Wed 05 February 2014 by psu
In older and simpler times, telescopes were older and simpler. You put the tube on a mount. You stared at an atlas to figure out where the object was. You pointed the tube roughly at a bright star and then used the finder to move around until you could see the object in the telescope. Then you got on with your life. If you were really advanced you might use an equatorial mount with "setting circles" to get close to the object before tracking it down for good. A lot of people hopped from star to star though, since this was simpler. But the setting circle people sneered at them.
When the late 80s came around, people decided that they wanted to control the telescope more automatically. So they put a servo motor system into the mount controlled by a small computer. This computer knew where things were in the sky, and you could tell it to roughly point at things for you. No more moving the tube around by hand. This was basically automatic setting circles! So of course the old time star hopping people (who used to use setting circles back in the day) sneered.
Soon someone realized that you could hook a PC up to the mount controller and point the mount directly from star atlas software running in the computer. What you would do is run an RS232 cable to the controller box and send simple ASCII commands over the wire to tell the mount to do things. This was fairly straightforward, and soon everyone wanted to get in on the act. Unfortunately, every company that made mounts used a different set of ASCII commands, so you had to have a special module in your star atlas program for each different kind of mount. There were maybe a half dozen. An outfit called Software Bisque made a program called TheSky that did all this, and people were happy.
Then digital cameras got into the mix. And you needed a different set of serial commands for each one of those. So Bisque wrote the code, and you could use TheSky to run the mount, and CCDSoft to run the camera.
Then people got into all kinds of hardware. Guide cameras, domes, motorized focusing devices. Each one with their own scheme for serial control.
Sometime around the mid to late 90s an enterprising developer decided that there should be a shared library that could encapsulate all of these serial protocols behind one set of common abstractions. Then you could write programs against this "driver" framework instead of directly to the devices. His computer ran Windows ... in fact at the time everyone's computer ran Windows. So he based this driver framework on COM (and later .NET), the Windows infrastructure for creating such things. He then went and wrote his observatory control software based on these layers, and lobbied for various other enterprising developers to create drivers for all their favorite hardware.
Over time ASCOM became a wide success in the narrow marketplace of 35-65 year old white men who need to control telescopes with computers. Most of the major hardware platforms have drivers. And while they tend to be developed by single hobbyists in their proverbial basements, and while the user interfaces for these things are apparently stuck in a "late windows XP to early Windows Vista" sort of design mode, in general things sort of work. Most of the time.
Unless they don't. ASCOM in practice has a few warts. When things are working you don't really notice them. But they lurk down there beneath the surface and are the things of software architecture nightmares.
First, there are those guys at Software Bisque. They still make all their software, with their own serial modules. They even make some of their own hardware (very expensive mounts). What they dislike making is ASCOM drivers. They see it as a destruction of the proprietary value that they have toiled all these longs years to add to TheSky and such. And they are not completely wrong. Why should they tolerate a bunch of lowlifes giving away complicated drivers for free which they spent a long time building and integrating into their software stack? This is unfortunate since TheSky still forms the core of a lot of toolchains for automatic imaging. Now we have this constant problem where all the tools in the chain like ASCOM except for TheSky, which can use it, but only in a kind of janky way.
Second, there is COM. Over time COM has evolved into .NET which evolved into what Microsoft sells you to configure and deploy custom large scale Enterprise Applications. The whole system is built around the assumption that you have a huge staff of minions whose only job is to make sure your Windows boxes are running exactly the right versions of everything in order for your large scale custom Enterprise Application to run correctly.
You know who doesn't have such a staff of minions? 35-65 year old white men trying to run a telescope. ASCOM takes the relatively simple task of hooking a cable to a computer and running a program to talk to it and replaces it with the ANSI standard Microsoft .NET version hell dance. I would estimate that over time at least 25% to 30% of all traffic to the various mailing lists that support computerized astronomical hardware is asking about how to set up .NET and troubleshooting versioning issues.
Third, there is the software itself. While a device-independent transport and communication layer for communicating with astro-devices sounds like a great idea, this isn't quite what ASCOM is. Yes it has an API that you implement that lets you talk to similar but different devices in a uniform way. But if you actually study it, what you find is that the API is the thinnest possible layer of abstraction over the devices that it might talk to. The idea that you will talk ASCII over a serial port is deeply deeply embedded in the architecture. Want to talk to your device using, say, an Ethernet cable and your local network? You are sort of out of luck unless you write special code that allows the "COM" port to be "Ethernet". Most of the time you have to buy external software to emulate a serial port on over the network port so that all your serial device ASCOM drivers can talk to it. ASCOM does not abstract away the transport.
Fourth, the system is vaguely incomplete. There is good coverage for certain kinds of hardware: mounts, domes, some focus devices. But almost no coverage in other important areas, like cameras. Some newer cameras have software layers built with ASCOM in mind, but most of the established brands (SBIG, QSI, Starlight Xpress) stick to their proprietary driver interfaces.
Finally, the biggest problem with ASCOM is that it's stuck on Windows. This means that if you would prefer to use any other sort of computer for day to day, you still have to learn Windows to talk to telescopes. The ASCOM people like to talk about how the platform is so "universal". You can write to it in any of several languages, they say. They seem to think this is a feature, while not being portable to any sort of device that isn't an awful Dell PC is just a minor setback.
In summary, this is awful. Here we have a platform built mostly in the 2000s that is architected for the hardware assumptions of the 90s (you need a large PC to run a telescope instead of a tiny computer that fits in your pocket). We're stuck with serial I/O when everything should be on the network. And we're stuck in Windows, when the central hub should just be a cigarette box with an Ethernet jack that has all the control software you need to do everything, all controlled by JSON or something.
You will note that I just suggested that something using REST and JSON would be better than ASCOM. This is what the world has come to.
Maybe someone will see the light and fix all of this and build it right. Build it the way you would have in 2007 rather than 1995. They probably won't though, since all the only appreciation that they'll get is tens of dollars, at most.