Space Qualified RTEMS
Zandin Johan RUAG N
Johan.Zandin at ruag.com
Wed Jan 25 15:38:36 UTC 2012
Lee: My experience is that it's very dependent on the criticality of the software:
* If it's just part of an instrument, where the mission can handle that the instrument
goes down and has to be rebooted, the requirements from ESA are usually less rigorous.
* But if you build mission-critical software, e.g. for attitude- and orbit-control or
for the overall management of the spacecraft (which is my main tasks), they will
usually require a validated version. The same goes for safety-critical software
(e.g. manned space missions and launcher systems).
Thomas: Very good points! I think they should be discussed with ESA and with both
minor an major RTEMS users in the European space industry.
In the numerous RTEMS projects I have worked, our intention has definitely been to
report all detected problems upstream and some of the differences between the
"space qualified" versions and the RTEMS main branch can probably be solved by
properly committing patches upstream.
But other ones would probably have a larger impact on the RTEMS main branch if
they should be integrated there, e.g. adding configuration options to strip away
unused code (to save memory space, to avoid accidental execution and to minimize
the amount of code to qualify). That of course has to be discussed in the RTEMS
community too.
But once such issues have been resolved, it should be perfectly possible to space
qualify an official RTEMS version instead. To minimize the qualification work, you
would probably only qualify a limited set of configurations on a particular HW
platform. But it would be the same code base as anyone else used.
Best regards
Johan Zandin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johan Zandin Software Engineer
RUAG Space AB Phone: +46-31-735 41 47
SE-405 15 Gothenburg, Sweden Fax: +46-31-735 40 00
-----------------------------------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtems-users-bounces at rtems.org
>[mailto:rtems-users-bounces at rtems.org] On Behalf Of Matthews, Lee
>Sent: den 25 januari 2012 10:52
>To: 'Thomas Doerfler'; rtems-users at rtems.org
>Subject: RE: Space Qualified RTEMS
>
>Thomas, Cláudio,
>
>Thank you for your feedback. Thomas you note that the RTEMS
>community has contributed to many space missions. Could you
>please give me some examples of any previous (or upcoming)
>missions that use RTEMS, particularly version 4.10. This will
>give me an idea of heritage and provide me with some leverage
>if ever ESA decides to try and force version 4.8 upon us.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>Best wishes,
>Lee
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtems-users-bounces at rtems.org
>[mailto:rtems-users-bounces at rtems.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Doerfler
>Sent: 24 January 2012 17:13
>To: rtems-users at rtems.org
>Subject: Re: Space Qualified RTEMS
>
>Hi Lee, hi all,
>
>First of all: the RTEMS commmunity is proud to have contributed to so
>many space missions. AFAIK at least the NASA projects had
>returned their
>share of code improvement to RTEMS, which is a benefit to all future
>users (including future NASA missions).
>
>Your set of questions significantly emphasises the problem with those
>"pull everything, commit nothing" projects like the ESA "space
>qualified" RTEMS kernel.
>
>It is nice and vital for the ESA space community to have a qualified
>RTOS, which also supports the space specific platforms like ERC32/LEON.
>But those "read-only" activities are all prone to severe bit rot.
>
>Since RTEMS 4.8, there were severe improvements to the system:
>- many bugs were identified and eliminated
>- new features were added
>- support for up-to-date hardware was added (and this is what you ask
>for in your mail)
>- siginificant activities were launched to improve code quality, like
>extensions to the test sets, automated code coverage analysis
>and others.
>
>You will not have access to these improvements, because the "space
>qualified" RTEMS has not been merged back into the main RTEMS
>repository.
>
>-------------------------
>
>I have a scenario in mind:
>
>- Let's say that during a certain test configuration late in the
>development cycle, my system will fail
>
>- the reason for the failure can be tracked down to an OS bug (which is
>unlikely, but may happen in every piece of software)
>
>- I or my colleagues will find out that the bug has long been
>identified
>and fixed in RTEMS
>
>- but I am using a "space qualified" version of RTEMS, which
>has the bug
>still in it...
>
>... this would really bother me. Almost every software has minor bugs.
>But using an old release of a software, which, due to the develpoment
>model selected, does not care about improvements and fixes in the main
>source tree may be regarded rather careless...
>-------------------------
>
>What I really long to see is to have these space qualification related
>modifications to RTEMS be integrated back into the main RTEMS
>repository, because that's how Open Source software works:
>
>If all users share their OS software knowledge, every user can partake
>in the whole collected knowledge.
>
>Just my two cents,
>
>Thomas.
>
>
>Am 24.01.2012 16:41, schrieb Matthews, Lee:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm developing software that uses RTEMS on an Aeroflex
>Gaisler LEON3FT
>> processor that is running on a Pender GR-CPCI-AX2000
>development board.
>> I am using version 4.10 of RTEMS and RCC 1.1.99.19.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are working on producing a Magnetometer instrument that will be
>> integrated into ESA's upcoming Solar Orbiter mission to the Sun. We
>> shall be using RTEMS on our Leon3FT CPU. Having just gone
>through ESA's
>> Preliminary Design Review process, it has been highlighted
>by ESA that
>> there is a space qualified version of RTEMS available, though this is
>> currently based on version 4.8 of the kernel. I believe this is being
>> developed by the company Edisoft (http://rtemscentre.edisoft.pt).**
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a few questions about this :
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Does anyone know what the difference is exactly between
>a "standard"
>> and a "space qualified" version of RTEMS ?
>>
>> 2) Assuming that we were to use the space qualified RTEMS
>4.8 kernel,
>> would we still be able to use Aeroflex Gaisler's BSP (RCC
>1.1.99.19) ?
>>
>> 3) Would Aeroflex Gaisler's BSP also need to be space qualified ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Lee Matthews
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtems-users mailing list
>> rtems-users at rtems.org
>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------
>Embedded Brains GmbH
>Thomas Doerfler Obere Lagerstr. 30
>D-82178 Puchheim Germany
>email: Thomas.Doerfler at embedded-brains.de
>Phone: +49-89-18908079-2
>Fax: +49-89-18908079-9
>_______________________________________________
>rtems-users mailing list
>rtems-users at rtems.org
>http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtems-users mailing list
>rtems-users at rtems.org
>http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>
More information about the users
mailing list