Hey the two Muli-Billon dollar companys that sent the recent Mars Probe all that way to the red planet only to discover that the two companys chock full with rocket scientist did not talk to each other about what kind of mesurments they worked with ... this caused a total failure of the system. I would be willing to bet it was caused by a couple of small numbers that were just read wrong , i am sure it was not Y2K related but it draws some real strong facts. WOW !!! If they can make a mistake , with one system. that they have direct control over. WHO DO WE THINK WE ARE KIDDING WHEN ANY OTHER LARGE COMPANY(fillin any power , gas, nuke,food dist,water system, or any thing you like)Tells us that they are Y2K READY, THEY ARE SO FULL OF IT , THEY KEEP TELLING US NOT TO PANIC , WHY, IF THERE IS NO PROBLEM THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP TELLING US NOT TO PANIC...

REMEMBER CENTER MASS AND SQUEEEEEZZZEEE, REMEMBER TO BREATHE!!!

mongo

-- RON THE MAN (rjcash@fred.net), October 01, 1999

Answers

Exactly the point moRON. We live with tons of mistakes every day and don't even notice.

-- Nasa techie (to a non-techie@who doesnt know.anything), October 01, 1999.

I think the rocket scientists have had a pretty good track record. NASA, et all get my vote.

-- (sickofthis@crap.com), October 01, 1999.

Hey Sicko,

NASA's and JPL's and even the Russians' track records around Mars are not so good. We have managed to land three separate vehicles on Mars in 25 years, but how many have we lost? I count at least 3. We lost one a couple of years ago. The Russians lost one that was supposed to land on one of the moons. We just lost the observer. Now , I'll grant you that this is trying to guide a VERY remote system, and Y2K won't be remote.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

PASADENA, Calif. (Reuters) - Human error stemming from space engineers using two sets of measurements -- one utilizing miles and the other kilometers -- caused the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft last week, NASA said Thursday.

The teams, located at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena and at Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Colorado, complicated matters further by failing to realize the error, the agency said in a statement.

The $125 million orbiter, intended to serve as the first interplanetary weather satellite, is believed to have broken up when it hit the Martian atmosphere last week after an approach that was too near the surface.

``People sometimes make errors,'' said Edward Weiler, NASA's associate administrator for space science. ``The problem here was not the error, it was the failure of NASA's systems engineering, and the checks and balances in our processes to detect the error. That's why we lost the spacecraft.''

An investigation into the loss of the craft was launched immediately after the spacecraft was lost. A peer review board Thursday announced its preliminary findings.

The review board said that in making a key change to the spacecraft's trajectory one team used the English, or avoirdupois, system of measuring, which utilizes miles, yards, feet and inches as well as pounds and ounces, while the other was using metric kilometers, meters, kilograms and grams.

In a statement, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory said, ``This information was critical to the maneuvers required to place the spacecraft in the proper Mars orbit.''

There are 1.6 kilometers to a mile and 1.1 yards in a meter, while there are 2.2 pounds in a kilogram.

At the time the spacecraft was lost, Mars Climate Orbiter Project Manager Richard Cook said scientists had expected that the orbiter would approach Mars at an altitude of between 87 and 93 miles when it fact it came in at 37 miles above the surface of the planet. He said the minimum survival altitude was 53 miles.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory Director Edward Stone said, ``Our inability to recognize and correct this simple error has had major implications. We have underway a thorough investigation to understand this issue.''

In addition to the peer review board composed of Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists, a second review board that includes outsiders also is looking into the cause of the loss, and an independent NASA review board is to be formed shortly.

The primary mission of the orbiter had been to monitor the Red Planet's atmosphere, surface and polar caps for one Martian year, or 687 days.

The craft also was intended as a vital link in the Mars Polar Lander mission. That craft is due to land on Mars on Dec. 3 and the climate orbiter would have acted as a relay station between the lander and scientists on Earth.

Cook said the loss of the climate orbiter would complicate the lander mission, but contingency plans already were in place for the lander to transmit data directly to Earth through the Deep Space Network and via the Mars Global Surveyor.

``Our clear short-term goal is to maximize the likelihood of a successful landing of the Mars Polar Lander on December 3,'' said Weiler. ``The lessons from these reviews will be applied across the board in the future.''

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

Nothere,

If you're so smart, why don't you go to work for NASA or the JPL? You probably wouldn't even know how to put the key in the door. People like you are whiners who find nothing but the worst in everything.

-- (sickofthis@crap.com), October 01, 1999.

So, Y2K won't be a problem because "Mistakes like this happen all the time".....

One error, one calculation, one program, one data set exchanged between two agencies - both (as you pointed out) already under an extensive set of checks and error-correcting - which didn't work in this case - and the space craft was lost.

Now, how can you possible claim that multi-millions of simulataneous possible errors, impossible errors, goofs, good data, and old data, and new data, all exchanged between millions of businesses and government agencies that directly control the businesses and taxes and payrolls and ..... of everything WON'T be significantly harmed?

When some/most/many/almost all of the programs on both sides have only been partially remediated?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 01, 1999.

...which may be the best example of all for why Y2K may be worse than we can even imagine :

the conventions and protocols necessary for the brains in two companies to communicate with each other were so unclear and ill- defined, that this kind of stupid event could occur;

industry (Lockheed) uses English; academia (JPL) uses Metric;

my god, how stupid!

...but if you could see the quality(!) of drawings given me by supposedly ISO 9000, 9001, 9002 certified companies you'd die laughing; full of ambiguities and stupid little mistakes; just 'little' enough to miss Mars!!!

take heed folks, this missing Mars event is but an example of what lies before us.

"...you say tomAtoe and I say tomaato..."

when the men-of-the-mind cannot agree upon a language by which they can discuss the desired outcome of their combined efforts, you know we have a problem.

sorry for the rant, but this hits home ...

thanks,

Perry

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), October 01, 1999.

My, my, my. Mr. "sickofthis@crap" is getting mighty touchy today. He sure jumped to NASA's defense quickly enough. Another gov't shill, no doubt.

-- Someone's getting touchy (noone@nowhere.com), October 01, 1999.

Hi Sicko,

I used to be optimistic until I met you.

I used to love it when my students would complain about not receiving enough partial credit when they made an error. "But it was just a little minus sign!!!"

The minus sign caused the rocket to blow up.

In this case we are lucky that no one died. How much did the program cost? And how many children might have been fed with that money.

I am not against space exploration, by machines or humans, but the loss of Mars Observer is a significant one... due to a trivial error.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

Exactly the point moRON. We live with tons of mistakes every day and don't even notice.

-- Nasa techie (to a non-techie@who doesnt know.anything), October 01, 1999.

Yes Einstein, now multiply those 'tons' by a factor of 10 and you'll start to get the picture.

Jesus Christ. No wonder you guys are blowing up space vehicles right and left...

-- a (a@a.a), October 01, 1999.