Live data from Hacker News

Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft

scientificamerican.com

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft

#23
post #21
post #19

someone committed Harakiri, I guarantee it

Trigger warning: There is text below this text. Heh, I laughed. Interesting to see where HN draws the line on 'offensive'

Nobody likes the truth, especially not when presented with some humor.

Re: Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft

#24

It seems very strange that the 3 missions that would deploy an X-ray calorimeter have all failed. I feel sad for the scientists who have been hoping to get a working one into space for what sounds like over 16 years now (based on the article).

Are you asking yourself whether theses losses were by chance or by conspiracy to fail?

Re: Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft

#25

It seems very strange that the 3 missions that would deploy an X-ray calorimeter have all failed. I feel sad for the scientists who have been hoping to get a working one into space for what sounds like over 16 years now (based on the article).

Are you asking yourself whether theses losses were by chance or by conspiracy to fail?

I don't know the expected success rate for these missions, it just seemed odd that each time this particular instrument has been launched, an issue occurred to render it unusable. Maybe it is par for the course, but it does raise suspicions (at least in my mind).

Re: Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft

#27
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I have absolutely no insight into the software development practices of JAXA and their subcontractors, so I apologize if this is insensitive or uniformed.) Is this another sign of how bad japanese hardware -oriented companies and organizations are at doing software? Like the organisational software crisis at Toyota? Or was it a fluke?

I hate to feel that way; but yeah most software I see come out of Japan scares me. Outside of legally-critical software, such as automotive control systems: it doesn't seem that there is much focus on quality. I suspect it has to do with the scale of integrators in the country being much smaller, and lacking in terms of B2B collaboration. There are some jewels here and there, though. It's probably just a matter of cu…

Outside of legally-critical software, such as automotive control systems: it doesn't seem that there is much focus on quality.

The analysis of Toyoda's software that might have been behind the claimed acceleration/can't stop the engine problems indicates that even there, at least Toyota is all but hopeless.

Re: Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft

#28
post #13

I'm surprised that they had to design custom inertial stabilization, considering how many times it's been done successfully before. Was it NIH mentality? Or did it have some requirement for more precise stabilization than other space telescopes?

At a guess, I'd say that most satellites have different requirements due to the way their weight is distributed and where the inertial stabilization is done.

As far as I understand it, Satellite design is all about cramming the most amount of features in as small and light a package as possible. That would mean a lot of tight coupling and a hard time standardizing anything across different types of satellites.

Re: Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking yourself whether theses losses were by chance or by conspiracy to fail?

I don't know the expected success rate for these missions, it just seemed odd that each time this particular instrument has been launched, an issue occurred to render it unusable. Maybe it is par for the course, but it does raise suspicions (at least in my mind).

Maybe it's something like the Martian-Anti-Lander-Defense System?

Re: Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft

#30
post #13

I'm surprised that they had to design custom inertial stabilization, considering how many times it's been done successfully before. Was it NIH mentality? Or did it have some requirement for more precise stabilization than other space telescopes?

At a guess, I'd say that most satellites have different requirements due to the way their weight is distributed and where the inertial stabilization is done. As far as I understand it, Satellite design is all about cramming the most amount of features in as small and light a package as possible. That would mean a lot of tight coupling and a hard time standardizing anything across different types of satellites.

While that's true for science payloads, when it comes to commercial satellites, there are a handful of 'busses' that form the core of the vast majority of satellites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_bus

Post reply on HN