In this case, the "corrections on the fly" refer to all of the real-time responses that the software makes without ground involvement. In the case of a solar limb sensor detecting the sun, the probe will abandon its data collection for that near approach, and go into an emergency response that has been made as straightforward and deterministic as possible, to maximize the chances of recovery for all single-fault and some double-fault scenarios.
To answer your question about software upload, the PSP has 3 redundant CPUs (primary, hot spare, backup spare), and each has multiple boot images. To upload software, the team uploads it to an inactive image of the backup spare CPU, promotes it to hot spare for long enough to collect the data it needs, reboots it into the new image, and then rotates it into the primary role, which is a seamless transition unless something goes wrong, and then the new hot spare takes over again within a second. Once they're sure the software is working, they can update the other CPUs. Before any of this, new software is tested on identical hardware set up on the ground with physics simulations.
It seems like you want to discredit NASA now ("shouldn't melt") vs some imagined possibility("won't melt" but it does). With the amount of design, analysis, testing, and independent review and verification of the systems, backup systems, triply redundant systems, and autonomy, we can be as sure of it not melting as we can be sure of anything. And we certainly spent a large amount of money on this (about 1/10th of the World Cup), but in performance and value per $, it's a great deal.
(former software engineer on PSP here) It's a certainty that it will melt eventually, but that's not a satisfying answer to the question "why won't it melt?" The satisfying answer is "for the time period when it won't melt, it won't melt because of..."
It's been a traditional at JPL (and other NASA centers) to wear matching polos for quite some time now, at least years, before the Rosetta landing. Not saying that NASA is better than ESA as far as women or PR goes, but this wasn't a reactionary move.
It appears to be a photo post (i.e. images uploaded to FB natively) as opposed to a link post, where FB chooses a thumbnail for you (or not, if it's a YouTube link). I've been seeing posts like this when friends upload image albums (if more than 4 images, you get a 'see more' box in the lower right)
As someone tech-savvy and having used WireShark, even, I'm curious to know from my sibling commenters, what are you thinking? Of course you start by buying hardware or modifying a router. Parent comment is specifically asking for "good information" and something that "clearly defines how this is done." IMO, xfalcox and lewiseason come closest to actually answering the question, because their links mention specific software.
But simply installing software isn't enough, it needs to be configured. How does one set up OpenWRT or WireShark to filter for this kind of information? What pitfalls might one encounter? Do you need a CS degree in order to interpret the data? What keywords should one use when searching for more information?
With vague answers like the ones so far, you're just making it seem more difficult and intimidating for anyone that has little to no experience in this area. If we want people to be more concerned about their privacy, it needs to be as easy (or easier) for people to take control of their information as it is for them to give it away.
Edit: smtddr has the right idea, thumbs up. Should have hit refresh one more time before posting.
> See the "Guidance and Control" and "Communications" section of the NH
> Spacecraft Systems page for a detailed answer.
>
> The short version is that it uses a combination of star trackers and IMUs
> (Inertial Measurement Units). The star trackers analyze pictures of the
> surrounding star field to determine how it is pointing instantaneously, and
> the IMUs track how it is rotating in between each of those instants. This
> determines the attitude (which way it is pointing).
>
> For position determination, "ranging" tones are sent from the earth and
> echoed back by the craft. This combined with the angle that the dish is
> pointing at to get the strongest signal tells the operators where the craft
> is in space. This information is fed back to the craft, which has an on-
> board physics simulation, and predicts where it will be until the next
> ranging event.
>
> Now, you might have noticed that I didn't mention Pluto once. That is
> because this system (minus the exact details) is used by pretty much every
> spacecraft, from those around Earth, to New Horizons, and beyond.
Source on that? Even the Tajectory Correction Maneuvers (TCMs) are planned in advance, and it's just the details of the TCM that are finalized in the lead-up to those events.
As far as the final approach goes, the core sequence started July 7[1], and no adjustments were made to it. They even had a TCM opportunity before that in case of a possible collision, that I heard was skipped.
It's not like these copies replace the higher-res ones. Not a project scientist, but I'd rather as many people as possible see some image than only a few see only any at all.
And we're still not flying memory sticks (but we are flying more memory than ever before). Fun fact: New Horizons has no file system on its recorder, but current missions at APL now do.
The main command and data handling processor runs code written in C, as does the guidance and control computer. However, the G&C algorithms were 'written' in Simulink, and autocoded to C. I believe the instruments also use C, unless they are too resource constrained even for that, in which case, I'd guess Forth.
He didn't have a hunch, he just knew that the standard comprehensive test was skipped, which is why the standard test procedure only detected a problem, and he had to end early and go off book in order to reveal the doppler problem.
Have you even looked at the guidelines [1] in your 4 years here? The parent comment has more violations than your original.
* "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation." (at least I hope you wouldn't call me "Mr 278" to my face. I am not my HN Karma)
* "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" (You didn't have to bring up my karma at all)
* "Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized." (Twice in parent comment)
Not that I agree with everyone posting on 'my side' of this issue, but as we can see here, karma is not a perfect system. Just because I haven't spent as much time commenting here, you think you can simply ignore my arguments, put forward independently of my own credentials. The guidelines exist so that they can be followed, and we can always have meaningful, productive discussions. Not so that certain people can flagrantly break them. But, if you won't listen to other arguments against breaking the guidelines, will you listen to your own? If I may,
> Second, plenty of people are wrong every day. That doesn't mean they need to be called an ass. it means you talk to them civilly. Try to convince them of the error or their ways. That's why Steve Jobs formed a friendship with Rupert Murdoch. Not because they're such kindred spirits.
I kinda wish you had responded to the OT portions of my comment, but I feel like that would have been equally fruitless.
Remove the first 3 sentences and the last, and your post will be in line with the guidelines [1] and you shouldn't get downvoted. You still make a number of claims I don't see evidence for, including some that you can't possibly back up.
The most egregious to me is that you say most of these companies are run by 60 year old men (not that it matters, but are they?) with good intentions (and this matters, do they?). Have you really interviewed a representative sample of them and determined this? I'm more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but these are the same people that make sure movies don't actually earn a profit, so profit-sharing clauses of contracts don't kick in, right?
OK, so maybe they do have good intentions, but only for the people that work for them. Regardless of their intentions, they do not have the right to continue trying to abridge the rights of every American.
Also, have you thought that there might be a better system out there, that creates more value, with less waste, and better compensates those involves? Does a better job of finding and rewarding talent?[2] Have you thought that maybe it's impossible to get to that system through gradual changes, maintaining equilibrium? Maybe disruption is needed?
To answer your question about software upload, the PSP has 3 redundant CPUs (primary, hot spare, backup spare), and each has multiple boot images. To upload software, the team uploads it to an inactive image of the backup spare CPU, promotes it to hot spare for long enough to collect the data it needs, reboots it into the new image, and then rotates it into the primary role, which is a seamless transition unless something goes wrong, and then the new hot spare takes over again within a second. Once they're sure the software is working, they can update the other CPUs. Before any of this, new software is tested on identical hardware set up on the ground with physics simulations.
See also, "Solar Probe Plus Flight Software - An Overview" from http://flightsoftware.jhuapl.edu/files/_site/workshops/2015/