Floppy disk still in use?

[TuFun]

Last time is seen one of those was working for FedEx in the 80's!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/26/11...-outdated-tech

[stansdds]

I saw that on the nightly news, I can't believe that something so critical is using such old hardware.

[KellyB]

No surprise here.

The other problem is that the government cannot build/buy a system that works. The IRS has junked at least one multimillion dollar one, and other agencies do much the same. I suspect that the "Lowest bidder" syndrome has something to do with, and cronyism as well.

Look at how smoothly Obamacare rolled out!

But rest assured, it's all highly secure...

[ColoKent]

Here's the kicker-- when I read the headline (having been an ICBM crew member 1983-88...and back in a senior leader capacity in that community in the late 2000s), I was fairly certain that I knew what system they were talking about. When I opened the story, it turned out I was right!

Here are some things that the story didn't say, however:

While the system did originate in the 1960's as "465L SACCS" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate...Control_System), it was upgraded in 1986-87 time frame to something called "SACDIN" by Lockheed Martin. So it's not a "1960s system", it's a "1980s system"!

The system is too old, I agree...but not due to military or government stupidity or lack of foresight (as the article seems to imply), but rather the fact that there is never money available to upgrade it. Since the imaginary "end" of the Cold War in 1991, our civilian and military leadership have placed little or no priority on these forces. Since 1991, no US president has articulated a "new" nuclear strategy-- or embraced an old one for that matter. Nuclear programs are simply not a priority, and have not been for nearly 30 years. During the same period, no US leader has made a case to the American public regarding the continuing relevance of these forces. As a result, the force has been an easy target for neglect over the years (to include budget), and so, for that reason, it is continuing to employ a system that still uses "floppies".

Sad but true.

Kent

[Ivan]

Some of us still have floppy disks and floppy drives around. The latest computers in the house do not, but several desktops from about 10 years ago do have them.

I haven't actually worked with a 8 inch 160K floppy since the mid 1980s and they were old even then.

As for the constant wish to upgrade, one has to wonder what is to be gained and what is to be lost in an upgrade.
It is pretty hard for something this old to get hacked. It also doesn't need Internet connectivity to function.
There ARE some advantages to stovepipe systems!

One has to consider what is to be gained and what will be lost in any system upgrade.

- Ivan.

[Naismith]

If it ain't broke .......

[Blackbird686]

I remember using those with Digital PDP 11-04, 11-34 mini-computers back in the late 70's early 80's. The drives were labeled RX-01 and RX-02. Those discs weren't that durable, usually failing in 2 to 3 weeks after their initial creation. The laser printers we worked with back then used those too, then in the late 80's graduated to the "disc drums" used by IBM mainframes during that time. By then the 8" and 10" magnetic tape reels were being replaced by the 3480 cartridges, and memory was internal on those little computers.

BB686

[huub vink]

In my world it is certainly not uncommon to work with very old technology. It takes between 12 to 8 years to develop a scientific satellite. So in the design phase you choose the most modern technology, which is however at least 8 years old when you launch the spacecraft. It is hardly possible to introduce more modern technology during the proces as all parts and the assembly needs to be qualified and when you change one part you have to start the whole proces again for the integrated systems.

It took the scientific satellite Rosetta, with its small lander Philea, more than 10 years to reach the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

So the technology on board was already at least 20 years old. (Ouch there goes the myth that space technology is the most modern technology....)

Here at earth we have most systems working as well, to enable us to simulate things which happen in space.

When Rosetta was in our facilities for the qualification test, I still had dark hair and was in my (very) early forties....

Old technology has it limitations and it is difficult to find spare parts, however old technology does not automatically mean not-reliable.

Cheers,
Huub

[ColoKent]

Old technology has it limitations and it is difficult to find spare parts, however old technology does not automatically mean not-reliable.

Can't disagree with that philosophy. In fact, a recent news report on the E-4B "Nightwatch" airplanes stated that they have retained their "steam gauges" intentionally, and have NOT been upgraded to a "glass cockpit" configuration precisely because there is not enough understanding of how those systems would operate in a nuclear environment.

Kent