Is this Business as usual?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

Would like any feedback on following contemporary events as related to Y2K http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19990430/ts/space_rocket_5.html. To summarize, The Air Force's last three consecutive satelite launches have failed, costing over 2.9 Billion dollars in the process. One was a communications satelite. One was a "missile warning satellite" (I believe there were two attempts at this satelite both of which failed, though the article is unclear. Also is it true that the latest GAO report states that the U.S. early warning system is currently non-compliant?). I would doubt these failures are directly related to Y2K. Are they indirectly related as a consequence of hurried dealines? The more general question is, what is the evidence that satelites themselves, communications and otherwise are compliant? Would deeply appreciate someone providing a rationale for this, aside from the boilerplate that satelites are fine it's the ground systems that need work. This recent article, (http://www.freep.com/news/airtravel/qnwa27.htm) states in all seriousness that Northwest Airlines found that "The machine that controlled the flow of antifreeze sprayed from de-icing trucks" would fail at the turn of the century. Where are the studies indicating that a 1/2 billion dollar communication satelite will have no problem with the date rollover? - Paul

-- Anonymous, May 01, 1999

Answers

The failures may not be due to y2k at all, but the fact that clinton gave our control codes to the chinese.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 1999

According to what I've read on these failed launches, it is the Titan rockets themselves which have botched the job. I don't know whether the operational sequence during launch is run by ground control or onboard programming, once the launch is initiated..

-- Anonymous, May 01, 1999

Agree that the failures may be due to any number of factors including bad luck. More concerned, (given the published unremediated failure rates in telephone switches, railroad track switches, power generating plants, traffic signals, 911 systems, oil platforms, ships, etc) as to why a complex electronic satelite would not require remediation. Does anyone know if satelites require remediation and if not why and/or how they were tested? Would failure of satelite communications have a negligable or siginificant impact on power generation? Realize these are a number of questions but if one infers from the anecdotal evidence of systems which are reported as requiring remediation one could expect satelites might have significant problems with the date change. Any further thoughts?

-- Anonymous, May 01, 1999

Here is another pointer to yet another failed sat launch http://www.seattletimes.com/news/nation-world/html98/altsate_19990428.html (Thanks to Risks Digets 20.36) I am no sat expert (just a user like most others) but I find it hard to believe that sats contain no software and the software contains no date calculations. When sats do fail in launch or in orbit, replacements take a long time and cost a lot even when all the ground based infrastructure is in relative working order. Will they be able to replace them as fast as they fail now or 12 months from now? stay tooned, nobody knows how big this thing can get.

-spiff

-- Anonymous, May 02, 1999


Could someone explain how this is germane to the discussion of electric utilities and whether I will have power on 1/1/00???

Rick is falling asleep at the switch or has become extremely generous in his benevolent dictatorship.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 1999



????, since telecommunication can depend on satellites and utilities depend on telecoms, that's probably the reason Paul's question, ".. what is the evidence that satelites themselves, communications and otherwise are compliant?" is considered on topic.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 1999

Moderation questions? read the FAQ