The International Space Station will deorbit in glory. How's your legacy tech doing?
- Reference: 1661848388
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/08/30/iss_legacy_tech/
- Source link:
Bits and pieces of it keep going wrong, most recently the [1]EVA spacesuits ; Russia [2]may or [3]may not be about to bail; and it's more Red Dwarf than the Enterprise when it comes to space germs.
You thought it was difficult getting [4]a cleaner to come to your apartment in the city? From one point of view, it's worn out, super-expensive to run, and is not contributing much to space exploration any more, and is soaking up far too much of space engineers' brain time.
[5]
Does that apply to any legacy technology you're familiar with? IT legacies don't make cool videos of the [6]Earth from space or astronauts tumbling in microgravity, so they lose out heavily to the ISS on the public relations front. They won't be consuming 15 percent of a [7]$22 billion budget
[8]PDF
either.[9]
[10]
The most important difference between the ISS and your line-of-business app still working gamely away in a virtualized Windows XP (which still has [11]over 0.3 percent market share for heaven's sake) is that the ISS is a project designed to die. NASA is planning its demise in the next five to eight years
[12]PDF
.Along with the headline stuff like scientific research and technology testing – there are many [13]thousands of results that are ours to enjoy – the world also honors the work of the ISS because it benefits from the experience of long-term crewed missions. On the roadmap of space, the ISS bridges the misguided missile of the [14]Shuttle and the [15]return to the Moon and beyond.
[16]
When we next leave orbit outwards instead of inwards (the ISS will come crashing down into the Pacific Ocean, [17]apparently ), it'll be because of the legacy of the ISS.
Legacy IT could play a similarly honorable role in organizational long-term planning. It doesn't. Nobody thinks in those terms. If you're very, very lucky, the solitary nod to posterity may be some documentation that's been kept a bit up-to-date (you won't be very, very lucky).
Project lifecycles become more myth than management after the work's been done. If anyone asks at the start of a project: "What do we expect to learn by building and running this, and how do we migrate that knowledge onwards?" it's not part of tradition or general practice.
[18]
But the fact that such ideas seem more alien than [19]'Oumuamua is in part due to the chronic amnesia that afflicts corporates so desperate to reinvent that they forget biological evolution is nothing but refactored legacy.
It's also your fault, IT practitioners, and your determination to keep the science in computer science science-fiction. Take the agile methodology of [20]software development .
The idea first took rigorous shape with rules and reasoning in [21]2000 , the same year that the [22]first crew boarded the ISS .
It recognized the problems of the strictly sequential project plan, it had good results that made agile a jargon term outside software, and it fed into DevOps and the cloud. You can easily find many discussions of how well it did these things, whether its time has passed, and what strengths and weaknesses have been exposed over two decades. What you cannot find is an attempt to systematically analyze what agile has taught us about software engineering and project management, in its own terms or in the context of the total history of software.
Our skills in science and technology don't progress linearly, with each step an incremental good. Many fashionable ideas look good but are rarely mentioned in polite society after they fail to match the hype. But do we learn from these failures through a shared narrative?
Software, too, has its fashion failures: [23]Java everywhere , anyone? And the unfashionable can also rise ( [24]JavaScript , yo). But what does this mean for the future?
[25]Big Tech is building the metaverse of its own dreams. You don't want to go there
[26]Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
[27]GitLab versus The Zombie Repos: An old plot needs a new twist
[28]China's 7nm chip surprise reveals more than Beijing might like
It's not that there's any lack of discussion about every aspect of the fabric of our digital world; it's that there's no sense of coherent intellectual analysis. It's like Anglophone politics, where any tradition of intellectual analysis has been abandoned in favor of the hot take.
Even something as fascinating and profound as the co-dependent rise of open source and the internet has received less academic attention than the prehistory of ant parasitology. Yet there's no part of commerce or culture untouched by the former.
That the ISS could be built and run with a probable life of 30 years is because the science, technology, and engineering live up to their identity as disciplines. That's how a legacy of enrichment and progress happens.
That the term legacy in IT is a mark of shame and technical debt is because we've shirked the brainwork of making it a proper discipline. As we move deeper into the 21st century with all the problems that bad digital can bring, it's our responsibility to make it one of the great human endeavors. Serious intent is no crime. Fiery death from above is not an option. ®
Get our [29]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/19/iss_spacewalk_power/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/26/russia_iss_2024/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/05/roscosmos_nasa_iss/
[4] https://www.rocketstem.org/2021/02/08/iss-is-riddled-with-bacteria/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Yw3fuGe5kEkuz8Hsq1-ZUgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/14/pale_blue_dot/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/10/nasa_2022_buget/
[8] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2022_budget_summary.pdf
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yw3fuGe5kEkuz8Hsq1-ZUgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yw3fuGe5kEkuz8Hsq1-ZUgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-%20market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide
[12] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/578543main_asap_eol_plan_2010_101020.pdf
[13] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03085-8
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/12/gagarin_columbia/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/24/artemis_nasa_moon/
[16] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yw3fuGe5kEkuz8Hsq1-ZUgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[17] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/02/world/nasa-international-space-station-retire-iss-scn/index.html
[18] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/columnists&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yw3fuGe5kEkuz8Hsq1-ZUgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/11/technosignaturesaliens/
[20] https://www.theregister.com/2006/12/14/agile_software_development/
[21] https://www.planview.com/resources/guide/agile-methodologies-a-%20beginners-guide/history-of-%20agile/#:~:text=It%20all%20started%20in%20the,new%20software%20to%20%20market%20faster
[22] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/Undated/First_Crew_to_ISS_Highlights
[23] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRLU1bJSLVg&ab_channel=SunMicrosystemsInc
[24] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/22/stackoverflow_survey/
[25] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/22/metaverse_opinion_vr/
[26] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/15/nuclear_power_climate_change/
[27] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/08/gitlab_versus_the_zombie_repos/
[28] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/01/column_7nm_chips_china/
[29] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: A strange set of priorities
There is already enough money on Earth to solve these issues already. We don't need to defund space to do so.
The fact that an unlimited amount of money *still* wouldn't be enough to solve the issues on Earth caused by greed and criminals is all the more reason that we need to learn more about space. For example, last time, Bezos was up there for a couple of hours; I am hoping next time we can keep him up there for a couple of months at least!
As much as I love Concorde, it isn't the solution to the problems on Earth right now. It probably spent more years in development than in actual commercial operation. It cost too much to develop, too much to fly in and was never a commercial success that paid its way. What we do gain from projects like these though, is the developments that come out of solving the problems that arise - new materials, new designs, new methodologies, etc.
Space is an even bigger source of new ideas, new technologies, new techniques and should be encouraged. It has helped us learn about and prove the state of the planet, far more than faster holiday trips for the rich ever could.
What we don't see in IT is the adherence to standards and shared goals. It has become a competitive market that makes a few people very rich, who then go on to protect their gains instead of sharing them - both money and ideas.
What we do gain from projects like these though, is the developments that come out of solving the problems that arise - new materials, new designs, new methodologies, etc.
Maybe in theory. Hasn't quite worked out like that though, has it? That was very much the point of my original post. We have a lot of problems on Earth which - relatively speaking - should be easy for the brightest minds to solve. But that isn't happening and instead we're pumping money into exploration where the net benefits to people overall are actually quite negligible.
false comparison
Give a software engineering team $22bn and several years to build something to a concrete pinned down spec and they'll produce something that'll last for decades.
Instead they get $22, a pizza and four months to build something that has its requirements changing on a continual basis while team members keep getting reallocated onto other tasks and the components they're using need to change every week due to the discovery of defects (which are caused by someone giving a software engineering team $22, a pizza and four mont... damn. Infinite recursion.)
People have been building bridges for several millenia and they still fall down. Software engineering has been a discipline for less than a century and has transformed the world.
Could it be done better? Of course. But perfection is never the goal of those funding it. 'Good enough' is good enough, and look what we've achieved as a result.
I see what it means...
NASA too is back to 1970s designs like IT had already done. This is because real lack of true skills. The "future"? We'll think about it tomorrow....
A strange set of priorities
It still baffles me that nobody has found a replacement for Concorde yet. 30 years ago you could travel from London to Canada in about 3 hours. You can't do that now.
Yet, we seem to be spending a huge amount of time and resource on looking at the wider universe. When things in our own planet are, for want of a better phrase, fucked.
If there are such great engineering capabilities and bright minds on Earth - why has the speed at which we can move between 2 continents on our own planet decreased, why are we having such problems with renewable energy, etc etc etc?
Personally I'm in favour of doing away with this, if it frees up time and resource to work on actual real problems we have here.