory software engineers, trajectory
> software operators (navigators), propulsion
> engineers, and managers, was convened to
> consider the possibility of executing Trajectory
> Correction Maneuver-5, which was in the
> schedule. Attendees of the meeting recall an
> agreement to conduct TCM-5, but it was
> ultimately not done./
>
>
>
> On 1/17/2015 1:41 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
>> Good quip, but it doesn't agree with the
>> findings of the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap
>> Investigation Board.
>>
>> Facts can be so inconvenient.
>>
>> On 1/17/2015 11:15 AM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote:
>>> Good quips always sail over at least one
>>> person's head.
>>>
>>> K9ZTV

Guy Olinger K2AV

Re: Buggy software OT

In reply to this post by Dick Dievendorff-4

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Dick Dievendorff <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Software work helps one with humility...

If software developing hasn't already beaten one into mumbling and slurring
of words without any assistance from the juice.

I remember so many days going home with a splitting headache, literal pain.

73, Guy.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: Buggy software OT

Administrator

Guys, time to end this Ot thread. In the future, please do not wait for me to step in. I can't watch the list continually if you also expect us to ship products to you quickly ;-)

Self moderate after an OT thread has gone past 5-10 postings.

Eric
Elecraft list moderator etc.
elecraft.com
_..._

> On Jan 17, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Dick Dievendorff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Software work helps one with humility...
>
>
> If software developing hasn't already beaten one into mumbling and slurring
> of words without any assistance from the juice.
>
> I remember so many days going home with a splitting headache, literal pain.
>
> 73, Guy.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]