Re: Ariane5 FAQ, Professional version, first draft

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

rc211v wrote:

> >A. There are several points which are different for Ariane 5 vs. Ariane 4,
> >one of which was instrumental to the events: Ariane 4 is a vertical launch
> >vehicle where as Ariane 5 is slightly tilted.
> >  Ariane 4 software was developed to tolerate certain amount of inclination
> >but not as much as required by Ariane 5. 
>
>It's absolutely incredible. As far as you know, do you believe a
>conspiracy theory?

Well, reading the source info and "processing" it, I was on the verge of
conspiracy theory, several times. But two things deterred me from that:

1) the Chernobyl's story provided me even more incredible facts (some of them,
in sequence, lead to catastrophe, while others immediately followed it);

2) I understand clearly that in such circumstances any level of suspicion
will not lead to a solid and/or concrete accusation. Actually, any good
conspiracy theory for such cases should focus not at particular decisions
and moves, which lead to disaster, but at the actions that created the
circumstances in which some "natural implementation" of the disaster becomes
probable (perhaps, with little "help"). Obviously, this "probabilistic approach"
to investigation is still quite undeveloped, and therefore it can't be used
effectively -- you can't collect enough information for that, and you can't
convince anybody with that (if you aren't a dictator -;) .

Therefore I think that we should simply ignore a possibility of conspiracy here.

Anyway, every good conspiracy theory should start with the question:
"Who could reasonably expect to benefit from that?".
And I'm not interested in that question for the case of Ariane 5 -:) .



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