Space Station's LAN 172
Muad was the first, but this
story was submitted many times: CNN is reporting on the
space station's LAN .
Check out those specs- 10base2? WinNT? Win95? Outlook?
At least the stations vitals are controlled by
Thinkpads running Solaris.
10 base 2??? Who spec'd out this? (Score:1)
if you had _read_ the article you would know that.
Does this mean there will be no Quake on the ISS?
SPOF [Was: 10 base 2??? Who spec'd out this?] (Score:1)
failure ? Should they have gone using multiple
switches with spanning tree and that whole
stuff ? Nah... 10base2 is just nice, and draws
0 power. That's the REAL point !
Scientists can't use Unix? (Score:1)
Am I missing something? Luckily that no critical systems will use Windows... that would be truly scarey, but I don't think I would use WindowNT for anything... those little solaris thinkpads have more than enough power to handle 8 people's email and won't require maintainance every 2 weeks
Whatever yourself (Score:1)
narrow mindedness (Score:1)
Read the article first (Score:1)
1) these laptops are not going to be collecting data, so they can't "lose data that was important" if they crash.
2) I've never reinstalled Windows in the last few years. Reboots, sure, but not reinstalls. I install a lot of stuff too...if the astronauts are just doing word processing, the chances of really messing something up seriously aren't very good.
FIPS test (Score:1)
Who makes a 10base2 PC card? (Score:1)
NASA already does UNIX. (Score:1)
Not so dumb (Score:1)
BSOD (Score:1)
BSOD will take on a whole new meaning.
Shielded UTP is an Oxymoron (Score:1)
Hey, Keyboard Boy, Ever terminate STP. It can't be fun in a space suit. Anyway there is no such thing as Shielded Unshielded Twisted Pair.
Unix admins remotely, NT does not. (Score:1)
Sending an IT staff member on-site is going to cost a tad bit more than an airplane ticket in this case, I think. Given that, the 'cost' of learning a Unix over Windows is well worth it. Besides, it's not like we're dealing with idiots who can't program their VCRs, which is MS's target audience. These are astronauts for Crissakes. Learning Unix is nothing compared to the rest of the training they end up going through in preparation for a mission. These are guys who think nothing of going through complicated checklists just to take a leak.
Using Windows for this, even for something as simple as word processing and e-mail, is a major mistake because it cannot be fixed remotely. And why on earth (or not on earth) do they plan on making the communications link to the ground be some Windows proprietary crap too. That locks them in for purely artificial reasons. The comm link shouldn't give a rat's ass what the OS of the clients is, IMO.
You don't have all of the information (Score:1)
No, they aren't. They're using Windows. Windows and networking and minimum complexity don't belong in the same sentence.
Microgravity makes standard printers not work. (Score:1)
I doubt they will use printers of *any* kind up there. Where would they throw away the old paper? stuff on paper is a bad idea in general I would think.
pre-configuration eliminates Windows advantage (Score:1)
To summarize, a number of people have claimed that Windows is a good choice because the astronauts won't have time to muck about with the extra time it takes to get unix working. With Windows, the story goes, the astronauts can just go about their business without worrying about the OS.
Then, in response to this, others point out that Windows is horrible for administration and crashing and so on, and can't be administrated remotely very well.
In response, the Winvocate says that this is not a problem becasue, as the article points out, the laptops are being sent up preconfigured by competent personnel on the ground. If anything breaks they won't try to fix it remotely, just send up a new machine on the next run and take down the old one.
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction here? Hellloooo, Mcfly! If the ground personnel are the only ones configuring the machines, and they spend the time to get them all working perfectly before they get sent up, then this knocks the legs out from under the argument that Unix would be bad because the astronauts would waste time fiddling with it.
If all the admin happens on the ground, then Unix can be set up even better than Windows can be, and you have no reason to claim the astronauts have to set things up themselves.
Remember that there are two Solaris laptops going up too. Are *they* going to be adminstrated by the astronauts? Of course not.
If you want to conserve power, use HLT. (Score:1)
Uhm, okay. Then they can start by using an OS that makes proper use of the HLT instruction.
One word... (Score:1)
Um... (Score:1)
Had a Feeling... (Score:1)
Rediculous MS bashing (Score:1)
I hope they pack... (Score:1)
10 base 2??? Who spec'd out this? (Score:1)
Shielded 10b-2 (Score:1)
Hm.
I wonder if all the air can leak out the improperly sealed hatch quicker than the proper locking protocol can be transmitted from the gateway machine to the hatch control mechanism over 10base2.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. . .
Simpler is better! (Score:1)
NT/Win95 is probably the best choice here (Score:1)
These machines are surely not going to be shipped up there empty with a box of 95/NT CDROMs. They are going to be installed and CONFIGURED by ground personnel. Unnecessary/unstable drivers and applications are going to be removed and the systems are going to be placed in a state to ensure optimum reliability.
Even if a Win95 machine crashes, what's lost? They're only using these things for word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, and your typical office/laboratory data entry sort of stuff. Perhaps a game of solitaire. They're not using these things to adjust the space station's orientation or oxygen mixture.
I'm a Linux person, but I'm really getting kind of sick of all these stupid anti-Windows posts people are making.
Do you honestly think the people working at NASA managing and planning these things are STUPID? They're a fuckload smarter than you are and if I were you, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt every time.
narrow mindedness (Score:1)
A - Probably not, but if they did, so what? The ground crew is going to be spending hours upon hours reconfiguring it and setting it up so that it's as reliable as possible (which can be pretty reliable, especially considering the resourcefulness of NASA engineers)
B - Probably not, but even if they are, so what?
C - I doubt that. They aren't building your typical SOHO LAN here. They need to ensure the equipment is protected and will function without fail for several years in orbit around earth. Network problems and equipment failures must be avoided.
they found some guy with a lowly and super simple job that would actually talk about the project.
That lowly simple worker has ten times the brains you do and probably makes ten times what you do. NASA doesn't hire stupid or shortsighted people.
Thinkpads... good god.. why not something that is rugged and designed for scientific use?
Why design and build proprietary hardware (at ten times the cost) that can unexpectedly fail when you have commercial, high-quality, high-reliability solutions right off the shelf? Aside from the trip up there, this hardware is going to be in THE ULTIMATE of places with regards to G forces and shock. Also, the astronauts are not going to have the time or desire to re-learn an operating system or hardware tool. They use Windows on the ground and are all probably very familiar with it. Why force them to change?
as for the linux troll, yes linux could be used successfully and easily... no worries about gnome crap if you run a simple x windows or even use Metro-X. and there are several thousand linux systems still in use that are happily running 1.xx kernels and haven been updated for years.
But why force the astronauts to spend time learning to use a brand new, complex operating system? Why force them to use a different word processor, spreadsheet and e-mail program than what they've used before?
NASA engineers are not stupid.
I agree.. (Score:1)
Though there might have been reasons they couldn't have. What if the data collection software they're using was written for NT? Since mass is a big thing, they would only want to take up the bare minimum of hardware. If they absolutely need an NT server for one or two tasks, a compromise with the e-mail system seems appropriate.
There's probably a lot more to the story than what we're reading on the CNN article. Just put your faith in the fact that these guys are NASA engineers and they've probably already thought of this.
Ridiculous MS advocacy (Score:1)
These things makes remote administration somewhat difficult (including SSH to a Unix machine).
Besides, these systems are going to be pre-configured for optimal reliability by ground crew. They're not sending systems up with buggy/unstable drivers or loaded down with unnecessary and unpredicable applications. Problems like the ones you're describing are going to be nearly non-existant.
narrow mindedness (Score:1)
Chances are, these guys are already familiar with Outlook. It's not exactly difficult to use.
Did anyone ever consider the fact that maybe these astronauts WERE consultated with respect to their operating systems of choice?
If I were going to use a PC to just check e-mail and do some occasional word processing, it pains me to say it, but I think I would choose Win95 over Linux. Linux is great for the things I use it for, but really, it's a bit overkill for what the astronauts need.
overkill or under kill (Score:1)
Since they already use Windows for a great deal (most? all?) of that stuff on the ground, it only makes sense to keep the astronauts using the same systems once they're in orbit.
They may also have some other software not specifically mentioned in the article (like, say, data gathering software) that was written for NT/95.
Also (Score:1)
Rehashing of the same arguments.. (Score:1)
Everyone whines about how much the ISS costs. Do you think it's going to be cheap to rewrite NT software for Unix? Do you think it's going to be cheap to train the astronauts to use a new operating system? A new e-mail system?
NASA engineers aren't as stupid as you think (Score:1)
Just because he's not of the "use Linux for everything" mentality doesn't mean he's an idiot. He's probably got a whole staff of NASA engineers that are all approaching these problems and have decided upon the specs they have for reasons you (or I) have absolutely no knowledge of.
NT/Win95 is probably the best choice here (Score:1)
We have a "cluster" of NT workstations here serving e-mail to anywhere from 30-50 thousand users. The only time they've had to be rebooted was due to software upgrades, hardware upgrades or hardware failures. We have competant people running our NT servers. Perhaps you don't.
I'm not saying their applications are efficient in the least. I think it's considerably easier for a Unix admin to build and maintain a stable Unix server doing the same things that the NT server does.
But then again you don't know the whole story here, do you? There could be any number of reasons why they need NT up there. Everyone here is going by simply what was presented in the article. I promise you there's information we don't know.
With regards to Word/Outlook locking up the PC because of font problems, remember: The systems are going to be configured for reliability and optimal usability. They're not going to come loaded with a thousand different fonts. They're going to be working on these things, not building complicated proposals. With that in mind, it shouldn't be difficult to strip a Windows system down so that it works reliably.
narrow mindedness (Score:1)
Oh, I agree, 100%. I'm not saying these systems will be *as* stable or problem-free as their Unix counterparts. All I'm saying is that the astronauts certainly have experience configuring Windows systems (like any other moderately educated computer user), and that's what they've been using to date on the ground.
All I was saying was that there are valid reasons for NASA choosing to have the astronauts use Windows for their "personal" computers. The silly claims about them wasting hours upon hours rebooting the machines every other minute and having to reinstall Windows every few weeks are just stupid.
I will think that you MS-guys are learning too.
Hah! Nobody's ever called me an "MS-guy" before. Usually I'm arguing in Linux's/Unix's favor, but I'm afraid for this article I have to step up to Microsoft's defense, simply because the Linux bigots feel they have to come out of the woodwork with every conceivable Windows cliche. It's pathetic. If you have a reasonable, educated argument, FEEL FREE to post it. Some have. But for those that feel they just have to jump on the "Linux r00lZ! WindoZe SuX!!" bandwagon without ANY real knowledge of the circumstances of the situation need to get a life.
time in space is more expensive than per-pound costs. An hour of an astronaut's work is way more expensive than a couple of pounds. Moron.
Ahh.. I thought this was going to be one of the first "real" dialogs, but I see we've resorted to name-calling. *sigh*.. It was going so well, too.
If the single two factors we had to consider was the astronaut's time and the payload mass, I'd be tempted to agree. However, neither you nor I have even a MINIMAL idea of what tasks these astronauts are going to be doing and what exactly they'll be doing with their '95 machines and the NT server aside from what's already been discussed.
Again, these are NASA engineers. You can be brutally certain that they have considered using non-Windows operating systems to do the task, but for some mixture of reasons, they opted instead to use Windows. Why? *I* don't know. *I* didn't make the decisions. It's not me you should be calling a moron. You have absolutely NO idea what factors they're considering. Again, they're not stupid. Give them some credit.
Hell, if you're really that concerned, write NASA and see if you can get more information about their decision.
don't think any other OS has crashed in space, other than Windows, mind you. True, Ariane blew up last year for a software problem..... but, still, is anyone aware of a "software problems in space" site ?
Again, I agree that Windows is not the most stable OS choice, but again, this is not the only factor to consider. You don't have all of the information. Don't be so quick to judge.
Besides, these are NOT CRITICAL MACHINES. A crash or reboot is not going to cause the loss of millions of dollars of astronaut time. I'm not saying that it's NOT going to crash. Let's say that an astronaut's machine requires a reboot once every week (an easy goal for NASA -- my Win98 PC at home, running continuously, used nearly continuously by various people, needs to be rebooted an average of once every two weeks). That's what, a maximum of 3 minutes? 3 minutes/week is nothing. He could easily spend 30 seconds a day brushing his teeth a bit longer.
The guys at NASA are smart, but I'd bet against a nobel prize that there are better solutions than this one.
Why don't you write them and enlighten them? Say, "Hi guys, I know you've been studying this problem for months if not years, and I know you have degrees in all of these types of things, and I know I have but an inkling of knowledge regarding what you're going to be needing these machines to be doing and the environment it's all going to be working in, but really, you're all morons! You could be doing it SO much better if you used Linux!"
Please...
The reason is obvious! (Score:1)
Yes But (Score:1)
no way man. (Score:1)
--
Ever hear of electomagnetic waves? (Score:1)
Sheilding in space is VERY important. The sun gives out tremendous amounts of electromagnetic energy.. as well as x-rays and other forms of radiation. An unshielded system would simply NOT work because of an extremely large amount of data error caused by these fields/rays.
On earth we don;t have this problem because the earths magnetic field and atmosphere protect us from this. You won't have that in space.
-Ex-Nt-User
Hard Drives in Space (Score:1)
Nope Hard Drives are filled with just regular air. It's very low particle..clean room level air.. but it's not some inert gas or something like that. (I know I work at a HD company)
As far as takeoff.. there will be no problem as long as the drives are not spoinning at the moment. A lached drive is capable of withstanding upwards of 100G forces.
-Ex-Nt-User
power consumption and weight (Score:1)
That's kind of important when you're running everything off large solar cells and batteries.
Not to mention a 10base2 LAN will require less cable than a 10baseT LAN, as well as a hub. This saves a few ounces of weight...
This is important when you are flying around 250 miles above the planet.
Get a Clue People (Score:1)
What it means is that NASA is actually breaking away from the mystique of custom, over-priced solutions. Which greatly increasess our chances of living on the moon in our old age.
Does Windows suck -- YES. Does it matter? I mean, we're talking about email here. With any luck, we'll have another USS Yorktown style incident.
I have to admit though that the 10Base-2 is a bit harder to swallow.
can anyone confirm what they win95/nt s/w for (Score:1)
I've had a look at a lot of the sw at nasa and most of it's number crunching for calcualting position etc...
Air pressure, no problem... no gravity, read on... (Score:1)
all the time.
Despite what some
which you can verify by spinning-up your hard-drive in various orientations (but not while
it's spinning, angular momentum can do bad things).
No gravity, small problem, but not for the reason you might think. The biggest problem with any
electronic or mechanical system in space is heat dissipation. On earth, hot air rises, causing
the hot air to move away from the heat source (convection). In zero G, heat doesn't rise so
you have to have fans or heat pipes.
Hard-drives probably go through many more thermal recalibration cycles in space, but this is minor.
Ironically enough (Score:1)
But hardcore microgamers play reversi (othello) anyways.
2001: A Space EULA (Score:1)
This could give rise to a new phenomenon: Windows re-entry day.
Yeah, Right. TIME is the big issue, in space. (Score:1)
You may not notice the difference in the software you run, but with multitrack digital audio, system degradation is very apparent. It demands real time, stable performance. Windows can do that for a while, but the registry seems to get "crusty." The best version of Windows isn't even available unless you bought a new computer between 8/96 and 5/98. Win95B was the only one worth spitting on. Go try and buy it. (This excludes NT, which is a whole other set of pros and cons... not a huge leap forward, IMHO.)
Also, buggy apps should be irrelavent to the OS. If the app crashes, restart it. But it shouldn't take the system down with it, increasing the chances that the registry will get corrupted. That's not something I want astronauts I'm paying to worry about.
On the other hand, I don't want them spending the time learning new apps, either. I'll take a guess that this is why NASA chose MS. Hmm, I think the article said something like that, huh?
Yeah, Right. TIME is the big issue, in space. (Score:1)
Further, since Microsoft itself has admitted their OS's crash far more frequently than Solaris or Linux, it seems pretty silly to claim otherwise.
I've been involved with a highly competent Windows (3.x, 9x, etc.) support department (configuration, installation, etc.) for over three years at a good-sized university. My experience evidently diverges from yours strongly when it comes to OS stability.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
What about the printer? (Score:1)
Open source OCA now! (Score:1)
We need an open-source OCA project!
Slashdot (Score:1)
I guess they won't be reading Slashdot.
On the bright side, at least the NASA people aren't using WinXX for any of the "real" work up there. But I'd hate to see them lose any important scientific data to a crashed computer.
I do it all the time... (Score:1)
Remote manageability would have been nice. (Score:1)
A Windows network can be a real bear to maintain remotely in situations where you don't have a WAN or realtime dialup access to fall back on. NASA is not staffed by Unix-phobic fools, though, so I have to cling to the hope that they've got redundant Tivoli or BackOffice servers in place, an ability to do network boot and a total wipe of the client machines, and the ability to wipe and rebuild the servers from scratch and then do data-only recovery from tape.
Mission critical stuff not on MS OSs. (Score:1)
Using unix does not require a sys admin on the space station as unix machines can be administered remotely ( and I would imagine that they manage the Solaris machines they have up there in this manner .... )
I don'tknow how you substantiate your claims of "equal performance and stability". ROFL. I guess you are just trolling.
Cheers,
-- Elflord
Whatever (Score:1)
If someone needs to use a word processor, Word is as good (or crappy) as any. No, AbiWord, Klyx or any of the other lame-o linux toys probably weren't on the list. People in orbit can't be bothered to obsess over the openness of the QT libraries, GNOME support, or any of the other minutae that linux nerds give themselves migraines over.
10 base 2??? Who spec'd out this? (Score:1)
YEAH!! LINUX R000LZ MAN! WP R000LZ! (Score:1)
Idiots in Space, part I (Score:1)
"intuitive enough so any competant person can administer the network in their spare time"
My 8 year old can admin a 5 person network remotly from school during lunch. And yet again, classic mistake number 1: When dealing with a network, a UI doesnt make your job easier. Most of the time it makes it worst, by standing between you and the job at hand. Or worst, it makes a incompetent think he/she knows what he/she is doing...
On the other hand, I thought the people going to the station would be highly trained scientists and technicians. Usually these people learned to use Unix when they got the tape from ATT for their PDP-11.
As for UI, if you think Unix has no UI, your case is lost and closed. Go play solitaire.
I wish I was dead (Score:1)
All mine and others effort, flushed down the toilet with little to show in its place.
I guess going back to school was the right decision after all, I just wouldnt have been able to take this had I stayed.
Important Scientific Data (Score:1)
hmm, this reminds me of something... (Score:1)
Who makes a 10base2 PC card? (Score:1)
Beatles return? (Score:1)
narrow mindedness (Score:1)
Nope. Salaries there suck. I can go there (have an offer), or I can find a job in industry in BA. Guess what I will do. Will not even think about that stupid goverment job.
NASA engineers are not stupid.
Indeed, but they are very conservative, and suffer a LOT from politically motivated managers. Goverment science is an horror show. Seen enough of it. Sheesh.
narrow mindedness (Score:1)
You will be surprised, how many design and especially mission concept decision were dictated for political reasons. Of course we make sure that it does work. But usually there are other, and usually better, ways of doing things. NASA leadership is very politically motivated. They want cost reduction - grab off the shelf component - who cares that a specialized solution can be more reliable, and actually cheaper to maintain. They still to not count salaries of support pesonnel into the cost of the project - at least in our project (I am outside NASA, but do work on a project for them). I is really frustrating the way burocracy there work. This is the reason I refused to consider employment there, though the people are good indeed. Though the salaries are not high at all. Well, in comparison.
10 base 2??? Who spec'd out this? A Moron It Seems (Score:1)
Yeah, Right. TIME is the big issue, in space. (Score:1)
Don't give me that crap - and keep counting how many times thay'll have to reinstall and (huh, huh) configure Windows crazy networking - you WILL need a sysadmin in space, after all.
I bet a pizza that within five years of operation they'll switch the stuff to linux or solaris - the only things that got windows in space were the applications, not the OS. Remember that.
(I'd rather run Wine - sheesh).
10b2 draws zero power. It does NOT draw 0 time. that is going to be the real problem. And Yes, I would tell those guys at NASA what to do as much as to any other average joe who needs advice.
This is going to be fun. Not for the poor soul on Eart who has to administer it, though.
narrow mindedness (Score:1)
Hey - lets look at the bright side! (Score:1)
It could _really_ spare a lot of people some serious headache and make life easier for power users. So... Should we ask NASA for the howto or... is someone up to the task ? Don't tell me "remove unstable *stuff* and it will work". too easy! Give us the procedures ! Do you think we don't want a stable windows installation just to be able to flame M$ ? Hey, most of us use windows anyways. So.. take it up the linux way! Show us what Windows can do. Or do we need to ask the NASA guys for this ?
Hey - never thought this morning I would spark such a flame !
(cool - I never replied to myself, before!)
Wait a darn minute!!!! (Score:1)
I will bet a nice shiny new quarter that Unix is doing the important stuff on the station.
Back Orifice the station maybe (Score:1)
Separate two thinkpads to run the station (with slowarez)...
Did anybody think about this. Isn't this a nice opinion about M$ capability for use in mission critical environment.
Once again note it is not even let close to the mission.
And a second note - it is very interesting that the austronauts are not considered smart enough to use solaris for mail...
Doesn't this cause thoughts...
A remark both ignorant and stupid... (Score:1)
2. You did not read the whole article. Please note that UNIX is what is used for the mission. Windows is for toys...
Rediculous MS bashing (Score:1)
But the crew might not (Score:1)
Cassius your whole argument boils down to the assumption that for the stations crew of _scientists_ that using unix is somehow a "change". Now no one here really knows what the crew of a space station was "brought up on", but seing as they will all be educated scientists, it would not come as a surprise to me if they are already used to working in a unix environment.
I also happen to agree with the posters that mention the decision to use Windoze is more politically motivated than technically or logistically motivated. I worked for NASA for a time and I know how science and politics mixes there.
Outlook!?! (Score:1)
Rediculous MS bashing (Score:1)
Who gives a rat's ass about 10Base2 being shielded (Score:1)
I'd love to see how much trouble they have when they need a patch right now from their precious COTS sources. If I had to operate the thing, I would be screaming GIVE ME THE CODE - GIVE ME THE SPECS - NOW!
Why is it we always end up with dinosaur brains designing "The Next Generation" platforms?
Shielded 10b-2 sucks (Score:1)
ack.. I have to support M$ here (Score:1)
NT running airlocks? (Score:1)
RANGELAN/2.. bad idea! (Score:1)
Jim
semi-offline mode??? (Score:1)
FIPS test (Score:1)
Doesn't it mean that goverment controled computers cant run Windows?
NASA is govermental, no?
Anyway - I can still imagine the movie:
"Apollo 13 part 2: BSoD":
They get GPF when trying to use both the oxygen and temperature control software at the same time.
They try to escape but the spaceship wont boot!
Too bad they didnt keep these rescue floppies, huh?
Send an idiot to space program. (Score:1)
They're really stupid, right?
They're the ones who failed school.
They couldn't even get jobs at Burger King
So they became astronauts.
That makes sense.
And ofcourse,
Whats better than Windows for idiots?
I guess a mac.
I guess it doesnt matter the stability of these computers,
After all its just life support control and Millions of $$$ worth of research.
Nobody needs oxygen ALL THE TIME.
So go on astros, play solitaire.
I guess that's a better thing to do than "learn how to use UNIX"
Send an idiot to space program. (Score:1)
They're really stupid, right?
They're the ones who failed school.
They couldn't even get jobs at Burger King,
So they became astronauts.
That makes sense.
And ofcourse,
Whats better than Windows for idiots?
(A Mac?)
I guess it doesnt matter the stability of these computers,
After all its just life support control and Millions of $$$ worth of research.
Nobody needs oxygen ALL THE TIME.
So go on astros, play solitaire.
I guess that's a better thing to do than "learn how to use UNIX"
NASA engineers aren't as stupid as you think (Score:1)
Astronauts aren;t briliant computer users, they may now nothing at all about computers
With Fiber and 10baseT you have to run a seperate line to where ever for a hub
If you have trouble with these specs, build your own space station.
Whatever (Score:1)
Yeah, the only reason to use Windows. (Score:1)
Back Orifice on the Laptop :) (Score:1)
Pool (Score:1)
But the crew might not (Score:1)
Thats why they have ground engineers... (Score:1)