Spacecraft Crashes Into Satellite 343
Juha-Matti Laurio writes "A robotic NASA spacecraft designed to rendezvous with an orbiting satellite instead crashed into its target. Unbeknownst to engineers at the time, DART's main sensor mistakenly believed it was flying away from the satellite when it was actually moving 5 feet per second toward it, investigators found."
Ah. (Score:5, Funny)
and an Obligatory Pratchett Quote:
Hex's pen was scratching across the paper.
Ponder glanced at the figures.
`
Ridcully grinned again. `You mean either the whole world has gone wrong or your machine is wrong?`
`Yes!`
`Then I'd imagine the answer is pretty easy, wouldn't you?` said Ridcully.
`Yes, it certainly is. Hex gets thoroughly tested every day` said Ponder Stibbons
`Good point, that man,` Said Ridcully.
B.
Re:Ah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Obvious answer (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ah. (Score:3, Funny)
Especially when it's an experiment that begins with the hypothesis, "That hot person of the complimentary sexual orientation over there will go out with me if I ask them."
Re:Why did the spacecraft crash into the satellite (Score:3, Funny)
Question answered! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, we answered that question. Mission accomplished!
how is this different from Progress ? (Score:2)
Re:how is this different from Progress ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Question answered! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, we answered that question. Mission accomplished!
Yes, we really HIT THE MARK with that one.
That's no crash... (Score:5, Funny)
DART (Score:3, Funny)
DART: 50 points
NASA: -110 million dollars
Re:DART (Score:2)
Let me be the first to say.... (Score:3, Funny)
No, but seriously, this is sad. It takes us farther away from what I'd like to see in a car, namely a self-steering one. I'd prefer one that detects an oncoming truck as oncoming and tries to get out of the way.
Re:Let me be the first to say.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Let me be the first to say.... (Score:2)
Not at all. I can think of a few people I'd buy one for.
Re:Let me be the first to say.... (Score:2, Funny)
i hate airbags if you couldnt tell
Further proving my theory that there is nothing in the world that somebody on Slashdot won't be against.
Re:Let me be the first to say.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oddly familiar (Score:5, Interesting)
From Challenger:
"Engineers at Morton Thiokol (manufacturer of the solid rocket boosters) knew that the temperatures were outside of the design range of the O-rings. They strongly objected to the launch, but were overruled by senior Thiokol management."
From Columbia:
"In a risk-management scenario similar to the Challenger disaster, NASA management failed to recognize the relevance of engineering concerns for safety. Two examples of this were failure to honor engineer requests for imaging to inspect possible damage, and failure to respond to engineer requests about status of astronaut inspection of the left wing."
From DART:
"Investigators also raised issues with the mission's management style, saying that lack of training and experience caused the DART design team to shun expert advice. They also found that internal checks and balances were inadequate in uncovering the mission's shortcomings."
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, you are right. It's always the manager's fault. By definition.
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:2)
I think I know what you meant, but the way you wrote that could be interpreted as, "Engineering failures which reach the light of day are also managment failures in the cover up". A better way to put it would be, "Engineering failures which aren't discovered and corrected are also managment failures.
The reason that it is important to point out this difference is because we've already seen management cover up or sweep under the car
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:2)
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:2)
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:2)
So glad I'm out of that environment.
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong, And just plain silly. Without management no work gets done, becuase there is no incentive. If everyone was just going to get their paycheck, no matter what they did, then not many would work. You can not run a company without some form of management. Can you teach school without teachers? Can you have a courtroom without
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:2)
I think that the mistakes that typically get made (and not corrected) at NASA are due to upper management and political pressure, both internal and external. To people at that level, political realities seem to take precedence over physical reality.
NASA engineers aren't stupid. They're the best of the best.
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
People who believe in meritocracies are just holding on to the idea in order to prop up their sense of self worth, and to keep from having to feel empathy for those who are less lucky. "OOhh, look at me! I got where I am through hard work. Forget that daddy got me into an Ivy league school and my chums there got me a job I don't deserve and can't do well. I did it on my own! Anyone who isn't successful is obviously a lazy git who deserves nothing."
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:2)
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:2)
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Just tell then it's the area under a curve, or the volume under a sheet. Even the most pretentious manager will be able to grasp that.
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:5, Funny)
"It's the area under a curve, or the volume under a sheet."
"So that's like where they've banked the road to keep cars from flying off as they go 'round the curve? That's what an integral is?"
"Not that kind of curve!"
"And the volume under a sheet--isn't that zero? Unless somebody's lying under it. Or two somebody's. Lemme tell you about this girl I met..."
Ignorance of engineering practices (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, on a big scary program, here's how these sorts of problems are spotted :
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
Why even bother with engineers if that is your attitude? Why bother having projects at all? Let's just funnel money directly into defense and aerospace contractors' pockets, and make it easier for them to pay off the politicians. It'll be a whole lot more efficient, and, in cases like the shuttle, won't lead to any loss of life.
I've posted this link [virtualschool.edu] elsewhere, but it bears repeating.
And WTF is a "newspaper deal"?
Re:Oddly familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you happen to read those quotes? It points out the disconnect between the engineers who design the system and build, and know what it is and isn't capable of, and the PHB management that is bowing to pressure from above in rushing things into production without adequate regard to safety or overlooking the safety objects of the engineers. Columbia and Challenger were direct results of management looking at something pointed out by engineers and blatantly ignoring the facts, under pressure to keep the shuttle running.
BTW, this isn't the 1920's, so anybody getting a "newspaper deal" is in for a rude shock when they get the check.
First application (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First application (Score:2)
That depends on the currency, most engineers around here make 6-figure salaries...
Re:First application (Score:2)
I've seen the griping that goes on, as engineers blame under-educated management for pushing sloppy product out before it's good, management thinking
Re:First application (Score:2)
Certainly not NASA engineers or any other government engineer on the GS pay scale (I know, I've been there) but outside of government, nearly all of my engineer friends are in their early thirties and are close to the six figure salary range.
I think it's just a sign of inflation. When I'm 50, I'd need to make $250,000+ to have an equivalant salary of a senior engineer who is 50 years old making $150,000 now.
ABC News is never the best choice (Score:5, Informative)
Made from original PDF available here: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/148072main_DART_mishap_ov
(I hate PDF's for simple text things like this)
--
NoFluffNews.com - Currently in development but seeking journalists and editors [nofluffnews.com]
Kennedy Space Center DART? (Score:5, Funny)
In a related story... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In a related story... (Score:2)
Re:In a related story... (Score:2)
Close, they just need to open source their code. As in this case:
--- nav.c 2005-04-20 04:20:00.000000000 -0400
+++ nav_new.c 2006-05-18 03:00:11.000000000 -0400
@@ -403,7 +403,7 @@
-if (!moving_towards_satellite) {
+if (moving_towards_satellite) {
move_away();
}
Simple logic error
whoops (Score:2)
Could this be due to? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it is fashionable to highlight the usual NASA-related budget cuts but a quote from TFA This to me sounds like an underfunded team rushing to meet deadlines. Or were they just simply unlucky/inept?
Re:Could this be due to? (Score:2)
Where's that ruler? (Score:5, Funny)
Queue the obligatory... (Score:2)
Being an ignorant Imperialist on this subject, I have to ask: are SI units in the opposite direction? I mean, when you convert from feet to meters, does it switch directions?
Or does, like, SI seconds = negative Imperial seconds?
Re:Queue the obligatory... (Score:2)
No signs changing or anything. Unless you happen to work at the magical kingdom of NASA ofcourse.
Re:Queue the obligatory... (Score:2)
From the "DART" link: (Score:2)
NASA launches a DART to target an orbiting bull's-eye.
Given the objective, I don't see the problem here. Way to go, guys!
But the worst news are... (Score:2)
investigators found [somethingawful.com] that the robotic shover space probe is heading toward earth to protect your grandmother from the Terrible Secret of Space [wikipedia.org].
Last message recieved from the robotic space probe was
" Please go stand by the stairs, so I can protect you... [kilna.com] "
mistaken beliefs of velocity (Score:3, Funny)
Same thing happened to me and the garage door when I was 14 years old backing my dad's Buick out of the driveway.
He didn't let me drive it again until I was 18.
NASA: Get rid of design by management (Score:5, Interesting)
This little episode was just another in a long line of screwups, and it won't be the last under current organizational models. Doing technical things can't be done properly unless insightful scientists and engineers are free of constraints on their insight, allowed to bypass the directional controls that management so loves, uninhibited from pointing our core problems in fear of their careers, and totally unshackled from the demands of time management.
Yes, I know that most managers would call this "anarchy", but therein lies the problem: by eliminating that alleged anarchy, you are also sacrificing the best that people can offer, just to make your life easier. Well, perhaps it's stating the blindingly obvious, but making management's life easy is not central to exploring the stars.
NASA's problem is the same one that permeates all technical industries, but in NASA's case the mishaps are just very public. I don't expect anything to change, but there is no doubting what the general problem is.
Re:NASA: Get rid of design by management (Score:2, Insightful)
NASA is clearly poorly managed, but it seems to me that the solution is good management, not no management at all. Of course, I have no idea how to actually implement good management.
Right. The Lord of the Flies system is much better (Score:2)
Right, because management by committee and fistfight works so much better. We're not talking about one-man research projects, here. We're talking about things that cost hundreds of
Re:NASA: Get rid of design by management (Score:2, Insightful)
Another example is the cowboy coder, writing without specifications or testing. For some
Let me look at the source a sec... (Score:2)
New Math Sucks! Let's Raise the Stakes! (Score:2, Troll)
We've got a history established where people taught -> new math -> students who taught -> new math -> students ->
This Island Earth (Score:2)
NASA was able to extract the satellite that was deeply embedded into the ship's hull using the M.A.N.O.S. manipulator system. The extraction appeared successful until the M.A.N.O.S. manipulators let the satellite go free. In a Bugs Bunny'esque fashion, the satellite hovered for a moment before it suddenly plummeted into the Earth's atmosphere. NASA wouldn't reveal any details about which satelli
Top Down Design? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Feynman report:
Re:Top Down Design? (Score:2)
It comes as no surprise... (Score:2)
More info... (Score:5, Interesting)
This all happened on April 15 2005. A better write-up here: http://www.space.com/news/060516_dart_mishap_updat e.html [space.com]. And here's the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DART_(spacecraft) [wikipedia.org]
The satellite it crashed into was defunct. From Wikipedia: "The goal was to develop and demonstrate an automated navigation and rendezvous capability in a NASA spacecraft. Currently, only the Russian Space Agency and JAXA have autonomous space craft navigation.".
Interesting snippet: "NASA has said the official 70-page report will not be publicly released because it contains sensitive material protected by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)".
This was planned as a "high-risk*, low-budget" mission and I'm sure they learned a lot. (* I suppose high-risk in terms of likelihood of meeting up with the target, not of collateral damage.)
Welcome to the Land of Total Incompetence (Score:2)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20605 [spaceref.com]
Some gems:
Shouldn't have named it DART (Score:2)
Next time, DUCK!!!1!
Should have found a way to use LAWN DART (Score:2, Funny)
Assembly
Without
Navigaion...
Shines so much I'm blinded... (Score:3, Interesting)
Great Progress! (Score:2)
Well, it is rocket science (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand the article says:
"Unbeknownst to engineers at the time, DART's main sensor mistakenly believed it was flying away from the satellite when it was actually moving 5 feet per second toward it, investigators found."
1. Is this just sloppy writing blaming a piece of hardware for a software problem?
2. If the sensor contained significant logic, would it have been that hard to test whether it correctly registered retreat and advancement?
3. Or an interface screwup between the main program and the sensor logic like confusing yards and meters? (And no test of the complete system?)
In any case it might well demonstrate the results when you shoot something up and see what happens without development adequate to the complexity.
When did the actual crash happen? (Score:2)
Such are the sensors in robots (Score:2)
I far too well remember spending countless of hours before realizing, that when i got too close, or too far away, the sensor would start reporting its result wrongly; it couldn't tell the difference between 2 cm, 30 cm, and 4 m. creating a function to help it realize what it had done, based on previous measurements helped, but was still a bad solution. getting extra sensors, t
A day late and a dollar short (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, I had the box checked so it would be considered for posting.
It's a curse being ahead of the curve.
crashed? (Score:2)
More like nudged.
5 (feet per second) = 3.4 miles per hour
A programming error caused it (Score:2, Informative)
In DART's case, the MIB determined that the first cause for its premature retirement occurred when the estimated and measured positions differed to such a degree that the software executed a computational "reset." By design, this reset caused DART to discard its estimated position and speed and restart those estimates using measurements from the primary GPS receiver.
Careful examination of the software code revealed that upon reset, the velocity m
Solidly Built? (Score:2)
That doesn't sound very fast to me.
I'll admit I don't know how space craft are built,
but I wouldn't think that would do terrible damage.
Or am I missing something?
Re:Solidly Built? (Score:3, Insightful)
Try driving your car into a fire hydrant at 3.4 mph and see what that does to the bumper...
Another Classic Spacecraft Operations Screw-up (Score:3, Interesting)
Quick review: Spacecraft programs contain a number of stages, e.g. design, integration and test, launch, etc. The last stage is Operations. There used to be a day when all stages were properly funded and for Operations, this meant 24/7 console staffing, dynamic simulators, on-site engineers, spacecraft design manuals and lots of legitimate training.
But here's the problem. Prior to the mid 90s, NASA and other agencies used cost plus contracting, and the big contractors settled into a mode where the initial mission budget would be exhausted by about launch minus 1 or 2 years. This is when they would run back to the government organization and ask for more money and after some hand-wringing more money was allocated. Then all of a sudden - poof it's gone. Fixed cost contracting had arrived.
The problem, the big gorilla contractors only know one way to build a spacecraft and as no one likes to change, both contractors and NASA started coming up with inventive ways to defund Operation so they come in close to budget. Buzz-words like "automation" and "lights out operations" reduced console staffing to only the day shift. On-site engineers are never hired - instead "factory" design engineers are dug up IF there is a problem. Without on-site engineering, there's no need for good spacraft docs and simulators and no one to construct legitimate practice exercises. Combine this with upper management's desire to meet schedule, the already rounded corners are shaved even more.
Once formal Operations had evaporated, launch and early orbit was solely in the hands of design engineers, who are not Operations engineers. There's a different mindset between the two. There used to be a day when operation screw ups could be avoided and design flaws caught in advance through legitimate simulation, but that's gone now. Why? NO ONE PAYS FOR IT ANYMORE!
This will please Scott Adams (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dil
Bullseye! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"That's no moon..." (Score:2)
Scientific progress goes boink??
Re:"That's no moon..." (Score:2)
It took years and hundreds of millions of dollars to replace "clunk". You don't think we can achieve Star Wars grade sound effect technology in space overnight, surely?
Re:Disband NASA (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Disband NASA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disband NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed are merely private contractors, you've not been paying attention. They are as integrated into the current system as they can be while still retaining the title of "corporation". This is part of what Eisenhower was warning us about - when the private sector controls and influences the public sector in an industry, they become intermingled in ways that do not inspire greatness. And it becomes dangerous for the autonomy of the state from private control.
NASA, while purportedly a civilian agency, is obviously tremendously influenced by not only the military but also those private contractors. It's pretty amazing that Scaled Composited was able to even get a bid in on the recent manned capsule designs - and they almost didn't. Notice that their proposal wasn't accepted, though. Whether it wasn't as good (doubtful) or whether there are other barriers to entry (probable) is up for debate.
Re:Three words: (Score:2)
Re:Disband NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disband NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
Sort of true. The real issue is that the return on investment is: A) long-term and B) not easy to monopolize. Without the Apollo program, our computers might still be room-sized behemoths. Unfortunately, corporate America is not interested in any return on investment that is going to take more than a few quarters to be realized. And if the benefits of basic research also accrue to a companies' competitors, the company is unlikely to fund the research.
Re:Disband NASA (Score:2)
Re:Disband NASA (Score:2)
Trolls should be put down or sterilized.
Does anyone else find that funny? Or do I read too much Pratchett? (as if)
Re:Disband NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disband NASA (Score:2)
They pursue one of the noblest of human endeavors ... and in my mind are pretty detached from political and corporate bullshit and burracracy (sic).
If they are so noble and high of mind, why haven't they opened up their data and research to SC and the rest of them, so they aren't "decades behind"? Vested interests you say? Military funding, I hear? Say it ain't so! And if you think that NASA is in any way detached from politics and beaurocracy, you have a whole other think coming to you...
Re:Away, towards, what's the difference? (Score:2)
Er, wait . . .
Re:Oh boy (Score:2)
Less crushed than the satellite, I'd imagine.
Seriously though, exploration is often accompanied by mistakes. The important thing is that they can analyse the problem and fix it; what I find depressing is the doubt NASA's culture is geared to that at the moment.
Re:luck? (Score:2)
Re:DART (Score:2)
If the article gets duped, then it'll be a 50-point double-bull.
Re:Oops! (Score:2)
A little groveling sure looks a lot cheaper to me than the prices you find on Travelocity.