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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7e8cebf09cf80560
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!87.79.20.105.MISMATCH!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking were
 notturned off?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <a8387564-0835-467d-a461-60a093c38133@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com><4d80b13f$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <m239mnhzmb.fsf@pushface.org>
 <4d8200ce$0$43837$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4d820f84$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <4d835402$0$43840$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4d8356e0$0$5764$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <05ec46e3-cc9c-406e-b4c9-3c1392726436@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:18:23 +0100
Message-ID: <1nc34bs4fccnm.zkmhfmyk46ep$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Mar 2011 18:18:19 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5abfdd21.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=N`SQ<jQM[9k:i=48;n?Z:`McF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkc>T\^nE^;mi[6LHn;2LCVn[<mhadbfdUknO0cRYXGa9kgdd6nZ1gQDe
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19275
Date: 2011-03-18T18:18:19+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:49:17 -0700 (PDT), KK6GM wrote:

> However, (and this is
> the case you and robin have been arguing, while ignoring the existence
> of the redundant hardware in the first place), the last control system
> in the chain (the 2nd one in this case) should obviously never shut
> down, but should fall back to a limp-along mode, which of course may
> or may not be good enough for the mission to succeed.

I disagree. In the case of unrecoverable hardware malfunction you should
bring the system into a safe state and if there is no one to a least
damaging state.

For an unmanned rocket self-destruction is likely such a procedure, because
you don't want it falling upon your head.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de