Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > NASA still using DOS!

NASA still using DOS!
Thread Tools
ibook_steve
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 02:46 PM
 
As tragic as the Columbia disaster was, I couldn't believe this when I read it:

Data recovered from Columbia disaster - CNN.com

A 340 MB hard drive being used in 2003 running DOS!

Makes me wonder how we'll ever get back to the moon or ever get to Mars.

Steve
Celebrating 10 years and 4000 posts on MacNN!
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:00 PM
 
C:\>_

Ohhhhhh yeahhhhhhhh
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:02 PM
 
I'd trust DOS over windows.
     
ibook_steve  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:10 PM
 
I'd trust *nix over DOS or Windows!
Celebrating 10 years and 4000 posts on MacNN!
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ibook_steve View Post
I'd trust *nix over DOS or Windows!
I'd trust OSX over *nix , DOS or Windows!
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:38 PM
 
If it's not broken, why fix it?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:42 PM
 
Did you know those early liquid crystal watches? They were as powerful as the Apollo computers.

Read it somewhere years ago.

So DOS doesn't sound too bad.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:49 PM
 
Heck, isn't an iPod more powerful than anything that ever went into space ?

-t
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Did you know those early liquid crystal watches? They were as .
I don't that is 100% correct. I read that the modern day calculators are more powerful then the Apollo computers but I never heard that the old 80's style watches were more powerful those the Apollo computers.
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
If it's not broken, why fix it?
qft

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
If it's not broken, why fix it?
I hate to find myself on the side of DOS but I agree.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 08:50 PM
 
Here's the thing:
Technology that goes into space will always be behind the times. It has to be certified for ruggedness, and hold up against higher radiation. that's why there are 486 in space, but not the latest pentium c2d.

Additionally, we're placing this stuff in a key role in billions of dollars and people's lives. NASA is going to use that which has been tested repeatedly.

Programming for NASA means peer review and hand-reading of code repeatedly, because you can't allow for bugs when it comes down to navigation of reentry, or something as silly as, I don't know, breathing.

DOS? sure. Although, you must know - in the early 80s when they were still using Apollo era computers, six macintoshes networked matched the total power of all the other machines. Additionally, the Beowulf cluster for linux? Developed by Don Becker while at Nasa. Using 16 486dx16mhz machines.
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 10:18 PM
 
You'd be surprised how many public safety organizations still run their computer aided dispatch systems on 1980's era DEC VAX servers.
     
moep
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Heck, isn't an iPod more powerful than anything that ever went into space ?
It might just be the most powerful thing that ever went into space!
Nasa: iPod Pictured Onboard Space Shuttle Endeavour
"The road to success is dotted with the most tempting parking spaces."
     
scaught
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 12:14 PM
 
an ancient operating system, DOS
which basically 90% of computers in the world still run.

I'll take DOS over windows any day. I do all my shiz in command line on windows
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 12:50 PM
 
I'm not sure 90% of the computers in the world still run DOS, but this is the ultimate example of using only the 'stable' releases. Upgrading causes problems, so critical elements stay with old systems for years. A lot of the shuttle is custom systems, so re-writing everything for an OS upgrade just doesn't make any sense.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by scaught View Post
which basically 90% of computers in the world still run.
Links, please.

-t
     
C.A.T.S. CEO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: eating kernel
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by scaught View Post
which basically 90% of computers in the world still run.

I'll take DOS over windows any day. I do all my shiz in command line on windows
NT, not DOS. Wasn't the last DOS-based OS Windows ME? (Ignoring FreeDOS when I say that.)
Signature depreciated.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO View Post
NT, not DOS. Wasn't the last DOS-based OS Windows ME? (Ignoring FreeDOS when I say that.)
I hope he didn't try to convince us of a bullsh!t statistic by including any Windows that had DOS under the hood.

It's like me claiming that 99.9% of all computers today use 512kB of RAM.

Statistically, this holds true for any computer that has RAM > 512kB, but it's still total BS because it sounds like the total opposite.

-t
     
Gator Lager
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 03:01 PM
 
here's a little reading that'll make it clear to all.
HSF - The Shuttle
yep, it's 70's technology we use on the shuttles. that's what they came with. and vmarks is correct about the 486 micro processors on the ISS. NASA tests and retests and test again and then till failure and then determines why it failed. and that's what they require to be used. meanwhile the rest of the world is using generation whatever? version of the software/hardware. that's life at NASA.

as for customization of the wiring. the only wiring that gets changed for each mission is the midbody (payload) to flight deck configuration. and sometimes that involves re-pinning connectors. different electrical and sometime cooling attach points.

I'm still working on the shuttles so I don't know what the constellation (ares and orion) is using. but I hopefully will be working on that program. hopefully.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 04:36 PM
 
There is also a radiation-hardened version of the G3, running at 166 MHz or so. AFAIK it's quite popular and used a lot in satellites and probes.

I'm not surprised that NASA uses DOS. When I was a student, many lab were using 286 for some primitive data retrieval. Very often, they contained a handwired ISA card to gather data from some instrument and DOS allowed you pretty much direct access to the hardware.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
There is also a radiation-hardened version of the G3, running at 166 MHz or so. AFAIK it's quite popular and used a lot in satellites and probes.
That's what's used in the Mars rovers.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Sherman Homan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 06:06 PM
 
Remember too, it had been used to store data from a scientific experiment on the properties of liquid xenon. So it was a data dump, not like they needed 35 different fonts in 24 bit color with alpha channels.
     
OwlBoy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 09:57 AM
 
Lots of NASA folks use Mac laptops at work though.

When it comes to the other stuff, it is what ever gets the job done.

-Owl
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 08:15 AM
 
You'd still think they would have used a Unix flavor over DOS.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
C.A.T.S. CEO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: eating kernel
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You'd still think they would have used a Unix flavor over DOS.
DOS is more simplistic, and the simpler, the smaller chance of there being bugs.
Signature depreciated.
     
fhoubi
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 09:07 AM
 
No kidding, but there is a CAMERA.EXE and AUTOEXEC.BAT in the firmware of a Canon 300D, a dslr from what, 2003?

Dpreview forum link
I'm-a trying to wonder, wonder, wonder why you, wonder, wonder why you act so.
     
Kvasir
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 01:25 PM
 
I think CNN needs to do their homework better. The shuttle computers use the same hardware as the B-52, the B-1B and the F-15. They do run a disk operating system, but it has really nothing in common with Microsoft's DOS. It uses an embedded instruction set developed by IBM and Rockwell for avionics. It is a custom, hybrid OS, made up of assembler and high level language (HAL/S) and is actually called "Flight Computer Operating System", not "DOS".

Oh, and it was developed nearly a decade before MS-DOS 1.0 was ever even released.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 01:39 PM
 
Sure, and that's what's on the flight craft.

What's on the ground?
     
Kvasir
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 02:01 PM
 
Oops, I read the CNN piece quickly - missed that it was a payload experiment package, nothing to do with the Shuttle itself.

The experiment is this one - Preliminary results from CVX-2

It sounds like the drive was just used for caching data for transmission back to earth. I'd guess DOS was used in order to keep the computer as simple, and as low power draw as possible.

P.S. They were also using basically the same equipment as the 1997 shuttle experiment, CVX-1, so the OS was very likely a hold-over from that.
( Last edited by Kvasir; May 12, 2008 at 02:20 PM. )
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Here's the thing:
Technology that goes into space will always be behind the times. It has to be certified for ruggedness, and hold up against higher radiation. that's why there are 486 in space, but not the latest pentium c2d.
If you go onto eBay you can occasionally find those CPUs. They're pretty cool. It's all gold and shiny.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
analogue SPRINKLES
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
If it's not broken, why fix it?
Talk about progress. Just because it can do it's limited little job doesn't mean it should stick to it forever.

Imagine the scientific data they could come up with with better technology.

Not to mention playing it safe didn't work out so well.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 07:41 PM
 
The reason they use DOS is because it's so old.

Software, no mater how new it is, is just riddled with junk code and and just plain corrupt crap. They have to go into space with perfect code and by now they have DOS perfected. To change now would be dangerous. I'm sure they test other stuffs. I read this somewhere.

All the crap that's happened has not happened because of computer problems but because of ice and lose tiles.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
The reason they use DOS is because it's so old.

Software, no mater how new it is, is just riddled with junk code and and just plain corrupt crap. They have to go into space with perfect code and by now they have DOS perfected. To change now would be dangerous. I'm sure they test other stuffs. I read this somewhere.

All the crap that's happened has not happened because of computer problems but because of ice and lose tiles.
AKA, Vista.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 09:00 PM
 
Clippy
"You appear to be attempting a radical re-entry vector - would you like help with that?
/Clippy

Windows for SpaceShuttles has encountered a fatal error and must exit. To reboot your orbiter, press control alt delete....
     
lexapro
Baninated
Join Date: Mar 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 05:44 PM
 
Gosh, that's concerning.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 05:49 PM
 
So is it metric DOS or imperial DOS?

Edit: damn it, zombie thread.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 05:49 PM
 
The fact that you felt the need to bump this thread? I agree.

Edit: Post-jacking motha****er
     
-Q-
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 05:52 PM
 
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 06:01 PM
 
How the HELL did this get through the "you can't post to a thread older than a year" filter?? That rule was put into place SPECIFICALLY to stop this kind of stuff.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 07:02 PM
 
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 07:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
How the HELL did this get through the "you can't post to a thread older than a year" filter?? That rule was put into place SPECIFICALLY to stop this kind of stuff.
Lounge threads zombie-lock at two years; it was a relatively quiet change many months ago. There were some seasonal or annual threads that members liked to bump but the 1-year lock was preventing that. In the Lounge I'd rather err on the side of leniency so long as the 2-year timeframe isn't abused.

edit: anyway, that's an answer to your question, and we've reopened the thread, but a three-word generic bump is generally unconvincing.
( Last edited by Cold Warrior; Mar 4, 2010 at 08:12 PM. Reason: updates)
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 09:41 PM
 
The evidence is piling up.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 09:55 PM
 
Never mind.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,