Re: Ariane5 FAQ

[aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch)]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> > there were no reasons to expect that it should work for this new rocket
>
>That is a nonsensical remark.

Why? It is "refutable" statement, so please tell me the possible reasons --
knowing that the specifications for Ariane 5 definitely weren't compared
against the specifications for Ariane 4 SRI.

> The Ariane 5 designers obviously
>expected that it should work for their rocket, and work without
>any changes,

We know nothing about what Ariane 5 designers thought on this matter,
but we certainly know that their management expected that. So what?
Yes, they expected that, but still without valid reasons. Nobody compared
the specifications, and there wasn't a claim in SRI documentation that it is
intended for some general use, other then for Ariane 4.

Note that although the Report rebukes the SRI documentation for insufficiently
clear (or insufficiently visible) statement of limitations, nevertheless there
is no single remark in the Report from which you may conclude that there was
an overstatement of the SRI capabilities in its documentation.

> so to claim that there were no reasons to expect it to work is silly.

Well, I don't follow you logic here: it seems that you imply presence of
reasons from the fact that some group of people apparently expected something.

(Note also, that this group of people actually proved it as either faulty or
sabotaging body, by skipping the test procedure. So why do you think that the
same body can't expect anything without good reasons?)



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