Url changed from https://twitter.com/NASAHubble/status/1056189182274625537, which points to this.
Hubble is back
11–20 of 128 posts
Re: Hubble is back
#12Amazing. HN community disagrees on almost all topics, except something like this. Best news in the past few weeks. Kudos NASA.
Re: Hubble is back
#13“Last week the operations team commanded Hubble to perform numerous maneuvers, or turns, and switched the gyro between different operational modes, which successfully cleared what was believed to be blockage between components inside the gyro” And here I am on Earth, barely capable of debugging JavaScript code.
> And here I am on Earth, barely capable of debugging JavaScript code. If as much education was required of software engineers as it is from people who work on the Hubble telescope then you wouldn't have any troubles debugging JavaScript.
I would be willing to bet that there are many engineers on the Hubble project that have and struggled debugging java script themselves.
Re: Hubble is back
#14“Last week the operations team commanded Hubble to perform numerous maneuvers, or turns, and switched the gyro between different operational modes, which successfully cleared what was believed to be blockage between components inside the gyro” And here I am on Earth, barely capable of debugging JavaScript code.
It's also fun to compare programming to surgery, where they work for hours straight with no backup on a production system that is actively trying to die.
The universe is transactional.
Re: Hubble is back
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And here I am on Earth, barely capable of debugging JavaScript code. If as much education was required of software engineers as it is from people who work on the Hubble telescope then you wouldn't have any troubles debugging JavaScript.
If JavaScript was specified to the same degree as the Hubble telescope then the OP wouldn't have had a problem. Blaming gdubs's education is a bit problematic.
The ECMAScript spec is actually quite thorough and freely available to read online. In addition, it has a very large suite of tests to check for compliance.
I don't think there's any other language with as many independent production-quality implementations.
In what way do you think it could be better specified?
Re: Hubble is back
#16I will never cease to be impressed by the sheer skill and quality of design at NASA, that allows them to keep missions like Hubble or Opportunity operating far beyond their planned lifetimes.
Re: Hubble is back
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
If JavaScript was specified to the same degree as the Hubble telescope then the OP wouldn't have had a problem. Blaming gdubs's education is a bit problematic.
The ECMAScript spec is actually quite thorough and freely available to read online. In addition, it has a very large suite of tests to check for compliance. I don't think there's any other language with as many independent production-quality implementations. In what way do you think it could be better specified?
Anywhere the spec says "implementation-dependent" or "behavior is undefined" could be fully specified. Some might say its impractical, but given the effort folks but into the hardware and software of a NASA project, you can really see the difference.
Re: Hubble is back
#18Reading about the specs and the planned degradation of the gyros is a very interesting exercise in planned reduction of a service.
They know the gyros will eventually give out and they have contingency plans around what kinds of science they can continue to do even when they're down to 1 gyro.
Very impressive. I'm always discouraged hearing people say NASA is wasting money and science and that's just not true IMHO.
Re: Hubble is back
#19Re: Hubble is back
#20“Last week the operations team commanded Hubble to perform numerous maneuvers, or turns, and switched the gyro between different operational modes, which successfully cleared what was believed to be blockage between components inside the gyro” And here I am on Earth, barely capable of debugging JavaScript code.
It's also fun to compare programming to surgery, where they work for hours straight with no backup on a production system that is actively trying to die.
It has always amazed how hard it must be to debug an issue in a human being, you need to check A, B, and C, but if you check C your human will be scared since it could indicate your human has cancer, if you check B it will be expensive since it involves a lot of studies, you can also check with A giving some medicament but it also is expensive and maybe other people needed more. So you end up testing all three, but none gave you any feedback, the issue must be somewhere else, those tests took months and it doesn’t help you had been testing hundreds of other humans and for each case you must understand the whole context, so you have to start again, meanwhile your human starts to think you are not capable since you haven’t fixed his problem so he starts looking for a “second opinion”.