Artemis II Fault Tolerance(alearningaday.blog)
42 pointsby speckx5 hours ago8 comments
  • methodicalan hour ago
    Candidly, while I understand the need for some amount of redundancy, I'm curious what this level of redundancy adds in terms of complexity to the system of a whole and whether or not that complexity-add almost outweighs the higher redundancy. I'm sure NASA has calculated the trade off, but I'd be curious to see the thoughts behind that.

    I feel in a similar vein when learning of certain aircraft accidents over the years, where it feels like the redundancy of certain systems and the complexity it adds has been the indirect cause of accidents instead of preventing them. I suppose there's not really a way to quantify the accidents that it's prevent to be able to compare them directly.

  • _whiteCaps_2 hours ago
    I'm a big fan of Dissimilar Redundancies (but didn't know that was the term until today) for building system software.

    Build for various Linux distros, and some of the BSDs. You'll encounter weird compile errors or edge cases that will pop up. Often times I've found that these will expose undefined behaviour or incorrect assumptions that you wouldn't notice if you were building for a single platform.

  • WorkerBee284743 hours ago
    > Orion utilizes two Vehicle Management Computers, each containing two Flight Control Modules, for a total of four FCMs. But the redundancy goes even deeper: each FCM consists of a self-checking pair of processors.

    Who sits down and determines that 8 is the correct number? Why not 4? Or 2? Or 16 or 32?

    • echoangle3 hours ago
      They probably set an acceptable total loss rate for the mission and worked backwards to determine how many replicas of each system they need to achieve that while minimizing total cost/weight.

      So the answer is "some engineers sat down after talking to management".

      • y1n02 hours ago
        This is correct.
    • croisillonan hour ago
      Eight shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be eight. Nine shalt thou not count, neither count thou seven, excepting that thou then proceed to eight.
    • nine_k3 hours ago
      Given a list of estimates of failure probabilities, finding the right mix of redundancy becomes a very tractable problem, maybe even freshman-level.
      • cubefox2 hours ago
        Getting the probabilities could be very difficult though, especially for issues that never occurred before.
        • notahackeran hour ago
          The fault tolerance is mostly focused on background radiation flipping bits. We've got half a century of data on the frequency of those upsets and the extent to which they're correlated under different space conditions for that, not to mention the ability to irradiate prototypes of the flight computer with representative amounts of shielding in ground based facilities...
        • 9dev2 hours ago
          That is what you hire an army of engineers for.
        • kqr2 hours ago
          For issues that have never occurred before, probabilities are the wrong tool. The right thing to do is list all the behaviour the vehicle must never exhibit and think of ways it still might, despite all redundancies -- maybe even despite every single component working as intended.

          Lots of mission failures in history were caused by unexpected interactions between fully functional components. Probabilities of failures don't help with that.

          • SauntSolairean hour ago
            And why you test till failure (ideally under real/similar conditions): to surface the failures that have never occurred before, and start collecting data on them.
  • MiracleRabbit2 hours ago
    Interesting. In safety components we are using Lockstep Microcontrollers which are doing something similar in a much smaller scale.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockstep_(computing)

    Example: https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/spc574k72e5.pdf

    • pclmulqdq2 hours ago
      Lockstep processors were used here, as well.

      > each FCM consists of a self-checking pair of processors.

      • willis9362 hours ago
        Never take to clocks to sea. Always sail with one or three.
  • tcp_handshaker3 hours ago
    For the Airbus they used different CPUs because CPUs have bugs too...
    • echoangle3 hours ago
      Not just CPUs, they run a whole different (but also simpler) fallback program in case the main computers fail. I think they were more worried about programming errors but this should avoid all shared failures between the main computers (be it programming or hardware).
      • kqr2 hours ago
        It does not.

        Even if different teams write software in different languages, they end up creating very similar bugs because the bugs crop up in the complexities of the domain and insufficiencies of the specification.

        N-version programming doesn't work as well as you think. See Knight and Leveson (1986).

        (N-version programming does guard against "random" errors like typos or accidentally swapping parameters to a subroutine call. But so does a good test suite and a powerful compiler.)

  • ranger2072 hours ago
    > The self-checking pairs ensure that if a CPU performs an erroneous calculation due to a radiation event, the error is detected immediately and the system responds.

    How does a pair determine which of the pair did the calculation correctly?

    • AlotOfReading2 hours ago
      It doesn't have to. It raises an error that the system can detect and take action on. Usually that'll be some combination of interrupt/reset and an external pin to let the rest of the system know what's happened.
    • Ductapemaster2 hours ago
      In simple terms, this works by doing an XOR on the outputs and if they disagree, performing a fault recovery.

      There's also space systems that use 3 processors and a majority vote for the correct output, but that's different.

    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • SauntSolairean hour ago
      You just run the calculation again until both agree.
  • y1n02 hours ago
    What I would like to see is the fault data. Also a graph of the # of in sync FMCs over time and how well did it correlate with predictions.

    I other words, how over engineered is it.

  • m3kw92 hours ago
    The training the astronauts need must be a lot
    • kqr2 hours ago
      When the Apollo astronauts learned that they might need to repair the computer if it breaks they joked they might as well learn brain surgery if they end up needing that too.

      (This was when they planned on sending a modular computer with them. In the end they settled for sending up a fully assembled spare computer instead, which made replacement easier.)