From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f039470e8f537101
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-23 06:57:04 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.abs.net!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:56:15 -0400
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030611 Thunderbird/0.1a
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ
References: <mailman.26.1058753354.24167.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <1058810510.375902@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhaed$e786b$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058813341.841940@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhe55$eqglr$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058816605.566685@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhjjr$eftm1$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <AY0Ta.14787$0F4.7550@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
 <20619edc.0307221029.47fe6d31@posting.google.com>
 <1058899826.878512@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <20619edc.0307221247.30165bbf@posting.google.com>
 <1058908265.829369@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <pan.2003.07.22.21.38.47.69997@mail.utexas.edu>
In-Reply-To: <pan.2003.07.22.21.38.47.69997@mail.utexas.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1058968575.195899@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1058968575  26823 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40704
Date: 2003-07-23T09:56:15-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> But you are picking nits that fall far from your original objection to
> Alexandre's claim that "there were no reasons to expect that it should
> work for this new rocket".  The simple fact is that the project completely
> skipped over the steps of asking whether it should be expected to work and
> then looking to see what the answer was.  Merely assuming that software
> (or other rocket components) will work is neither sensible nor safe: you
> need good engineering to give you a _reason_ to expect it to work.

They are certainly at fault for not having done the proper testing,
but had they done so, it would have revealed that the good reasons
they had for expecting things to just work were in fact not true,
not that they had no reason to expect it to work.