Ariane5 Troll -;)

Ariane5 Troll -;)

[Alexandre E. Kopilovitch]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>
> > They took a piece of self-contained hardware and moved it
> > from one rocket to another. They thought the software would
> > work. We have to assume that the Ariane 5 folks were not
> > complete blithering idiots, so they must have has readsons
> > to assume it would work.
>
> So what if it had been a hardware problem? (say, an op amp going
> unstable because of inputs exceeding design parameters).
>
> You have had pointed out to you many, many times that the Ariane 5
> people who would have been expected to do the checking were not
> permitted to -- by blithering idiots, one has to assume -- and you
> can't seem to get the point. you are plainly a troll. *plonk*

If he is a troll then he is a very wicked troll, perhaps a senior troll -;) .
Because he is adamant for substantial time, facing solid opposition of all
other participants in the discussion. He must have a clear purpose for that.
What may be that purpose? Look, he insisted that there should be some reasons
for that unfortunate management's decision, but consistently refraines from
guessing what those reasons may be; and he takes all turns to hold this
increasingly undefendable position. So, probably he waits in hope that some
of participants (or still silent observers) will lose his nerve and shout an
obvious possible reason -- and then the troll will enjoy.

  Dear troll, your efforts are great, you even inspired me for a verse:

  Every decision must have its reason
  And every sensation must have its season.
  But our reasons entail decisions
  No more that seasons dictate sensations.

-:)


Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Ariane5 Troll -;)

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote:
 > Look, he insisted that there should be some reasons for that unfortunate
 > management's decision, but consistently refraines from guessing what those
 > reasons may be

You'll notice that the unfortunate management did not decide
to replace the engines with hamsters running in wheels. Why
not? If you insist that management makes completely stupid
decisions for no good reason, they should have done that as
well, since hamsters are so much cheaper.

Decisions may be bad, and they may be wrong, but they are
seldom made for no reason at all - the people making them
must believe that they are doing the right thing at the time.
Or are you contending that they wanted the rocket to fail?

Your purported FAQ makes lots of speculation as to the mindset
and beliefs of people in the project. Do you have any evidence
for this?

Re: Ariane5 Troll -;)

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> > Look, he insisted that there should be some reasons for that unfortunate
> > management's decision, but consistently refraines from guessing what those
> > reasons may be
>
>You'll notice that the unfortunate management did not decide
>to replace the engines with hamsters running in wheels. Why
>not?

Just because they weren't engineers. As the managers they may *decide* among
already existing set of technical solutions; they may call engineers and other
technical or scientific experts and ask them for extension of that set; but
they can't propose technical solutions of their own.

> If you insist that management makes completely stupid
>decisions for no good reason,

Not at all. They may had many good reasons of various kinds (cost, schedule,
national security, market opportunities etc.). But still they had no reasons
to expect that the software, which was created for Ariane 4, should work for
new rocket Ariane 5.

> they should have done that as
>well, since hamsters are so much cheaper.

No, they may choose entirely inapproriate solution if it happens to be in
some general set (which is not tuned for the case); but they can't decide
for anything too irrelevant.

>Decisions may be bad, and they may be wrong, but they are
>seldom made for no reason at all

As I just said there well may be reasons, and we know that there actually
were at least two - cost and schedule. But that did not constitute complete
set of nesessary reasons.

> - the people making them
>must believe that they are doing the right thing at the time.

Yes, no one disagrees.

>Or are you contending that they wanted the rocket to fail?

Not at all, there is no need for such awful assumptions. But perhaps (if you
wish), for some of them the success of the rocket was not among their primary
personal goals, and the risks associated with the possible failure of the
rocket weren't among the most sensitive personal risks. For example, visible
administrative failure -- such as too big delay against the schedule -- may
be considered as high personal risk, while a launch failure may be considered
as lesser personal risk, because in such a case there was a good chance that
the blame may be essentially diverted (the latter was actually happened...
so nobody should be considered as stupid). 

>Your purported FAQ makes lots of speculation as to the mindset
>and beliefs of people in the project.

I don't think so. Pointing out at the expectations (about specific class of
things), which are natural for persons with particular background and or
experience, is not a speculation about their mindsets and beliefs.



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Ariane5 Troll -;)

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Kopilovitch wrote:
> Just because they weren't engineers.

You keep saying that. Where is your evidence that the project
managers were not engineers?