SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Robert Love]

Let me quote from the December 19th "Space News" article entitled 
Pentagon Scales Back SBIRS Program.  For those who don't know, SBIRS is 
a multi satellite program to detect missile launches via infra red 
sensors.  It is way behind and billions over budget, mostly due to the 
sensor and bad initial design.

Air Force Sectretary Michael Wynne is quoted as saying:

    One of the biggest problems with SBIRS lies with its opearting 
software, which is based on a programming langauge called Ada that was 
developed in the 1970's, Wynne said.

   "Ada is a program that is not popular any longer," Wynne said.  "It 
is a software design that was literally invented around the time DOS was 
invented.  DOS is no longer even being talked about nor should Ada be, 
but we still have Ada-based programmers trying to do it."


   The Air Force hopes to use a more modern language like C+ (yes, they 
used a single +) for SBIRS follow-on system, Air Force Undersecretary 
Ronald Sega told reporters in a Dec. 15 briefing at the Pentagon.


Lord, there is so much wrong here.  Where to start.  Is it even worth it 
to try and educate the Air Force?  I suppose I'll try and write one of 
these bozos once I calm down but I would say this is a huge slam against 
our favorite language.

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Björn Persson]

Michael Wynne must have been misquoted. He clearly didn't talk about Ada 
but about that obscure language called ADA that we sometimes hear about. ;-)

-- 
Bjï¿œrn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Robert Love wrote:

> Lord, there is so much wrong here.  Where to start.  Is it even worth it 
> to try and educate the Air Force?  I suppose I'll try and write one of 
> these bozos once I calm down but I would say this is a huge slam against 
> our favorite language.

If we all knew how to contact these bozos, we could all write them. That might 
be more impressive than just a message from you.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Go and boil your bottoms."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
01

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Robert Love]

In <hyCqf.5074$mj1.1275@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> Jeffrey R. 
Carter wrote:
> Robert Love wrote:
> 
>> Lord, there is so much wrong here.  Where to start.  Is it even worth 
>> it  to try and educate the Air Force?  I suppose I'll try and write 
>> one of  these bozos once I calm down but I would say this is a huge 
>> slam against  our favorite language.
> 
> If we all knew how to contact these bozos, we could all write them. 
> That might  be more impressive than just a message from you.

And I'm just a bozo to the Air Force brass.  I wonder if we have a 
senior statesman who could get their attention.  Richard Rheile?  Tucker 
Taft?   Damn, do any Congressional Medal of Honor winners program in Ada?

I did write a sincere, polite letter (postal, not e-mail) to the 
Secretary but I don't expect it will get past his layer of filters.  I 
tried to refute his points and stressed the need for good design and 
software development processe.  I concluded that he should have the AF 
Academy software experts or other independent group investigate the real 
reason why the software was a failure.

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[tmoran]

>Let me quote from the December 19th "Space News" article entitled
>...
>is a software design that was literally invented around the time DOS was
>invented.  DOS is no longer even being talked about nor should Ada be,
>...
>  The Air Force hopes to use a more modern language like C+ (yes, they
  Of course "The C Programming Language" was published 5 years before the
Ada 83 RM, and Ada 95, like C++, is about 10 years old.  Perhaps for this
real-time, satellite based anti-missile system he means Microsoft's .NET
language, C#.  Does "Space News" print letters to the editor with factual
corrections?  Pointing out the ignorance of someone in authority is always
amusing.
  But could it possibly be that this fellow just wants to give a new
contract to some big contributor, er, company to postpone the demise of
SBIRS till after he has moved elsewhere?

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Gene]

Please don't tar the Air Force.  E.g. some of the strongest Ada
proponents in the world work and the US Air Force Academy.  They are
the authors of AdaGIDE the .NET port, and other excellent work.  Many,
many Air Force personnel are smart on Ada.  I'm sure they'd be appalled
by the above.

Sorry I can't say the same for political appointees over whom serving
Air Force military personnel have no influence. In fact, the
Constitution dictates rather the reverse...

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[adaworks]

Since my name (creatively spelled, but I think Robert meant me) came up in the
discussion below, I will research the matter and see if I can get an email off
to the
right people from my DoD account.

I'll probably get myself in trouble, but it won't be the first time.

As to the term "bozo," none of the USAF people involved deserve this
appellation. They
are simply reacting to the ignorance about Ada that seems to prevail throughout
the
larger software community.   My experience with the USAF decision-makers is that
they are doing their best to make responsible decisions on behalf of the
National
Defense.   They are being misinformed by contractors whose self-interest
sometimes
preempts what ought to be their better judgement.

I must say that I have heard high-ranking DoD people denigrate Ada based on
their
own experience.  One Admiral spoke to a group about how hard it was to teach
people Ada in his command.   He talked of the credentials of the person hired to
do the teaching and noted that, "even this person, with many years of experience
in computer science," could not make Ada clear to the students.

There are some unique differences in Ada from other languages.   Unless we make
those
differences clear the students will be discouraged from using it.    Too often
the language
is taught by people who do themselves understand it.   To be fair, the same is
true of much
of what passes for C++ instruction.   The difference is that C++ looks like C
and it gets
a lot of good press.   This, in spite of its being one of the most error-prone
languages ever
to be used by anyone.

I'll do what I can.

Richard Riehle
                        (note the correct spelling of my name)


"Robert Love" <rblove@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:20051222152554655-0600@news.airmail.net...
> In <hyCqf.5074$mj1.1275@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> Jeffrey R.
> Carter wrote:
> > Robert Love wrote:
> >
> >> Lord, there is so much wrong here.  Where to start.  Is it even worth
> >> it  to try and educate the Air Force?  I suppose I'll try and write
> >> one of  these bozos once I calm down but I would say this is a huge
> >> slam against  our favorite language.
> >
> > If we all knew how to contact these bozos, we could all write them.
> > That might  be more impressive than just a message from you.
>
> And I'm just a bozo to the Air Force brass.  I wonder if we have a
> senior statesman who could get their attention.  Richard Rheile?  Tucker
> Taft?   Damn, do any Congressional Medal of Honor winners program in Ada?
>
> I did write a sincere, polite letter (postal, not e-mail) to the
> Secretary but I don't expect it will get past his layer of filters.  I
> tried to refute his points and stressed the need for good design and
> software development processe.  I concluded that he should have the AF
> Academy software experts or other independent group investigate the real
> reason why the software was a failure.

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[David Emery]

Oh well, those of us who use Unix derivatives, a system much older than DOS, really belong to the pre-history of computing, I guess..

    dave  (MacOS X.4, Mach Kernel with Apple's GUI...)

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Robert Love]

In <NhHqf.36784$dO2.21414@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>  wrote:
> Since my name (creatively spelled, but I think Robert meant me) came 
> up in the discussion below, I will research the matter and see if I 
> can get an email off to the right people from my DoD account.

Yes, it was your name I was mangling.

>
> I'll probably get myself in trouble, but it won't be the first time.
> 
> As to the term "bozo," none of the USAF people involved deserve this
> appellation. They
> are simply reacting to the ignorance about Ada that seems to prevail 
> throughout the larger software community.   My experience with the 
> USAF decision-makers is that they are doing their best to make 
> responsible decisions on behalf of the National Defense.   They are 
> being misinformed by contractors whose self-interest sometimes
> preempts what ought to be their better judgement.

At the level of the Secretary and Undersecretary I expect them to be far 
removed from direct knowledge of the progject but somebody dropped the 
ball.  I expect it is in the USAF Project office.  Those managers have 
an oversight responsilbity and since it involves billions of tax payer 
dollars and national defense it is a task that should not just rely on 
the contractors information.  Did this project have a V&V contractor?  
I'll have to look.

I do note that Secretary Wynne has previously worked for LockMart, the 
prime contractor for SBIRS.  It may be that he is too cosy with his old 
employers but I doubt it.

It should be noted that the USAF has several big ticket satellite 
programs all well over budget and years behind schedule.  T-Sat, Space 
Based Radar and others join SBIRS as projects in trouble.  Most of them 
are due to sensor problems and general poor management.  Some should be 
more like R&D programs that operational projects.

Since the Secretary has brought up software as an issue on this 
satellite I want to know what was the real cause of the problem.  I 
can't believe Ada is a cause in its own right.  Was it compiler/tool 
problems?  Was it a bad software architecture?  Was there a valid set of 
requirements that were stable?

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Robert Love]

In <1135290419.885448.129100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Gene wrote:
> Please don't tar the Air Force.  E.g. some of the strongest Ada
> proponents in the world work and the US Air Force Academy.  They are
> the authors of AdaGIDE the .NET port, and other excellent work.  Many,
> many Air Force personnel are smart on Ada.  I'm sure they'd be 
> appalled by the above.

I don't believe it will have any effect but when I wrote the Secretary I 
suggested that the AF Academy's experts conduct an investigation of why 
the software was a failure.   I'm sure it is outside the role of the 
Academy and my letter will be lost in a sea of assitants but I do know 
that the Academy is warm on Ada.

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

>   Of course "The C Programming Language" was published 5 years before the
> Ada 83 RM, and Ada 95, like C++, is about 10 years old.  Perhaps for this
> real-time, satellite based anti-missile system he means Microsoft's .NET
> language, C#.  Does "Space News" print letters to the editor with factual
> corrections?  Pointing out the ignorance of someone in authority is always
> amusing.

Let's be accurate. C dates to 1970. Ada dates to 1980 (MIL-STD-1815 is dated 
1980 Dec 10). C++ dates to 1982 (I'd argue that since backwards compatibility 
with C was an important design criterion, it dates to 1970 :). The dates of the 
standards or publications are meaningless in determining the "modernity" of a 
language, except for Ada.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Go and boil your bottoms."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
01

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Steve Whalen]

I'd like to respectfully suggest to those who are going to try to set
this record straight that you include these people in your
correspondence:

Senator John Warner of Virginia

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan

Senator John McCain of Arizona

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut

All of the above Senators are members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee which has "oversight" of the U.S. military, and their web
sites can be found at: http://armed-services.senate.gov/

Since our Senators serve 6 year terms, they are somewhat more
insulated from the immediate pressures of daily politics and vendor
pressures (but only compared our House of Representatives <g>)....

They are the people who can get such misrepresentations as were made
by the Air Force civilian leadership investigated and corrected.

One thing that might be helpful to include in any correspondence to
anyone in a position to help, would be a list of questions they could
ask which would help them to see that the Air Force's civilian
leadership's statements are on their face, incredibly nonsensical to
anyone who knows anything about programming or managing large
projects.

Questions like:

Were the specifications from which the Ada programming was to be done
complete before coding began?

Has anyone independent of the vendor or project management made an
assessment of why the project has gone so wrong?

How is it than many of the largest and most complex project have been
successfully programmed in Ada?

etc.

Steve

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1135386734.859963.112280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:

> One thing that might be helpful to include in any correspondence to
> anyone in a position to help, would be a list of questions they could
> ask which would help them to see that the Air Force's civilian
> leadership's statements are on their face, incredibly nonsensical to
> anyone who knows anything about programming or managing large
> projects.
> 
> Questions like:
> 
> Were the specifications from which the Ada programming was to be done
> complete before coding began?
> 
> Has anyone independent of the vendor or project management made an
> assessment of why the project has gone so wrong?
> 
> How is it than many of the largest and most complex project have been
> successfully programmed in Ada?

How is it that the European space agency doesn't have these problems ?

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Joseph Vlietstra]

Some answers about the SBIRS program.
- The SBIRS program was plagued by poor initial systems engineering.
   Those responsible have been replaced and we were able to get the
   program somewhat back on track last fall.  We can't undo all of the
   stupid mistakes but I think we can get at least 95% functionality.
   (The more optimistic think we can score 100%)
- Flight software is written in Ada 95 using Rational Apex compiler.
   The only problems we've had with the development environment were
   self-induced (e.g., attempting an Apex/ClearCase integration before
   it was released by Rational).
- We considered GNAT at the start of the project and contacted ACT.
   For whatever reason, they weren't interested in developing a GNAT
   compiler for us. (I don't think they realized that we would play
   for the development.) In any case, we're happy with Rational Apex.
- We also considered using a GNU C/C++ compiler but it ran slower
   than the Rational Ada code.  This isn't an Ada is faster than C++
   claim -- Lockheed-Martin spent a lot of money to have a good Ada
   compiler available; the C++ compiler was an afterthought for the
   hardware test group.
- There were several subtle hardware glitches that required software
   fixes.  This is a typical problem for a development program.
   We all learned Chapter 13 of the LRM by heart.
Anyone claiming that Ada was the problem is either ignorant of the
circumstances or hoping to obscure the initial systems engineering
problems.  In fact, Ada's language features allowed us to get as
far as we have.

Joe Vlietstra

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Marco]

somewhat of tangent:  what was the target CPU?

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Joseph Vlietstra]

Marco wrote:
> somewhat of tangent:  what was the target CPU?

Honeywell RH-32 -- essentially a radiation-hardened MIPS 3000.
20 MHz clock -- this is fast for a spacecraft processor.

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Robert Love]

In <OKgrf.5742$mj1.1091@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> Joseph 
Vlietstra  wrote:
> Some answers about the SBIRS program.
> - The SBIRS program was plagued by poor initial systems engineering.

That much I suspected.  Thanks for your information.


> Anyone claiming that Ada was the problem is either ignorant of the
> circumstances or hoping to obscure the initial systems engineering
> problems.  

I used Ignorance in my orginal thread title but I bet is is the latter 
reason, LM officials looking for an easy scapegoat.  What goads me is 
the USAF bought it hook, line and sinker.

> In fact, Ada's language features allowed us to get as
> far as we have.

Sing it, brother.

Now, how do we get the word out, other than to our merry band?

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[David Emery]

Robert Love wrote:
> In <OKgrf.5742$mj1.1091@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> Joseph 
> Vlietstra  wrote:
>> Some answers about the SBIRS program.
>> - The SBIRS program was plagued by poor initial systems engineering.
> 
> That much I suspected.  Thanks for your information.
> 
> 
>> Anyone claiming that Ada was the problem is either ignorant of the
>> circumstances or hoping to obscure the initial systems engineering
>> problems.  
> 
> I used Ignorance in my orginal thread title but I bet is is the latter 
> reason, LM officials looking for an easy scapegoat.  What goads me is 
> the USAF bought it hook, line and sinker.

In my experience, Ada was often blamed for bringing system engineering failures to light before the program was ready hear about it.  From a political perspective, being able to demonstrate an inconsistent design at PDR is NOT a good way to get the program through its next major government milestone.  

    dave

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Robert Klungle]

"Joseph Vlietstra" <joevl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OKgrf.5742$mj1.1091@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Some answers about the SBIRS program.
> - The SBIRS program was plagued by poor initial systems engineering.
>    Those responsible have been replaced and we were able to get the
>    program somewhat back on track last fall.  We can't undo all of the
>    stupid mistakes but I think we can get at least 95% functionality.
>    (The more optimistic think we can score 100%)
> - Flight software is written in Ada 95 using Rational Apex compiler.
>    The only problems we've had with the development environment were
>    self-induced (e.g., attempting an Apex/ClearCase integration before
>    it was released by Rational).
> - We considered GNAT at the start of the project and contacted ACT.
>    For whatever reason, they weren't interested in developing a GNAT
>    compiler for us. (I don't think they realized that we would play
>    for the development.) In any case, we're happy with Rational Apex.
> - We also considered using a GNU C/C++ compiler but it ran slower
>    than the Rational Ada code.  This isn't an Ada is faster than C++
>    claim -- Lockheed-Martin spent a lot of money to have a good Ada
>    compiler available; the C++ compiler was an afterthought for the
>    hardware test group.
> - There were several subtle hardware glitches that required software
>    fixes.  This is a typical problem for a development program.
>    We all learned Chapter 13 of the LRM by heart.
> Anyone claiming that Ada was the problem is either ignorant of the
> circumstances or hoping to obscure the initial systems engineering
> problems.  In fact, Ada's language features allowed us to get as
> far as we have.
>
> Joe Vlietstra

Joe presents a good partial description of what happened.
There is a lot more to it which had nothing to do with coding.
Five major problems leading up to the situation were:
1. Incomplete and incorrect requirements through PDR (which was failed
previously.)
2. Incomplete and incorrect design mechanisms leading to individuals
designing the same thing more than once, not knowing what the others were
doing (multiple CPUs with similar functionality.) Eventually leading to a
system which would not perform (loss of messages) at 70% loading. The system
was completely redesigned from the ground up in a matter of 5 months. The
system is now heading for success (disregarding the usual integration
problems.)
3. Management chain failure due to little or no knowledge regarding software
development.
4. Incorrect or misleading design specifications on the SBC containing the
RH-32(s) from the supplier.
5. Low ball funding and late resource allocation to the project on the part
of the government and contractor(s).

I could continue with a very long list but you should get the idea.

Bottom line, Ada had nothing to do with the problem(s), and in fact actually
contributed to them having any success at all.

Incidentally, someone mentioned Wynne (in a later posting) casting
aspersions on Ada. He is getting his information from others who have a
specific agenda to remove Ada from the development list (been hearing it in
PDRs and PDAs). There is a general belief that "No one can find any Ada
developers. Ada is not being taught in schools. Systems Engineers and
Mathematicians coming out of school only know c++ and refuse to learn Ada."
Note this is a direct quote from a high level government person, which I
took issue with.

The problem of Ada(s) reputation and viability is very big and going down
hill rapidly, if observations are any indication.

Note I don't think this is a conspiracy, just a serious case of decisions
being made by the wrong people with little or no correct information.

cheers...bob

Re: SBIRS, Ada and Ignorance

[Robert Klungle]

"Joseph Vlietstra" <joevl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OSzsf.3285$nu6.80@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Marco wrote:
> > somewhat of tangent:  what was the target CPU?
>
> Honeywell RH-32 -- essentially a radiation-hardened MIPS 3000.
> 20 MHz clock -- this is fast for a spacecraft processor.
>
It used to be. We now have Space Qualified Processors running at around 100
MHz.

cheers...bob