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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f039470e8f537101 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-21 16:24:13 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ Date: 21 Jul 2003 16:24:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <1058799152.775376@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.152.82.125 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1058829853 19650 127.0.0.1 (21 Jul 2003 23:24:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jul 2003 23:24:13 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40591 Date: 2003-07-21T23:24:13+00:00 List-Id: 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