The computer is mightier than the Aegis cruiser

Oct 16, 2009, 7:00AM EST
The computer is mightier than the Aegis cruiser
Dividing by zero is prohibited, and the penalty is severe

The Aegis cruiser USS Yorktown (CG-48) was commissioned in 1984. For twenty years, until its decommissioning in 2004, it was one of the most powerful and sophisticated warships in the US Navy. The continuing quest for sophistication, though, almost did it in. In 1996, the Yorktown was selected to be the testbed for Navy’s Smart Ship program. The cruiser was heavily computerized, with an integrated control center on the bridge and other computers monitoring all shipboard activity. The computers were all tied together into one network. On September 21, 1997, the cruiser was operating solo about 100 miles off Cape Charles, Virginia. A crewmember in the engineering department, while ordering supplies, mistakenly entered a zero as the divisor in a mathematical equation. Dividing anything by zero results in an infinite number. The computer crashed. That caused all the other computers on the ship to crash. The ship totally shut down. Not only did the engines not work, neither did the radios. The ship could not send an SOS or notify its headquarters of the dilemma. It took approximately 2 and ½ hours to get the radios back on line so that a message could be sent to headquarters in Norfolk. Assistance was dispatched and the cruiser was escorted back to port. The Navy immediately declared the whole incident secret. It was not until some months later that a report of the computer crash appeared in a technical publication. The Navy then acknowledged the incident, stating that the Yorktown had experienced “an engineering local area network casualty.” Needless to say, the Smart Ship program was extensively revised.
 
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Chandran Peechulli
Was it due to lack of computer operator's manual/prior notification or deliberately performed known error?
Was the need for a post-research after error occurrence?
This is a serious matter of concern particularly on a war/battle ship.
10/16/2009 9:27:04 AM
 
Dennis Bryant
The error of entering the zero was apparently due to a simple human mistake. The particular corrective action taken by the Navy to prevent recurrence is classified and has not been disclosed.
10/20/2009 3:43:58 PM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

2/4/2012

dilipan thomas
well there is no job for most people who has finished studi...

2/2/2012

Saunders Jones
Joe, You are right on regarding both GMATS and the Super...

1/25/2012

Joseph Keefe
Mark: You get the prize, indeed. Thanks for weighing in....

1/24/2012

Mark Sales
An apt and appropriate view of the situation. It also shou...

1/24/2012

Eric Goldring
I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has...

1/20/2012

Shiran Senanayake
I believe that Cruise Masters are fatigued with so many por...

1/19/2012

Alan Loynd
Absolutely correct. With the largest passenger ships now...

1/19/2012

James Lynch
Well stated. The need for regulation is obvious in any fie...

1/19/2012

Eugene (Gene) Horton
Dear Greg, I read your article on “size matters” and found...

1/19/2012

Laurie Thomas
Joe, to add to John's comment, here's another gem/bad news ...