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,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c617ae447ca32f2f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: ff121,3ae3fa74ecb04ab8 X-Google-Attributes: gidff121,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-02 10:35:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!newstransit.mitre.org!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CA9F956.CCCFD3CD@despammed.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.software.extreme-programming,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ariane Failure References: <3CA4B8E5.72909C9B@adaworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:32:54 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1017772387 151.168.144.162 (Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:33:07 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:33:07 EST Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.software.extreme-programming:12841 comp.lang.ada:22010 Date: 2002-04-02T13:32:54-05:00 List-Id: > sensor..." This logic worked fine in Ariane 4 and would likely have detected > a sensor failure and accommodated it appropriately. In my mind, that sounded > a lot like "Good Directions" :-) > > The problem arose when the assumption was made that software that was > designed for Ariane 4 and that worked just fine in that environment was > therefore fit to fly Ariane 5 WITHOUT being tested and validated against the > Ariane 5 flight profile. That's a pretty basic and fundamental error that "It worked before, so no review or test is necessary. Make it so." Sounds like bad directions to me. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau