XanderLand

Very cool article. Another article I enjoy related to writing software for space missions is here: http://www.embedded.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=52600944

How about writing the code of an enormous nuclear plant? I think it would make the worst results than a space shuttle blow-up...

I read in the article that you have pointed that NASA software group is the most expensive group and produces bug-free (17 bugz meanz perfect yez!) software. But how about a nuclear plant software group, their program should be perfect too, but I ain't sure about the money they are spending would be as much as NASA's team.

Scott, interesting article!

To the other poster, I would think, if I were to hazard a guess, that the biggest difference between the software that runs the Space Shuttle, and the software that runs a nuclear power plant, is that the software that runs the Space Shuttle is the last line of defense, as it were. If it fails, it's all over, and very bad things happen. In a power plant, however, all of the software systems can be backed up with mechanical systems. Certainly they had nuclear power plants before there were commercial computers, so there's no reason that a software system, or even a computer itself be a single point of failure. Redundancy options are far more variable in a nuclear power system than in a space-going vehicle, and that is why I think that they likely aren't as critical.