Cluster (spacecraft)
en.wikipedia.org
Cluster (spacecraft)
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#2Sounds like it was a real cluster * * * *.
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#3This is the video of the launch, or, "What integer overflow looks like":
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#4Though there are many factors leading up to the failure listed in the article, I think the most serious one was not testing the system under the expected flight conditions. It seems like such a big oversight that I wouldn't be surprised if there were other bugs lurking in the system that had also gone undetected.
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#5[deleted]
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#6Maybe someone more knowledgeable about these things can answer this for me: when they say that this resulted in the loss of $370 million, is that number the entire mission cost or simply the actual rocket plus Cluster cost? I imagine the r&d cost far outweighs the cost of the actual build. I've been wondering at the same time why we don't send another one or two rovers to mars based on the design of curiosity seeing how it worked, as how expensive would the entire build be to replicate considering there's no more r&d costs?
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#7Can someone tell me why this article spends 90% of its wordcount talking about the rocket used to launch the spacecraft rather than the spacecraft itself?
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#8Can someone tell me why this article spends 90% of its wordcount talking about the rocket used to launch the spacecraft rather than the spacecraft itself?
You should probably write a letter to the editor of Wikipedia with your question/complaint, and perhaps threaten to cancel your subscription if their writing doesn't improve to cover what you think it should cover.
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#9And if they used TDD, this wouldn't have happened.
Re: Cluster (spacecraft)
#10Can someone tell me why this article spends 90% of its wordcount talking about the rocket used to launch the spacecraft rather than the spacecraft itself?
Currently, "Ariane 5 Flight 501" redirects to this article. There is a category for launch failures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Satellite_launch_failu...), and looking at that I guess the Wikipedia convention is to name launch failure articles after the satellite that would have been launched.