3 ms·

I certainly do not begrudge the efforts that go into building the shuttle software the process they must follow to ensure their code remains at such a high leve

I certainly do not begrudge the efforts that go into building the shuttle software the process they must follow to ensure their code remains at such a high level of quality. When you have essentially an unlimited budget you can achieve a lot with competent managers, staff, and a process that is well-defined and understood and, most importantly, enforced. I don't know the details here but I'd be willing to bet that the cost of developing and maintaining their code greatly exceeds that of the vast majority of successful software efforts on a per line of code basis. It gets back to the old saying: Cheap, Fast, Better. Pick two.

binxbolling 6y ago
It's in the article: $35M per year budget ($57M in 2020 dollars).
kats 6y ago
"An analysis accomplished after the Challenger accident showed that the IBM-developed PASS software had a latent defect rate of just 0.11 errors per 1,000 lines of code—for all intents and purposes, it was considered error-free. But this remarkable achievement did not come easily or cheap. In an industry where the average line of code cost the government (at the time of the report) approximately $50 (written, documented, and tested), the Primary Avionics System Software cost NASA slightly over $1,000 per line." https://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/computer.html https://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/computer.html I should really link to this article as well: http://www.ganssle.com/tem/tem400.html#article2 http://www.ganssle.com/tem/tem400.html#article2