Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta SPACE. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta SPACE. Mostrar todas as mensagens

sexta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2018

SPACE: TESS architecture and SW image processing made

Due to bandwidth limitations, heavy processing of the high res images taken is made at space and only relevant results are sent back. Here is an interesting description of the new NASA's TESS mission (now that the Kepler mission is being phased out due to lack of fuel) that has the goal of finding new exoplanets:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/get-ready-for-a-flood-of-new-exoplanets-tess-has-already-spotted-two/

Quoting:
"TESS images a single area for roughly a month before moving on to the next. Over the course of a year, this will allow it to capture most of the sky in a single hemisphere; it will switch to the other hemisphere for its second year of observations. Should the hardware still be operational at the two-year mark, it will have imaged most of the sky, and a similar cycle will likely start again.

This cadence creates some trade offs. If a planet's orbit is such that it doesn't pass in front of its star during the month TESS happens to be pointing that way, we'll miss it (unless it's part of the small overlap between separate areas). This will bias us toward finding planets with short orbital periods, where a transit is guaranteed to happen whenever TESS gets around to pointing at it. Short enough orbits mean we can observe multiple transits during that month, confirming the planet's existence without the need for follow-on observations."


quarta-feira, 5 de setembro de 2018

Traceability: Drilling errors?

Well not software, this is hardware but last week there was a 2mm leak in the ISS (one of the greatest engineering achievements of mankind, with lots of software in it as you might imagine). This stresses the importance of traceability (to resources):
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/russian-space-chief-vows-to-find-full-name-of-technician-who-caused-iss-leak/

There's a person who drilled the capsule wrongly and did not report it. Fixed with... Glue.
Quoting:
"“We are able to narrow down the cause to a technological mistake of a technician. We can see the mark where the drill bit slid along the surface of the hull,” Dmitry Rogozin, head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, told RIA Novosti. (A translation of the Russian articles in this story was provided to Ars by Robinson Mitchell). “We want to find out the full name of who is at fault—and we will.”"

terça-feira, 30 de janeiro de 2018

Configuration Management: NASA finds lost mission (IMAGE satellite)...

NASA finds lost IMAGE satellite thanks to an amateur astronomer and is not sure that communications will be possible (configuration management issue?):
Quoting:
"NASA finds satellite, realises it has lost the software and kit that talk to it. Vanished IMAGE now found. Don't suppose anyone kept a copy of its comms code?" 
(...)
"The Goddard boffins next need to undertake what the agency called “significant reverse-engineering” to capture and analyse data from the signal.
“The challenge to decoding the signal is primarily technical,” the announcement said. “The types of hardware and operating systems used in the IMAGE Mission Operations Centre no longer exist, and other systems have been updated several versions beyond what they were at the time”.
If NASA can decode data from the satellite, it will then try to turn on the science payload “to understand the status of the various science instruments”, and make a decision about IMAGE's future."

Update (2018-01-31) - Additional source for the same news:


domingo, 19 de novembro de 2017

Space: PT invests 20M€ / year in ESA

... to have a return of 40?
https://www.publico.pt/2017/11/15/ciencia/noticia/portugal-investe-20-milhoes-de-euros-por-ano-na-agencia-espacial-europeia-1792673

Quoting:
"Hoje o espaço abre novas oportunidades sobretudo associadas às novas indústrias do espaço”, disse aos jornalistas Manuel Heitor à margem da comemoração do 3º aniversário do centro de incubação da Agência Espacial Europeia (ESA BIC Portugal).

O governante afirmou que em 12 anos, até 2030, o Governo pretende que a taxa de retorno do investimento aumente dos actuais 40 milhões de euros para 400 milhões e, para isso, está a desenvolver uma nova estratégia para aumentar a facturação do sector do espaço, indicou."

quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017

Maintenance: The Y2K problem and the 417 Billion USD spent (!) because of the year 2000

And the eternal question: Were the millions spent to fix the Y2K bug well spent? Well, maybe so because in the end the world did not end!

Interesting details on the technical parts, the bugs that really caused some problems, and the government initiatives that were made to avoid problems from occurring:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem

Quoting (interesting parts):
"The U.S. Government also established a Center for Year 2000 Strategic Stability, as a joint operation with the Russian Federation. It was a liaison operation designed to mitigate the possibility of false positive readings in each nation's nuclear attack early warning systems."
(...)
"No banks failed, no planes crashed, no wars or civil war started. And yet not one of these prophets of doom has ever apologised for their scare-mongering tactics."[55] Some prominent North American Christian ministries and leaders generated huge personal and corporate profits through sales of Y2K preparation kits, generators, survival guides, published prophecies and a wide range of other associated merchandise. Christian journalist, Rob Boston, has documented this[50] in his article "False Prophets, Real Profits Religious Right Leaders' Wild Predictions of Y2K Disaster Didn't Come True, But They Made Money Anyway""
(...)
"The total cost of the work done in preparation for Y2K is estimated at over US$300 billion ($417 billion today, once inflation is taken into account).[57][58] IDC calculated that the US spent an estimated $134 billion ($186 billion) preparing for Y2K, and another $13 billion ($18 billion) fixing problems in 2000 and 2001. Worldwide, $308 billion ($428 billion) was estimated to have been spent on Y2K remediation.[59]"

PS: A similar problem on a space mission that did have impact on the mission: 
"The Deep Impact space mission was lost when its internal clock reached exactly 232 one-tenth seconds since 2000 on 11 August 2013, 00:38:49."

sexta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2017

On the importance of interface specifications (ICD)

On the importance of interface specifications (doing it and then... following it). Lots of systems fail due to interfaces to external systems. What is an external system? In this context, anything where you'll have to read data from and/or export / write data to.

In some projects/markets these are mandatory deliverables (the designation and the acronym can vary): SIS (Software Interface Specification), ICS (Interface Control Specification), ICD (Interface Control Document). The interface specification can be a document by itself or part of the broader design documentation (a section of it). The advantage of having it extracted is that it is easier to share externally (you'll have to share just that part of the design with external companies and that eases up distribution issues for organizations that restrict distribution).

As per the external interfaces by themselves:
Identify all intervening external systems and specify the needed interfaces thoroughly: specify the data flows, frequency and means of communication, review and accept those documents so that all teams (persons) working for all components of the information system are aligned.


Case study / example (on the importance of interface specifications):

The Mars Climate Orbiter  is one of the many failed Mars missions. It crash landed in Mars in 1999:

"The primary cause of this discrepancy was that one piece of ground software supplied by Lockheed Martin produced results in a United States customary unit, contrary to its Software Interface Specification (SIS), while a second system, supplied by NASA, expected those results to be in metric units, in accordance with the SIS."
They had a spec, they just didn't read it. Or even worse, they produced contradicting documentation.



PS. The full NASA 1998 report can be found here:

quarta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2017

Voyager 1 and 2 still operating

Two top examples of good (redundant but not only) design and coding:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-voyager-spacecraft-still-reaching-for-the-stars-after-40-years

Quoting:
"Because the Voyagers' power decreases by four watts per year, engineers are learning how to operate the spacecraft under ever-tighter power constraints. And to maximize the Voyagers' lifespans, they also have to consult documents written decade’s earlier describing commands and software, in addition to the expertise of former Voyager engineers.

"The technology is many generations old, and it takes someone with 1970s design experience to understand how the spacecraft operate and what updates can be made to permit them to continue operating today and into the future," said Suzanne Dodd, Voyager project manager based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California.

Team members estimate they will have to turn off the last science instrument by 2030. However, even after the spacecraft go silent, they’ll continue on their trajectories at their present speed of more than 30,000 mph (48,280 kilometers per hour), completing an orbit within the Milky Way every 225 million years.

The Voyager spacecraft were built by JPL, which continues to operate both. The Voyager missions are part of the NASA Heliophysics System Observatory, sponsored by the Heliophysics Division of SMD."

domingo, 16 de julho de 2017

Architecture: Cubesats explained

Modular architectures (highly reusable designs) allow for the creation of new market segments to explore. A good example are Cubesats:
https://www.space.com/29320-cubesats-spacecraft-tech-explained-infographic.html

Quoting:
"The CubeSat program began in 1999 as a collaboration between California Polytechnic State University and Stanford University. The goal was to design a standard for picosatellites, tiny Earth-orbiting boxes usually with a volume of about 61 cubic inches (1 liter) and a mass of about 2.9 lbs. (1.33 kilograms).

CubeSats are built in a variety of sizes, from 1U (one unit) up to three-plus units. Rails on the edges smooth the ride as the satellite is ejected from the P-POD deployer. Rectangular access doors are arrayed down the side of the satellite."

Architecture: Cutting down exploration costs through redesign

This is more related to Systems Engineering (not software Engineering) but is an interesting effort to drive down system costs (development and operation) through the development of a new, ground breaking architecture to explore the moon, and from there the solar system:
https://www.space.com/37464-moon-express-solar-system-exploration.html

Quoting:
"Therefore, the potential exists to cut space-exploration costs significantly — for example, by an order of magnitude or so on MX-9 missions, Richards said.

"That's when you get a radical price reduction — a collapse, really, of the costs down to hundreds of thousands of dollars a kilogram [of payload to the lunar surface] from the millions that it is today for smaller systems," he told Space.com. "I really hope that we're able to do for lunar access what cubesats did for access to low Earth orbit.""

sábado, 27 de maio de 2017

Case Study: Schiaparelli (EXOMARS lander) failure

EXOMARS is a success (the orbiter is up and running, since 2016) but the experimental lander, failed spectacularly (and the crater where it landed was already located at Mars)... Why was that?
Because of hardware, and also of software:

"The following main weaknesses in the overall process led to the failure of the landing of Schiaparelli:
• Lack of specification and focus on a mission critical parameter from Prime to Supplier. The
persistence of the saturation flag in the application software, became the ultimate cause of the
Schiaparelli landing mishap.
• Lack of rigorous verification approach (including testing of failure/anomaly cases and
recording of closure of requirements).
• Lack of PA/QA rigorousness for acceptance of the unit"

"The following root causes for the mishap have been identified:

- Insufficient uncertainty and configuration management in the modelling of the parachute
dynamics which led to expect much lower dynamics than observed in flight;
- Inadequate persistence time of the IMU saturation flag and inadequate handling of IMU
saturation by the GNC;
- Insufficient approach to Failure Detection, Isolation and Recovery and design robustness;
- Mishap in management of subcontractors and acceptance of hardware."

Source: EXOMARS 2016 - SCHIAPARELLI ANOMALY INQUIRY
More info:
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/59176-exomars-2016-schiaparelli-anomaly-inquiry/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40029180


PS. Kudos to A. Santos for pointing this out.

quarta-feira, 12 de abril de 2017

What is the ECSS and what are all those standards about (Roadmap)?

The Short Story

ECSS is the european standards organization for space activities. Follow the link for further details.
Amongst other things they produce... Standards.

If you know some of them, maybe this picture will suffice you (Source: ESA):


The Long Story

Space product development is (as you might know) a demanding area for hardware. As it is for software. ECSS was created to standardize space product development. The standards under ECSS superseeded the PSSs and now abound, i.e. they might confuse you; ECSS-M, ECSS-Q, ECSS-E, ...

So here are two quick intros (roadmaps) to the ESA standards:

quinta-feira, 27 de outubro de 2016

SW Construction: Let's do it like they do it on space? | NASA Coding Conventions

So I remembered that some (oldie but for sure goldie) coding conventions are freely available from NASA JPL, several languages available:
https://www.google.pt/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nasa%20jpl%20coding%20standards

FFR. But meanwhile you can start applying it (and doing "IT" like they do it on - i,e. for - space)

quinta-feira, 12 de maio de 2016

Defining your SDP

When defining your Software Development Process (SDP) where should you start?

First of all, if you can, don't define it. But most of the times you'll have to (to introduce your company's specifics and to allow for easier alignment of large teams).

So where should you start? From scratch?
No, it is suggested that you find whatever the industry states regarding the processes you are interested in and build upon it, using these standards as Reference Documents.

E.g.: If you're working for space, does it make sense to build your own SDP from scratch? Absolutely not. Above all, companies working on such mature markets will have to comply to standards, and some of those standards are related to software development, so you should start using them.
It'll save you time getting certifications, being certified by suppliers that might want to check how do you develop software (and perform other types of activities such as project management) before hiring you, etc.

So, you should definitely start by reading, understanding and using things like:

- ECSS (ESA standards), NASA-SEL (NASA standards): http://silvaonsoftware.blogspot.pt/2016/05/the-beauty-of-standards-and-more.html

For life cycles you have ISO 12207: http://silvaonsoftware.blogspot.pt/2016/04/standard-isoiec-12207-systems-and.html

For tailoring you have CMU/SEI-94-TR-024 and more: http://silvaonsoftware.blogspot.pt/2016/05/tailoring-in-your-sdp.html

For terminology you have also additional standards: http://silvaonsoftware.blogspot.pt/2016/05/standards-terminology-standards.html

So, for all reasons in the world you'll be doing... REUSE.