Advertisement

Managing Software Process Evolution for Spacecraft from a Customer’s Perspective

  • Christian R. PrauseEmail author
  • Markus Bibus
  • Carsten Dietrich
  • Wolfgang Jobi
Chapter

Abstract

The Space Administration of the German Aerospace Center designs and implements the German space program. While project management rests with the agency, suppliers are contracted for building devices and their software. As opposed to many other domains, a spacecraft is a unique device with uncommon and custom-built peripherals. Its software is specifically developed for a single mission only and often controls critical functionality. A small coding error can mean the loss of the spacecraft and mission failure. For this reason, customer and supplier closely collaborate on the field of software quality. We report from a customer’s perspective on how we manage software quality and ensure that suppliers evolve their processes: We contribute to standards, tailor quality, and process requirements to establish them in projects, and engage in cross-company product quality collaboration.

Keywords

Space Project Software Process Process Requirement Runtime Error Software Process Improvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abbott, A.: Battery fault ends X-ray satellite mission. Nature 399, 93ff (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armbrust, O., Katahira, M., Miyamoto, Y., Münch, J., Nakao, H., Ocampo, A.: Scoping software process models—initial concepts and experience from defining space standards. Making Globally Distributed Software Development a Success Story. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 160–172. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basili, V.R., McGarry, F.E., Pajerski, R., Zelkowitz, M.V.: Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: the rise and fall of the nasa software engineering laboratory. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 69–79. ACM, New York, NY (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourque, P., Fairley, R.E. (eds.): SWEBOK V3.0—Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brat, G., Klemm, R.: Static analysis of the mars exploration rover flight software. In: Proceedings of the First International Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology, pp. 321–326 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Card, D.N.: Software product assurance: measurement and control. Inf. Softw. Technol. 30(6), 322–330 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI for development, version 1.3 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 238–252. ACM, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Döler, N., Herrmann, A., Tapper, U., Hempel, R.: Ecss application in dlr space projects—experiences and suggestions for enhancement. Presentation slides from the ECSS Developer Day at ESTEC (Noordwijk) (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donaldson, S.E., Siegel, S.G.: Successful Software Development, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dowson, M.: The ariane 5 software failure. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 22(2), 84 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dvorak, D.L.: Nasa study on flight software complexity: Final report. NASA (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emanuelsson, P., Nielsson, U.: A comparative study of industrial static analysis tools. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 217, 5–21 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): ECSS—standardization objectives, policies and organization. ECSS Standard ECSS-P-00A, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): ECSS system—description, implementation and general requirements. ECSS Standard ECSS-S-ST-00C, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): Space product assurance—product assurance management. ECSS Standard ECSS-Q-ST-10C, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): Space engineering—software. ECSS Standard ECSS-E-ST-40C, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): Space product assurance—software product assurance. ECSS Standard ECSS-Q-ST-80C, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): Space project management—configuration and information management. ECSS Standard ECSS-M-ST-40C, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): Space product assurance—software dependability and safety. ECSS Standard ECSS-Q-HB-80-03A, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): ECSS—standardization objectives, policies and organization. ECSS Standard ECSS-P-00C, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ECSS Secretariat (publ.): Space engineering—software engineering handbook. ECSS Standard ECSS-E-HB-40A, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Falessi, D., Shaw, M., Mullen, K.: Achieving and maintaining CMMI maturity level 5 in a small organization. IEEE Softw. 31(5), 80–86 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gammal, Y.E., Kriedte, W.: ECSS—an initiative to develop a single set of european space standards. In: Proceedings of Product Assurance Symposium and Software Product Assurance Workshop, pp. 43–50. ESA (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ginsberg, M.P., Quinn, L.: Process tailoring and the software capability maturity model. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-024, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Mars code. Commun. ACM 57(2), 64–73 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jobi, W.: Tailoring catalogue: product assurance & safety requirements for dlr space projects. Technical report, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson, C.W.: The natural history of bugs: Using formal methods to analyse software related failures in space missions. FM 2005: Formal Methods. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 9–25. Springer, Berlin (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jones, M., Gomez, E., Matineo, A., Mortensen, U.K.: Introducing ECSS software-engineering standards within ESA. ESA Bull. 111, 132–139 (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    JTC 1 SC 7: Information technology—process assessment—part 1: Concepts and vocabulary. International Standard ISO/IEC 15504-1:2012, International Organization for Standardization (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kalus, G., Kuhrmann, M.: Criteria for software process tailoring: A systematic review. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 171–180. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ley, W.: Management von Raumfahrtprojekten. Handbuch der Raumfahrttechnik, 4th edn, pp. 715–764. Carl Hanser Verlag, Germany (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marsiske, H.A.: Wendepunkt Mars. http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/6/6775/1.html (2000)
  34. 34.
    Oberg, J.: Why the mars probe went off course. IEEE Spec. 36(12), 34–39 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prause, C., Bibus, M., Dietrich, C., Jobi, W.: Tailoring process requirements for software product assurance. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 67–71. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rechtin, E.: Remarks on reducing space science mission costs. In: Proceedings of the Workshop: Reducing the Costs of Space Science Research Missions, p. 23ff. National Academy Press, Washington (1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosenberg, L.H., Albert M. Gallo, J.: Software quality assurance engineering at nasa. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, vol. 5, pp. 5:2569–5:2575. IEEE, Washington (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schiller, D., Heinemann, J.: ECSS—20 years of collaboration for european spaceflight. DLR Newsl. Countdown 24, 32–35 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian R. Prause
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markus Bibus
    • 1
  • Carsten Dietrich
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Jobi
    • 1
  1. 1.Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, DLR - Space AdministrationBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations