Re: Ariane 5 failure

[Ravi Sundaram <ravi@ansoft.com>]

Ralf Tilch wrote:
> The reason that the software wasn't checked:
> It was too 'expensive'?!?!.

	Yeah, isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?  
	They, whoever were in charge of these decisions,
	too knew testing is important.  But it is impossible
	to test every subcomponant under every possible
	condition. There is simply not enough money or time
	available to do that.

	Take space shuttle for example. The total computing
	power available on board is probably as much as used
	in Nintindo gameboy. The design was frozen in 1970s.
	Upgrading the computers and software would be so expensive
	to test and prove they approach it with much trepidation.

	Richard Feyman was examining the practices of NASA and
	found that the workers who assembled some large bulkheads
	had to count bolts from two refrence points. He thought
	providing four reference points would simplify the job.
	NASA rejected the proposal because it would involve 
	too many changes to the documentation, procedures and
	testing. (Surely You are joking, Mr Feyman I? or II?)

	So praise them for conducting a no nonsense investigation
	and owning up to the mistakes.  Learn to live with
	failed space shots. They will become as reliable as
	air travel once we have launched about 10 million rockets.

-- 
Ravi Sundaram.  
10/17/96
PS:	I am out of here. Going on vacation. Wont read followups
	for a month.
                                (Opinions are mine, not Ansoft's.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++