Ares 1-X Is One Step Closer To Launch

NASA is finally going to prove the conspiracy theorists correct. They DO launch dummy rockets!

Isn't great to have something other than a shuttle at Complex 39.

The last time that happened was 1975.

It is really a very tall thing even though it is a bit of a prototype.

Rather launch a prototype and get out the kinks than something full up that blows up.

We forget that we had everything so locked up in the STS system that some aspects of innovation went out the window.

yeah, a lot of this is to blame on Nixon and his policy wonks.

Trying to make space seem mundane and routine turned out to stand things on its head.

I'm not convinced that Ares is the right answer, but it sure is nice to see a brand new rocket sitting on the launch pad!

I'm more excited to see something new at Complex 40, which should happen in the next few months. That something is more than just spare Shuttle parts, and it actually has the ability to reach orbit.

There's a quote in Murray's Apollo book from Caldwell Johnson "if it doesn't look right, it isn't".

It's a CORNDOG! What a perfect visual expression of NASA's top heavy top-down management interference from Griffin/Cook/Hanley/Cooke etc.

More important than the notorious funding for Apollo or the complexities of Shuttle politics were the gifted engineers & designers such as Caldwell, Faget, Von Braun, Joe Shea, etc. etc.

(And world class best software folks anywhere):
They Write the Right Stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html

Putting aside the pros and cons of Constellation. I agree with most of the other posters it is sure nice and exciting to see a new launch vehicle on the Pad.

MoonLady writes, "(And world class best software folks anywhere)".

Let's not exaggerate. The article you refer to is from Fast Company, which is a business tabloid, not a serious software engineering publication.

While it's true that NASA has processes in place that greatly decrease the incidence of bugs compared to the development practices for some other software projects, the implication in the article that NASA is somehow unique or even unusual in this is untrue. There is a huge amount of software that is developed for critical embedded applications that goes through a similarly serious process of repeated checks, reviews, and tests. Large parts of the software for aircraft, trains, automobiles, satellites, power plants, and medical devices use such development practices, and have similarly low bug rates. Any of the billions of lines of such code could kill people if it had bugs.

Contrary to popular opinion, it doesn't require "the best software folks anywhere" to create software with very low bug rates. It simply requires a management decision to spend the huge amounts of time and money it takes to do so, and software developers who are not incompetent.

LoL!

But according to various CxP posters & bloggers over the past few years, this latest study indicates that it's got an 80% chance of failure based on poor management alone:

Finding the Freedom Not to Fail
Even well-meaning workers doubt ambitious company plans will come to fruition. How to break self-defeating patterns that hinder employee execution
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca20091020_792216.htm

MoonLady writes, "But according to various CxP posters & bloggers over the past few years, this latest study indicates that it's got an 80% chance of failure based on poor management alone".

What? Are you saying you infer from this Business Week article that Constellation, Ares I, or Ares I-X has an 80% chance of failure?

Such an inference makes absolutely no sense at all to me. There's nothing in the article that by any stretch of the imagination would lead to such a conclusion.

duh (as Keith often says):

ok, let's try this again. From:

Finding the Freedom Not to Fail

"Not to be outdone, NASA reports that two-thirds of its projects are routinely over-schedule and over-budget...

We discovered five early warning signs...you can forecast with up to 85% accuracy whether...doomed...when any one of these five issues arises."

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca20091020_792216.htm

I think its great some real money has gone into building some real hardware for exploration, rather than just viewgraphs and videos.

But next time, can't you build something that doesn't look so ridiculous. I mean really, it does look like a corndog.

Imagine trying to explain to your grand kids one day why you built such a funny looking rocket. And the excuse, "because Mike Griffin told us to" won't cut it.

a certain Joseph Grenny is the author of the various cited articles.

Please keep in mind that Mr. Grenny's business is advising people how to run things.

He has a vested interest in pointing out various shortcomings of an operation as he makes money 'advising' people how to run things.

He is not an engineer nor a scientist.

He seems to be some sort of businessman, but more of a motivational speaker.

Things that run on budget are not necessarily well run nor are they always worth it.

To really be inspirational, more often than not the budget is blown and things may be a little hairy.

The Boston Big Dig was way over budget and a bit disorganized. But the result is a city that is completely reborn.

If the budget had been strictly adhered to, the project might have been abandoned.

It's an business magazine & the article is correct as written, HSF software is unique & unusual for Safety, Quality, and Reliability.

The other industries with software ya referenced are why there's tons of Software Quality rackets out there, including SEI CMM and
http://www.softwarecertifications.org/
http://www.ssq.org/
and their software that isn't anywhere near as large, complex, or integrated as HSF.

Embedded software is even worse!

There's a whole auto-debugger industry racket for embedded software that's ready to sell ya some'in some'in to help improve the high error rates (& they've got industry studies to prove the high error rates!). But of course, auto-debbuggers are limited, miss stuff, & have their own probs (similar to how spellchecker & grammarchecker routines are limited).

Example from EETimes: http://www.embedded.com/
Code complexity for embedded software makers sure has changed
...The goal for software management is to assess what types of new software quality measures are being taken to combat the increasingly prohibitive costs of software defects.

According to an IDC study on Improving Software Quality for Business Agility, the problems with software quality are caused by growing code complexity, off-shoring, outsourcing, obsolete code, recourse to open-source code, and increased multi-threading applications...--it's commonly wondered why no one has found an answer for this very old problem."
http://www.embedded.com/columns/guest/212902215?printable=true

or there's:
http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/events/icse2009/workshops/
W09 Automation of Software Test "The 2009 Workshop on the Automation of Software Test (AST 2009) focuses on bridging the gap between the theory and practice of software test automation ...to identify the problems in the theory and practice of software test automation and future improvement"

or there's:
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Getting_better_software_into_manufactured_products_1746
Getting better software into manufactured products
The problems of embedded software are rooted in the legacies of hardware development
Exhibit 1: Computers in automobiles generate revenues but are also a source of defects.
Exhibit 2: Mature platforms are more productive.

Embedded software quality is still trying to get from bad to better - haven't gotten anywhere near perfect yet.

HSF software's been doing it successfully for decades. So much so that all those astronaut cheerleaders for either CxP or commercial seem to have just taken it for granted.

They Write the Right Stuff
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html

I find strange the comments about "no matter what it is, it's nice to see something new on the Launch Pad".

Erm, Launch pad 39B at KSC isn't exactly the only launch pad in the world. In the 30+ years since the Shuttle was first rolled out, there has been a few other new rockets developed. A bit of myopism, perhaps...

And of course, it -does- matter what it is.

Moonlady,

you are not really asserting that CxP FSW is going to be a bag of junk and only shuttle FSW has the "right stuff " are you?

A number of people who worked shuttle FSW are on Orion FSW.

Its the same people who have either worked shuttle, ISS, un-manned spacecraft, or military aircraft, and commercial aircraft. A lot of it is even being worked on in the same little area that the article talks about (Clear Lake Texas).

CxP has the right stuff...

FWIW, this is the first NASA in-house vehicle to reach the pads for the Eastern Range since the Shuttle. Delta-II, Titan-IV, Atlas-V and Delta-IV are all military/commercial designs. Minotaur and Taurus are demilitarised ICBMs and Falcon-9 is pure commercial.

It will probably also be the last unless the upcoming ESAS-2 study in response to Augustine really manages to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

@moonlady

HSF software is NOT "Unique & unusual for Safety, Quality, and Reliability". It's good and it does the job but it's nothing special or extraordinary when compared to other mission critical code.

What has more at stake... the software for the shuttle or the software for commercial aircraft fly-by-wire systems? Which is more reliable? Hmmmm?