On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:56:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> NASA?
> 
> Aren't they those guys who tried to launch a rocket with a faulty
> O-ring?

Um, yeah, and it blew up, killing all crew on board. :-(

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:26:23 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> NASA?
>> 
>>> Aren't they those guys who tried to launch a rocket with a faulty
>>> O-ring?
>> 
>>   Take two programs of comparable size made in Microsoft and in NASA,
>> and compare the total amount of bugs found during testing. The former
>> will have in the order of thousands, while the latter will have
>> something like 10.
>> 
>>   And the latter while never exceeding budgets nor deadlines.
> 
> A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a severe
> security vulnerability.

NO, it isn't.  People haven't died because of MS security vulnerabilities.

> So far, NASA has had, what, 2 major incidents like this? In its entire
> history?

Three that caused fatalities.  The first was a fire in a Mercury 7 
capsule during a test - pure oxygen atmosphere + spark = fire.  All three 
crew members were killed.  The most recent two were the Challenger and 
the Columbia - the first exploded about 23 seconds into the launch, the 
second burned up on re-entry.

Now, if you count the rockets that were unmanned that blew up, there were 
a fairly significant number of very spectacular failures.  Find a copy of 
"When We Left Earth:  The NASA Missions" to see some archive footage.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a severe
>> security vulnerability.
> 
> NO, it isn't.  People haven't died because of MS security vulnerabilities.

Yes, but that's because nothing M$ makes is *capable* of killing anybody 
[directly]. So a security flaw is about the most serious malfunction it 
*is* capable of. :-P

>> So far, NASA has had, what, 2 major incidents like this? In its entire
>> history?
> 
> Three that caused fatalities.

I was almost right. :-D

Either way, the number of severe security issues from M$ dwarfs this 
number by any reasonably reconing.

> Now, if you count the rockets that were unmanned that blew up, there were 
> a fairly significant number of very spectacular failures.  Find a copy of 
> "When We Left Earth:  The NASA Missions" to see some archive footage.

Isn't that like counting the number of bugs M$ had *and fixed* before 
"launching the product"?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Well, at last I have a reply!

They said I can keep the mug, and they'll send me the thing I actually 
ordered shortly. Seems reasonable to me... (Assuming they get it right 
this time. I imagine they will.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Space is a pretty harsh environment, so there's a whole array of 
> possible malfunctions that could end a mission - broken motors or 
> sensors, compromised computer hardware, corrupted RAM portions, or 
> conceivably simple programmer error. The last one would seem one of the 
> easiest classes of fault to prevent, but sure, one might have slipped 
> though somewhere...

  The good thing about software bugs is that if they are caught before
problems happen, they can be fixed even if the probe is half-way through
the solar system from here. Hardware problems can't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:05:41 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a
>>> severe security vulnerability.
>> 
>> NO, it isn't.  People haven't died because of MS security
>> vulnerabilities.
> 
> Yes, but that's because nothing M$ makes is *capable* of killing anybody
> [directly]. So a security flaw is about the most serious malfunction it
> *is* capable of. :-P

That is the most serious malfuction, probably, but equating that with the 
loss of life doesn't work for me.

>>> So far, NASA has had, what, 2 major incidents like this? In its entire
>>> history?
>> 
>> Three that caused fatalities.
> 
> I was almost right. :-D
> 
> Either way, the number of severe security issues from M$ dwarfs this
> number by any reasonably reconing.
> 
>> Now, if you count the rockets that were unmanned that blew up, there
>> were a fairly significant number of very spectacular failures.  Find a
>> copy of "When We Left Earth:  The NASA Missions" to see some archive
>> footage.
> 
> Isn't that like counting the number of bugs M$ had *and fixed* before
> "launching the product"?

Um, no, because they happened during launches.  They just happened to be 
unmanned launches.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Some, but definitely not all. Many places a small fix-up may not need a 
> day's worth of meetings, but with the shuttle, not a single line of code 
> can be changed.

The same happens for code for cars, but IIRC only after the first version 
has been released and tested during development.  After that point there is 
a huge amount of resource put onto testing and evaluation, and after it has 
been "qualified", no changes are allowed without a big meeting and 
discussion for even tiny changes.

> Ah, I figured the avionics linkages would be hydraulic, not computer 
> controlled.

No, too risky to have lots of hydraulic lines going all round the plane, 
also harder to detect when they've (partially) failed and automatically 
switch to a backup system etc.

It's funny, because a lot of the time people regard electronics as much more 
unreliable than mechanical systems.  It's just the failure mechanisms are 
different, but certainly electronics can be made just as reliable as 
mechanical systems, and even more reliable if necessary.  Take for example 
when cars changed from a mechanical distributor to an electronic system ... 
no more getting out the WD40 to dry it out after heavy rain!

>> about to switch it on, and then as he flicked the switch, the mass moved 
>> extremely quickly to point B, past point B, kept accelerating and smashed 
>> off the end of the demo. Everybody laughed.
>
> Heh. Ouch...

Yeh IIRC, his comment was something like "ok, well that didn't seem to work 
then", at which point someone shouted out "no s4!t" :-)

The other system they seemed to be very fond of was the inverted pendulum 
controller.  The pivot of the pendulum can be moved left and right by a 
motor/pulley system, and the idea is to keep the pendulum's tip upright. 
After a hideous amount of maths you finally get to implement it on a real 
system and watch how some people's go totally ape and smash against the end, 
while most people got theirs working eventually.  In the end it is really 
cool to be able to add weights and stuff to the top and wobble it, all the 
while the motor is making tiny adjustments to stop it falling over.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:02:36 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:20:31 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Also when the Romans were in power Greece was subjective to them and I  
>>> would think that they would talk about Jupiter or Jove rather than  
>>> Zeus to Romans out of respect.
>>
>> I wasn't sure that was the case. My ancient history isn't too good. :-)
>
> I guessed :-)

Saying that though the Romans (and others) were quite happy with the idea  
of localised deities. They might know that Zeus and Jove were the same  
god, but in a Greek temple they'd most likely use the name by which he was  
known there.

When in Rome...

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
> Either way, the number of severe security issues from M$ dwarfs this 
> number by any reasonably reconing.

Lets be fair. The security issues are only security issues because of 
the ubiquity of the product. I'm sure other vendors' products have a 
good number of security problems, but they aren't exploited because no 
one cares to exploit it.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Lets be fair. The security issues are only security issues because of 
> the ubiquity of the product. I'm sure other vendors' products have a 
> good number of security problems, but they aren't exploited because no 
> one cares to exploit it.

I doubt that M$ is the *only* vendor that produces insecure software. 
However, I reject the claim that *all* software is equally faulty. This 
is simply not the case. There are products that work far better than 
anything M$ has produced so far.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message