Re: Ariane 5 Failure from 1996

[Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>]

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.

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"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.

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