Re: Ariane 5 Failure from 1996

[John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:33:44 +0000 (UTC), Nicholas Paul Collin
Gloucester <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> wrote:

>On 2009-07-11, John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|"[..]                                                                  |
>|                                                                       |
>|Well, yes, but my understanding was that the requirements for Ariane 5 |
>|were defined, but no one bothered to spot that they were different to  |
>|Ariane 4 in terms of the intertial reference system operation hence    |
>|reuse of the Ariane 4 SRI as is was not appropriate."                  |
>|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>Another year, another time to bring <397A5CB4.AF5F6B8A@earthlink.net>
>by Robert I. Eachus timestamped 2000/07/23, archived at
>HTTP://groups.Google.com/group/comp.lang.eiffel/msg/414c1bfb4a374be2?dmode=source
>to someone's attention.

Thanks for that. That's something I don't ever remember having read.

>|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|"Funnily enough, I have personal experience of changing requirements   |
>|being ignored by a French person."                                     |
>|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

>Ah, the U.K. and German proposals for SMART-1: within the mass
>requirement, in contrast to the French proposal which won despite
>using more mass than had been permitted.

No, much more personal than that :-)

>However, not only French people cheat or ignore requirements in
>European astronautics.

Of course.