×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Software Bug Causes Soyuz To Land Way Off

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the in-post-soviet-russia dept.

Space 573

howhardcanitbetocrea writes "A mysterious software fault in the new guidance computer of the Soyuz TMA-1 spacecraft was the cause of the high-anxiety off-course landing over the weekend, according to NASA sources.' Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

573 comments

In Soviet Russia... (5, Funny)

TheVidiot (549995) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887382)

ahhh... it's just too obvious!

Re:In Soviet Russia... (5, Funny)

Scoria (264473) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887428)

No, it isn't. I haven't ever observed this joke. Is this intended to be humorous? In Soviet Russia, what? I'm confused. :-)

Re:In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887501)

Your a subscriber and you don't understand...tisk tisk.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Scoria (264473) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887510)

My comment was intended to be sardonic. :-)

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Quantum Jim (610382) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887579)

Well I don't intend to be sardonic. What does that saying mean? What am I missing?

Re:In Soviet Russia... (2, Informative)

Scoria (264473) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887604)

Yakov Smirnoff [yakov.com], a Russian comedian, established this joke as a portion of his routine:

"In America, you find the party. In Soviet Russia, the Party finds you."

Mysterious? (4, Insightful)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887383)

Software faults are not mysterious -- people are ignorant.

Re:Mysterious? (1, Troll)

eericson (103272) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887410)

So wait, (In response to Timbo's comment) You'll fly on a 777 or A320, trust your miltary w/ F-16s, and communicate using software guided Satellites, but you won't trust SDI because the software might be Buggy?

WTF?

If you are are going to slag someone off (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887459)

You should really ensure it is the right person. The comment looks like it belongs to the submitter, not Timothy.

slagging the right guy (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887491)

Good point Chuck.

Furthermore, since eericson's gripe is not relevant to my thread ("Mysterious?"), he/she should start another.

Re:Mysterious? (1)

feed_me_cereal (452042) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887484)

but you won't trust SDI because the software might be Buggy?

They don't have to worry, by their logic, bugs in the software for the ICBM's will cause them to land so far off course that the SDI won't have to knock em' down anyway ;-)

Re:Mysterious? (1)

k_herald (317652) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887595)

Actually I wouldn't trust the SDI because the physics community has overwhlemingly called it "impossible". Have you even tried to design a control system for something as simple as an inverted pendulum? Now extrapolate that to hitting a target about the size of a water-melon at Mach 10 several thousand miles away and several miles up into the atmosphere. All hail defense contractor pork!

Re:Mysterious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887417)

Computers just do what the stupid programmers tell them to do. How could this not be detected when they tested the software?

They aren't software bugs, they are programmer mistakes.

Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan (4, Interesting)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887458)

What we in the West call "bugs", the Japanese call "spoilage". I find this nomenclature honest and refreshing. "Bug" implies that the problem is some independent agent, when in fact the problem is the "spoiled" code itself.

Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan (4, Informative)

Enry (630) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887647)

Calling a fault a bug is historical.

First computer bug [navy.mil]. You will need to scroll down to the bottom to see the it. The rest of the page talks about Grace Hopper, who helped coin the phrase.

MUSLIMS ARE ALL EVIL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887384)

All muslims are Evil! They must be removed from Earth! Do not trust them!!

Re:MUSLIMS ARE ALL EVIL (1, Insightful)

benna (614220) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887411)

FUCK YOU!!! No I am not muslim but really thats out of line. Far worse than most trolls. I will not be a coward and post this under my name but please don't mod me down for this. Not asking to be modded up either but this guy deserved that.

Re:MUSLIMS ARE ALL EVIL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887453)

Guess the Slashdot mods think they ARE evil. Bummer for your karma, eh?

Re:MUSLIMS ARE ALL EVIL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887522)

It was worth it though. Benna

In other news.... (3, Funny)

Surak (18578) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887395)

Microsoft announced that a patch to "Windows XP for Spacecraft" will be available on Wednesday.

Re:In other news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887424)

Surak is a dork.

Re:In other news.... (3, Funny)

jrl87 (669651) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887451)

I've already got it...

I can't even lauch my rocket now ...

I press the launch button and it starts to fire up the engine but then the engine falls of and the rocket breaks apart...

Do you know when they're going to release the patch for the patch?

Re:In other news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887514)

HA HA HA HA! A joke about Microsoft stability! Classic! Where do you come up with this stuff???

Idiot.

Re:In other news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887621)

Yeah, because I know my monitor falls off my desk everytime I boot up. Oh, and my case, like, flies up, and it, like falls over and stuff come out. Yeah. This one time...

Dumbass.

Re:In other news.... (1)

Dossy (130026) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887567)

Is this the patch that fixes the mysterious "spacecraft activation code" bug?

-- Dossy

A Moderate Error :-) (5, Funny)

Scoria (264473) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887397)

Russian Engineer: Hey, were you able to find time to convert those figures to metric?
United States Engineer: Oh, yes!

Very detailed russian analysis (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887399)

This site [newscentral.da.ru] has a lot more information about the issue.

Why single out SDI? (4, Informative)

1984 (56406) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887400)

Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project.

Or any software. You might want to consider the software all the weapons systems that actually exist first, or anything in a safety-related environment. Take a look at Risks Digest [ncl.ac.uk].

Re:Why single out SDI? (3, Funny)

benna (614220) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887427)

Yes but SDI may end up actually sending a laser beam to burn your house down. A FUCKING LASER BEAM!

Re:Why single out SDI? (4, Funny)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887551)

Yeah, well, the computer chip in your car would make the engine blow up while you're driving at high speed on a crowded road. THE FUCKING ROAD!!! A traffic signal could go wrong and you could get in an accident. A FUCKING ACCIDENT!!! The guidance system on an airplane could have a glitch and you crash. A FUCKING AIRPLANE!!! The registers in the supermarket use lasers to determine your bill. FUCKING LASER BEAMS!!!

You're being FUCKING STUPID!!!

Re:Why single out SDI? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887561)

If SDI was ever engaged, I would be more worried about the pending arrival of a nuclear warhead than the possibility of a software bug causing a laser to misfire...

Re:Why single out SDI? (2, Informative)

Mr.Happy3050 (573052) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887619)

Not really to nit-pick, but the current plan for SDI does not involve "lasers." The curren plan is to fire a missle at the incoming nuclear delivery system. So instead of a laser frying your house, you have to worry about a missle. Basically, the anti-missle missle will level your house and then the nuke will level the rubble that was your house.

Re:Why single out SDI? (1)

benna (614220) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887643)

Yes but after they develop this the eventual plan is to use space based lasers.

ah, right (4, Insightful)

MattW (97290) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887404)

It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release.

That's right. Better to have never tried at all than to try and fail, I always say.

Re:ah, right (1, Insightful)

vandan (151516) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887520)

The poster was referring to the problems associated with a software bug in Baby Bush's Star Wars project. In this case, failure could mean mass extinctions.

Re:ah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887585)

um, how does potentially at most incinerating a neighborhood == mass extinctions?

Uh, yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887539)

with that kind of reasoning we'd all be sitting on trees picking bugs out of our fucking skin.

Re:ah, right (4, Interesting)

Ian Bicking (980) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887597)

The point is you can never test SDI, because you are working against an opponent that is consciously trying to work around your system. You can never predict how the attack with occur. Then you can never simulate the attack, even as you might predict it -- you can never launch empty missiles at a realistic target. Instead at best you do tests over the ocean. That's why it will always be in beta, which is not a useful status for a safeguard.

But more concerning is the fact that despite their effort they cannot pass even their minimal tests, and resort to fraud instead. We have tried, and failed. The whole thing is military graft -- money being sent down a pit to profit defense companies. They probably hope to cover up the failure of the system by avoiding any real-world test of the system, though certainly avoiding having missiles launched at the US is a good goal regardless.

Re:ah, right (1)

jrl87 (669651) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887646)

Unless your Microsoft, then you can sell it for $300-$1000 release a series of patches/updates every wednesday and when someone calls to complain you simply ask them
"Did you log onto Windows?"
If they respond yes, you tell them "Sorry, by logging onto Windows you waived all rights to tech support; it's your problem deal with it"
If they respond no, you tell them "You must log onto Windows before I can provide tech support"

Re:ah, right (1)

Chester K (145560) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887658)

That's right. Better to have never tried at all than to try and fail, I always say.

Better to not lull yourself into a false sense of security beneath your ABM blanket and make people try firing missiles at you, hoping they won't land, I always say.

space agencies make some big mistakes (2, Interesting)

rritterson (588983) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887406)

This sounds similar to the crash landing one of the mars spacecraft had when the operators forgot to convert English units to metric units.

You'd think that in such operations, where you only ever get one chance, they would have the most error free systems possible. I'm surprised they didn't feed the computer simulated data and found where it would take them.

Re:space agencies make some big mistakes (5, Insightful)

s20451 (410424) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887562)

You'd think that in such operations, where you only ever get one chance, they would have the most error free systems possible.

They do go to great lengths to remove the errors. In fact the Challenger investigation singled out the methods used for validating the shuttle's software as a model for the other parts of the program to follow in improving safety. Also, the article said that the backup system kicked in automatically and led to a safe, albeit off-target, landing. So in fact the overall system worked as expected.

And as for the "big mistakes", it's very easy to point fingers afterward and boil a problem down to a catch phrase. However, engineers aren't idiots; almost all accidents involving spacecraft are a result of a long string of seemingly innocuous miscommunications, coincidences, and bad luck. Consider the story of the Ariane 5 [around.com], which was destroyed because of an overlooked feature in a piece of code reused from a smaller rocket. No software engineer can say that they haven't made a similar mistake.

Re:space agencies make some big mistakes (2, Interesting)

smithmc (451373) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887631)


You'd think that in such operations, where you only ever get one chance, they would have the most error free systems possible.

Given the track record of the Soyuz vehicles, I'd say they're pretty damned error-free, all things considered.

Uh. Nice editorial there. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887408)

Really, is this a science story, or a political editorial?

If open source were used, would you feel any better about it, timothy?

AC TO MASSON: WHERE'S THE BEEF? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887412)

I'VE WAITED TOO LONG FOR THE 5DWM [5dwm.org]!
RELEASE THE BETA, OR ADMIT YOU NEVER HAD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
YOU == LYING SACK OF SHIT!

Lameness filer is a bitch, Lameness filer is a bitch, Lameness filer is a bitch, Lameness filer is a bitch,

Great... (5, Funny)

DCowern (182668) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887415)

Now we have frikken astronauts beating up on poor anonymous software developpers... quoth the article

There was also the real possibility of crew error, and on Sunday, the head of the corporation that builds and operates the Soyuz spacecraft, Yuriy Semyonov, suggested that "one of the Americans" had pushed the backup-mode activation button. Bowersox was the only American who had any active role in the descent (it was astronaut Donald Pettit's job to follow the checklists), and he denied touching the button -- which, he joked, was being guarded carefully by Russian cosmonaut Nikolai Budarin. "We don't think we did anything to cause that to happen," he later said to a NASA press official.

Yeah... right... if I had a nickle for every time I heard an end user say something similar to that ("I swear I didn't touch anything... it just... crashed..." or "The files just... disappeared! Gone! Disappeared! I didn't do anything!") I'd have...well...a lot of nickles...

/me mumbles bittlerly and goes back into his development hole :P

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887460)

Yeah... right... if I had a nickle for every time I heard an end user say something similar to that ("I swear I didn't touch anything... it just... crashed..." or "The files just... disappeared! Gone! Disappeared! I didn't do anything!") I'd have...well...a lot of nickles...

Apparently the concept of robust software is foreign to you. If your software can just "crash" from the user touching something, then maybe you should quit quit blaming the user and actually fix the design so they can't crash it so easily. Its moron's like you that give software a bad name.

Re:Great... (1)

PD (9577) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887584)

You know, when the user selects FILE->EXIT and clicks NO when asked if they really wanted to save the file, it's not the programmer's fault. The switch to select the ballistic descent is on the commander's flight stick, and it's protected by a little guard that you have to flip up to activate it.

How does the posit read? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887589)

Straight from /usr/share/games/fortunes/fortunes:

Shaw's Principle:
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.

SDI? (2, Funny)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887420)

"Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project"

Strategic Defence Initiative = the star wars project

What was the thinking behind clarifying that to the Slashdot crowd?

Microprocessor, main processing unit of your computer...

Re:SDI? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887492)

Tailhook, a pear-shaped virgin loser.

Revenge. It's what's for dinner! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887430)

I just got layed off about a month ago. So I decided to report my former employer to the BSA.
They're in deep shit now.
Revenge is sweet.

How did you bring SDI into this? (5, Insightful)

helix400 (558178) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887441)

Talk about your flaming articles

Its fine to discuss a bug in a new Russian guidance system...but to immediately jump into a hot political topic like the SDI star wars system and then vastly overgeneralize it with "It'll never work, because it relies on computers" shouldn't have any place in this story.

Re:How did you bring SDI into this? (1)

nexex (256614) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887542)

yea, i noticed his free pot shot...like saying i will never drive a hydrogen car because of the hindenburg. totally unrelated and contributes nothing to the story

Re:How did you bring SDI into this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887544)

You must not be very familiar with Timothy. All conservative political positions will somehow result in armageddon, apparently.

Re:How did you bring SDI into this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887563)

Trolling the users seems to be slashdot's reason for existence (substitute fancy French replacement if you wish). More trolling == more comments posted == more ads 'viewed'.

Re:How did you bring SDI into this? (1)

vandan (151516) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887570)

Oh the horror!

Someone got a story posted to Slashdot that contained anti-Bush propaganda.

You wouldn't last long at http://www.kuro5hin.org [kuro5hin.org]

Re:How did you bring SDI into this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887653)

Where the hell did you get the anti-Bush propoganda thing from? Your just as bad as the article's author pulling SDI out of thin air. Nowhere did it mention Bush, and nowhere did it hint it was an attack on him. This is just the old SDI debate thats over a decade old.

Destructive Testing (5, Funny)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887443)

"Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

Well, let's hope it stays in beta. Real world testing would be a major bummer!

Obvious but true... (3, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887448)

"...high-anxiety off-course landing..."

Any landing that you can walk away from is a good landing. Especially when you're talking about a manned re-entry vehicle.

Lest we forget, the last time an Earth-bound crew were returning from space their orbiter disintegrated and all seven astronauts were killed. Landing a couple of hundred miles off course and having to wait two hours for groundside assistance is a small price to pay for a safe return.

Re:Obvious but true... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887645)

How is this so insightful? I think the description of "high-anxiety off-course landing" was extremely accurate, and not exaggerated at all.

Blame the Americans! (0)

Jonin893 (666637) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887449)

Yuriy Semyonov, suggested that "one of the Americans" had pushed the backup-mode activation button.

Of course we blame the Americans!

At least it's good to know that it's not just my codes that seem to be faulty.

Re:Lower cost to consumer? (4, Interesting)

Badge 17 (613974) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887456)

TMA-1? (Must suppress Arthur C. Clarke-inspired giggle).

Maybe the problem was in that gigantic magnetic field wiping some data... (TMA stands for Tycho Magnetic Anomaly, aka the monolith in 2001)

I think the next spacecraft (TMA-2) should be nicknamed "big brother."

Proof life exists in outer space! (-1)

SlashdotTroll (581611) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887461)

Yes, a bug was found in their software!

Thankyou people, and I'll be here all next week too.

Yawn (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887463)

"Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project."

If it's our last line of defense.... and it is... we have no choice in the matter, do we? By the same token, I will never trust what you say. It only takes one non-sequitur to make you an idiot.

driving in winter (0, Offtopic)

jakedata (585566) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887465)

When I found myself in an uncontrollable decent down a certain snow covered hill, I activated my backup deceleration system too. I aimed for a snowbank and hit the gas.

Though my landing was rough, the passengers and craft were both salvageable. Sounds rather similar to this decent.

Landings like us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887474)

If only Chevy Chase held the wires together longer, the landing might have been on target.

My guidence counselor couldn't guide me to the bathroom if he tried.

Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... (2, Insightful)

RTMFD (69819) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887479)

By your logic I will never drive my car again. It's got so many embedded controllers and runs so much code that I could never trust it. Plus, it was written by evil capitalists and isn't under the GPL, so it obviously can't be reliable.

What total bullshit!

This can only mean.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887481)

...that NASA engineers are having a bad influence on Russian Space Agency engineers.

It was trying to get to Jupiter (1)

tuxlove (316502) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887485)

The reason it went off-course is because it was trying to reach Jupiter, obviously. Why the hell else would it be called TMA-1 [wikipedia.org]? It seems to be a couple years behind schedule. :)

I can see it now (1)

jrl87 (669651) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887494)

"Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

Hey, Bob, how come every time I try to shoot that stupid skeet there's a bright flash and it just disapears?

Informative Article about Software Bugs (1)

cars_r_us (632411) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887495)

The following http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/736/papers/ariane5rep .html provides great insight on how buggy software can screw up space vehicles. It is the result of the ARIANE 5 accident investigation. Before reading it one cannot really image what integer overflow can do!

Any landing you can walk away from... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887500)

...is a good landing

Re:Any landing you can walk away from... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887611)

What if your crew of 60 billion dies? I guess it's ok still, unless you're a fag. I'd sacrifice 60 billion people for my life in an instant.

Space men are brave creatures (3, Insightful)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887511)

You sit behind a computer and critisize other computer people. You say things like, "Oh. Programmers sent our space men hurtling toward their firey grave."

Look at the facts. Not one space man perished in this. Space men have only died in shuttle disasters, such as in 1986 and also a few months ago. Nobody died from this Russian misfortune. Every man is OK.

Don't critisize so quickly, lest YOU get the same treatment.

Re:Space men are brave creatures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887618)

Wrong, dumbass, check your facts.

SDI funds basic research too (1, Interesting)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887537)

Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release

Irrelevant. SDI, then and now, is a proven way to fund some basic research. The public is not that interested in science except to counter a perceived threat.

FWIW with your attitude we would not have the F16, F18 (?), F117, B2, and the various other aircraft with fly-by-wire control systems. The space shuttle too. Also do you think 'beta' mechanical devices are inherently safe and function properly? Again, the space shuttle, both disasters.

Re:SDI funds basic research too (0, Insightful)

Ian Bicking (980) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887656)

Military research is a waste. What good does classified research do for us? Pay for intelligent people to work on problems, the solutions to which we'll only see when it is deamed irrelevent... that's not a smart deal.

Classic! (1, Flamebait)

twitter (104583) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887538)

the button -- which, he joked, was being guarded carefully by Russian cosmonaut Nikolai Budarin. "We don't think we did anything to cause that to happen," ..."They didn't do anything," MSNBC.com was told. "[They] just let the auto system control."

Sure thing, Captian Squiming Hatchblower. "It just blew." Could be, stranger things have happened. Wouldn't you know a software bug would be blamed when something unexpected happens on a capsule manned with one trained cosmonaut and two passengers who might be able to read Russian. Let's see them reproduce the error. Given the same inputs the computer will do the same thing everytime. M$NBC believes it, it must be true!

They walked away, it was a good landing button press or not button press.

Which is why... (1, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887569)

Why lie like that? If your views on things controversial causes your knee to jerk given the slightest opportunity, why cloak your views in nonsense paranoia about software reliability? Shame? Really. Messed up Soviet era guidance is supposed to be a credible reason to not build a missile defense?

If you have a problem with military spending, western arrogance, corporate corruption, capitalism, stupid Texan presidencies or whatever, then go find an appropriate forum for it and post there. Don't mess all over Slashdot with your crap.

Thanks.

You Won't Trust SDI ? (1)

tealover (187148) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887582)

Wow. I guess you should never get out of your bed because I'm going to let you in on a little secret....

Software ain't going anywhere.

TMA-1? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887599)

Who in NASA named the craft that? That's the coolest (and geekiest) name that NASA has used yet. How come no one told me about this?

Where do I signup? (1)

aspjunkie (265714) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887620)

Where do I signup to be part of the beta test team?

Re:Where do I signup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887654)

You join the republican parta...they will be starting a nuclear (or as they would say nukyaler) war soon enough.

Phaeton Sez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887626)

(X)

We're sorry, but the Landing Module Sequence program has encountered and error, and must close. If you like, you can send a report to Microsoft about this error. No personal information will be sent along with this report. Would you like to send a report?

[Yes] [OK]

TMA? (4, Funny)

quantaman (517394) | more than 10 years ago | (#5887635)

A mysterious software fault in the new guidance computer of the Soyuz TMA-1 spacecraft was the cause of the high-anxiety off-course landing over the weekend, according to NASA sources.'

Of course it had problems! The ships AI was given conflicting instructions which told it not to tell the crew about the mysterious monolith on the moon the ISS is really put up there to observe! Just be glad neither of them had to go EVA and repair the AE-35 unit...

Phaeton also Sez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5887649)

Windows has detected the installation of a new Space Worm. You MUST restart the landing craft for the new settings to take effect.

Restart now?

[Yes] [No]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...