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-Thread: a07f3367d7,f096ebb5dcac664d X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!not-for-mail From: Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ariane 5 Failure from 1996 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:33:44 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <14e1cf5c-b053-49ec-83c8-d36b9afc49ab@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4n1f5510eum9c0b53rb1ui111rmgf23fgd@4ax.com> <2fc55a5a-02e6-4e3d-b172-fd0a0a37cd0e@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <7qgh555mb9bdkkl0nvcf3f36ccsouvgcdh@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org U2FsdGVkX19MuqOtrkakZryFpjy3RPwAP5MqxsiD1nSmcpk90Ekl2eZ1JxvEi2EHjGQd8IaTe5quCjOL97F8DJcBtck2C8i0+E926uPX0qlaXNa6AxWouTTvi8FUq9WzBVPcfkTuApaKIU6V84EwAK2nP8o1E/sjSeYpAloYArs= X-Complaints-To: abuse@eternal-september.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:33:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19fYJLUDt93mxm57oEKh+A8wqx+iJUJlsaYS/KsLR3EzM92jlHBCI0Y5WplOkDJVhg= Cancel-Lock: sha1:zda3PpFMCBJdM073E9VBurnPGto= User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (Linux) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7046 Date: 2009-07-14T14:33:44+00:00 List-Id: On 2009-07-11, John McCabe 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.