3 ms·
Also notable as one of the few actual software-related failures in spaceflight. It's usually some other design flaw at fault, as software has relatively small c
by orbital-decay 3y ago
Also notable as one of the few actual software-related failures in spaceflight. It's usually some other design flaw at fault, as software has relatively small complexity footprint.
- rsynnott 3y agoDepends exactly how you define software, but most of the N1 failures were caused or exacerbated by bad behaviour by the control system. A few early Proton failures were also caused by control system failure, and then of course there was the Mars Climate Orbiter...
- orbital-decay 3y agoThese issues didn't have the software as some kind of cause - MCO failed due to the spec mismatch. Another example of this is Cassini failing to initialize Huygens fully before separation, and many others - these were not software issues as software was compliant with the spec. AFAIR early Proton-Ks failed due to the process issues - impossibly high cadence (typical at the time) and the lack of integration testing with Block D, and N1 3L's issue with KORD was external interference caused by fire. Edit: I stand corrected - the MCO failure report [1] says that the software behavior was against the spec. So yeah, it's a software failure indeed. [1] http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/MCO_report.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/MCO_report.pdf
- sidewndr46 3y agoThere was a Russian sigint satellite that somehow got programmed to roll 360 degrees and execute its initial burn to reach the desired orbit. Satellites are generally launched upside down. So it basically rolled over and de-orbited itself, fast. Would you consider that a software failure or not?