HP3000-L Archives

July 1998, Week 5

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:44:00 -0700
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (59 lines)
Patrick Santucci opined, after my comment:

>>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>While I agree with the sentiment (i.e. to use the satellite failure as
>>a Y2K object lesson)....this can't be true.  Galaxy IV failed on May
>>19, 1998 - 591 days before January 1, 2000.
>
>I concur after reading some other info on Hughes Spacecraft's
>(manufacturer of the HS 601 satellite series - see, I've done my
>homework!)

< URLs snipped >

>"This is the first total spacecraft failure of any operational HS 601
>satellite. The series was introduced in 1987. Since then 40 HS 601s
>have been built and launched." (Not very likely that only *one* would
>fail if it was a design/programming flaw.)

True...not likely.  But since then two other HS 601 birds have
experienced failures of the primary satellite control processor (Galaxy
VII on June 13 and DBS-1 on July 4)...something is amiss.  These three
birds are among the first 7 HS 601s to be successfully launched...and
the next HS 601 set to go up has been delayed.

< more comments about Galaxy IV snipped >

>PanAmSat's site mentions that it "may take several weeks" to determine
>the cause. It's been almost 10 weeks, and nothing more about Galaxy IV
>from either. Not a peep. So, since you work for a division of Hughes
>perhaps you can get the inside scoop on what actually caused the
>failure (and/or whether they even know yet)?  If it's not classified,
>of course!

I used to work for a division of Hughes - we were absorbed in the
Raytheon / Hughes defense systems merger...so now I work for a segment
in a division of Raytheon.  I don't have any inside scoops to give.

But the failure of Galaxy IV does point out that even redundant systems
do fail.  Bringing this around to a Y2K angle...what kind of
redundancies should we consider as January 1, 2000, comes into view?
For example, would it be wise to obtain a second power source in case
the local electric utility fails?  My guess is that if local power
ceases, the UPS won't last long enough until power is restored.  Would
it be overkill to plan for another power source, either another power
company or on-site generators?  (Of course, if the power grid fails,
keeping our boxes alive will likely not be high on the immediate
priority list - witness Auckland).

I've strayed far enough from out basic topic....

Peace.

Kelly

Exequiel 'not going to be in San Diego' Sevilla
Raytheon Systems Company
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2