Talk:Ariane 5 Flight 501

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Origin of error

Apparently this error was from using the "with Ada.Unchecked_Conversion;" feature... in which Ada allows one to loosen the strict type safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.120.202.60 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2005

No "pragma Suppress" which switches off range checks (just as bad). --Krischik T 07:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar/Spelling

I was reading some text and noticied "Since the back-up inertial system was already inoperative, correct guidance and attitude information", is attitude the appropriate word here or should it be altitude? I was about to change it but noticed the same spelling elsewhere in the document, not sure if this is some sort of flight or aerospace term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.20.212 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2006

Your assumption is correct, the text should not be changed. 'Attitude' is an aerospace term and denotes the angular rotations of a vehicle with respect to its flight path. Traditionally, the angles are given as 'roll, pitch and yaw'. Uffe 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

  • Only recently have Ariane 5 launches become as reliable as those of the predecessor model.

This doesn't seem right. 3 failures in 107 launches is a 2.8% failure rate; 4 in 36 launches to date is 11.1% (or generously, counting only complete failures, 5.5%). Possibly the statement is based on an Arianespace calculation, but it isn't clear, and it should in that case be cited as a claim ("Arianespace now estimates ...") rather than a fact. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In March 2007 issue of ASCEND, there was an interesting article about the improvement of the reliability of the western launchers after past failures (which includes Ariane 5 variants). Their main unit of measurement is the the differential rate of failures (delta # of failures/delta # of launches) rather than the integral one (# of failures/# of launches). I think this is qualified to back up the original wording of the sentence. I propose adding this article as a citation. 195.115.92.134 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Original source code"

The link to the German document supposedly containing the original source code: The code given there appears to be written to explain the problem. IMHO it is not even an excerpt from the original, but entirely made up. Production code looks different, more cryptic vsriable and function names for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.63.136 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)