3 ms·

None of the reliability or capability issues with the Space Shuttle were software-related, as far as I know, so I'm not sure how your objection is relevant. The

None of the reliability or capability issues with the Space Shuttle were software-related, as far as I know, so I'm not sure how your objection is relevant. The Shuttle is generally regarded as having one of the most complex and quality-focused software design efforts in history. http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

cyberpanther 12y ago
You are probably correct that the Shuttle software was highly reliable and highly complex. But the real failure of the Shuttle was the cost. I think the Shuttle was originally sold to Congress as being able to do 40 missions a year. We only ever did 4 or 5 a year at most. The cost was way to high. And while the software worked flawlessly, the process to create it cost too much. Also the amount of change to the software was relatively low because of the slow bureaucratic process. So you have a high cost for not much change. The computers used in the Shuttle were extremely old towards the end, and because of Moore's law, really laughable in terms of processing powering. Towards the end NASA was using EBay to buy old hardware parts for the Shuttle program. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/us/for-parts-nasa-boldly-goes-on-ebay.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/us/for-parts-nasa-boldly-g... NASA with the Shuttle program didn't fight cost and complexity hard enough. Hence you have large groups of engineers to do tasks that can now be handled by better software. Our "Data Group" should have been removed long before the whole program shutdown but half of our department refused to change and use the new simulator. I think Elon Musk gets this with Space X and I believe Space X vehicles already operate at lower costs. Now he just has to prove his reliability and keep becoming more efficient.

cyberpanther 12y ago

You are probably correct that the Shuttle software was highly reliable and highly complex. But the real failure of the Shuttle was the cost. I think the Shuttle was originally sold to Congress as being able to do 40 missions a year. We only ever did 4 or 5 a year at most. The cost was way to high. And while the software worked flawlessly, the process to create it cost too much. Also the amount of change to the software was relatively low because of the slow bureaucratic process. So you have a high cost for not much change. The computers used in the Shuttle were extremely old towards the end, and because of Moore's law, really laughable in terms of processing powering. Towards the end NASA was using EBay to buy old hardware parts for the Shuttle program. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/us/for-parts-nasa-boldly-goes-on-ebay.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/us/for-parts-nasa-boldly-g... NASA with the Shuttle program didn't fight cost and complexity hard enough. Hence you have large groups of engineers to do tasks that can now be handled by better software. Our "Data Group" should have been removed long before the whole program shutdown but half of our department refused to change and use the new simulator. I think Elon Musk gets this with Space X and I believe Space X vehicles already operate at lower costs. Now he just has to prove his reliability and keep becoming more efficient.