3 ms·

First off, this is a beautiful article. Reading about software/devops at NASA is beyond fascinating to me, and it's crazy some of the things these guys have to

First off, this is a beautiful article. Reading about software/devops at NASA is beyond fascinating to me, and it's crazy some of the things these guys have to do; most devops are just shaking off their training wheels, and NASA is riding a rocket powered motorbike down a ramp and over 50 cars while changing the bikes tires mid-air. But I want to reflect on something. The fact that this system is not maintainable outside of the last engineers lifetime is a failure of documentation and proper organization. I'll cut them some slack for launching a washing machine through space, but the maintainability failure is their fault; not simply the result of age or language age. Moving offices didn't help, but if you've just got papers everywhere that are so easily lost every time you move, that doesn't reflect well on the organizational front. It also speaks to how approachable a codebase should be, and what the long term benefits of proper documentation are. You never know how long the codebase you work on will be operational. All engineers should self-absolve themselves of the hit-by-a-bus problem. Still, I expect they'll learn from this. And with computers now it should be harder for them to actually lose things now. I just wanted to reflect on what the article meant to me.

spoiledtechie 11y ago
It might be their fault, but everyone who worked on that project in software were the pioneers at the time. So they didn't have the processes or knowledge to even know to document things.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  They weren't babes in the woods - processes existed even 'way back then'. They were a government project for heaven's sake! Other departments documented every iota of information about their projects (military, aeronatics, intelligence and on and on). Its amazing NASA got away with this crap for so long. I have no idea why.
  - mturmon 11y ago
    "Its amazing NASA got away with this crap for so long." This is unfair. The popular article we're talking about is trying to dramatize a milestone, but it does not say that his retirement threatens the spacecraft. It's being managed by training someone new. When you retire after many years of service, people will make laudatory comments, say you will be hard to replace (which will be true), and then move on. Incidentally, I believe he's not fully retired, because he's still listed in the employee directory here. Maybe it's set for the current work week, which for him, ends Friday.
makomk 11y ago
It probably isn't their fault. I don't think anyone has managed to keep all the documentation for a engineering project of this size maintained and organised for such a long time. The people who understand how the documents are organised leave or forget things, the documentation on the documentation goes missing or gets outdated if it ever existed, stuff is misfiled, etc. Computers don't help - there's no computer system with a lifespan long enough, and every migration is a chance to lose or misplace items.
- meesterdude 11y ago
  It IS their fault. it's not a natural disaster, it's man-made. That said, I'm not trying to pants NASA: it's always about tradeoffs, and whats noting is that this is a tradeoff they made, and this is what happened. Nobody died, so it makes for a good learning experience.
cafard 11y ago
It it clear that the system is not now maintainable? They assigned a younger engineer to work with the man, and "impossible task" could be an exaggeration for "difficult" or could mean "never as good as the original guy", both of which are different from "he can't do it."

spoiledtechie 11y ago

It might be their fault, but everyone who worked on that project in software were the pioneers at the time. So they didn't have the processes or knowledge to even know to document things.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
They weren't babes in the woods - processes existed even 'way back then'. They were a government project for heaven's sake! Other departments documented every iota of information about their projects (military, aeronatics, intelligence and on and on). Its amazing NASA got away with this crap for so long. I have no idea why.
- mturmon 11y ago
  "Its amazing NASA got away with this crap for so long." This is unfair. The popular article we're talking about is trying to dramatize a milestone, but it does not say that his retirement threatens the spacecraft. It's being managed by training someone new. When you retire after many years of service, people will make laudatory comments, say you will be hard to replace (which will be true), and then move on. Incidentally, I believe he's not fully retired, because he's still listed in the employee directory here. Maybe it's set for the current work week, which for him, ends Friday.

makomk 11y ago

It probably isn't their fault. I don't think anyone has managed to keep all the documentation for a engineering project of this size maintained and organised for such a long time. The people who understand how the documents are organised leave or forget things, the documentation on the documentation goes missing or gets outdated if it ever existed, stuff is misfiled, etc. Computers don't help - there's no computer system with a lifespan long enough, and every migration is a chance to lose or misplace items.

meesterdude 11y ago
It IS their fault. it's not a natural disaster, it's man-made. That said, I'm not trying to pants NASA: it's always about tradeoffs, and whats noting is that this is a tradeoff they made, and this is what happened. Nobody died, so it makes for a good learning experience.

cafard 11y ago

It it clear that the system is not now maintainable? They assigned a younger engineer to work with the man, and "impossible task" could be an exaggeration for "difficult" or could mean "never as good as the original guy", both of which are different from "he can't do it."