They reused software and hardware from the successful Ariane 4. The Ariane 5 generated greater changes of value than the Ariane 4. Maybe there was an overflow in scaling a calculated value, but the root cause was that the software specification was "values up to x.yz", and Ariane 5 could generate larger values- deltas, rates, a dynamic quantity based on sensor data. At launch, the code looked at values it was getting (overflow? maybe) and concluded it couldn't be right. Both computers gave up.
@wbaiv that's what my teachers told me. The engines were stronger than on Ariane 4, so the rocket could go a bigger speed values, bigger than the computer could measure, and they took computer from Ariane 4 with enginer of Ariane 5 without updating the code, therefore comps gave up :D
What happened was they uprated the launch vehicle from Araine 4 to Ariane 5 but did not uprate the software. In turn, it could not compute all the data and thought the rocket was going off course so tried to correct it's trajectory. Downwards. The self terminate mechanism on board decided it's was his turn to activate and....... this was also carrying 6 cluster satellites that were not insured as the owners thought they were getting a free ride........
What happened was they uprated the launch vehicle from Araine 4 to Ariane 5 but did not uprate the software. In turn, it could not cimpute all the data and thought the rocket was going off course so tried to correct it's trajectory. Downwards. The self terminate mechanism on board decided it's was his turn to activate and....... this was also carrying 6 cluster satellites that were not insured as the owners thought they were getting a free ride........
Not exactly. They used parts of the original Ariane 4 software and one of these parts couldn't handle the much higher initial acceleration values and caused an overflow while converting a floating point into an integer value. The guidance systems got totally wrong numbers and tried to correct them by gimballing all nozzles to the max...
Ironically, this part of software wasn't even needed on the Ariane 5.
Btw. Cluster consisted of 4 spacecraft, later launched on 2 Soyuz flights.
The trouble is, they were over-confident with their design. It's now a hugely successful rocket, but they were dumb to claim it would have a near-perfect success before even launching it.
Worst thing... it was the first launch of the vehicle and it was carrying a new communication satellite. You really think those ESA propheads would've made a few test launches before placing any expensive payloads on that rocket in the first place!
False, there was no communications satellite on board. This was a test launch, so they offered the rocket for free to anyone who wanted a risky ride. As a result it was carrying for small science satellites.
První zkušební let Ariane-5 dne 04.06.1996 byl neúspěšný a skončil několik desítek sekund po startu explozí ve výši 3500 metrů a to včetně družic Cluster za 500 milonů dolarů.
Nosná raketa Nosná raketa Ariane 5 je součástí vesmírného programu evropské kosmické agentury ESA Ariane. Raketa je konstruována zejména pro vynášení telekomunikačních družic na geostacionární dráhu z kosmodromu v Kourou ve Francouzské Guyaně na americkém kontinentu.
Heh. I remember that day. Dave Hinton and Jim Goddard were sitting across from me while I was monitoring the rocket's ascent. I lost all trajectory information and thought it was instrumentation until the deafening rour of the explosion rocked the control room.
Needless to say, the original programmer for that sub-routine was fired (and later hired by NASA) and quite a few quality control personnel were reassigned -- to unemployment.
Sure, fire the engineer for not writing perfect code. Did they also fire the guy responsible for test-as-you-fly testing? Because that was primarily his fault in not understanding the system engineering aspects of what shoving the same software on a different vehicle would do.
Stuff like that cost SpaceX a vehicle too when they thought they could just switch an ablative to a regen engine almost as an afterthought.
What a fucking moron. Java is not a magic bullet. Java does not solve the halting problem. You absolutely do not program aerospace software in Java. STFU
As opposed to you, I actually know very well what I am talking about. I am working in the aerospace industry and has written several pieces of mission critical software for space missions.
Your perception of java's error detection capabilities should indicate that no software written in java should ever have bugs. This is wrong on so many levels that I have no idea on how I should explain it to you. Suffice to say that you should try to grow up. Good luck with that.
Yeah, raining fire onto parked cars and alligators is a bad idea. Its interesting to see that the Delta's second stage engine is going to be re-used on the Orion.
@bikingchad: The second stage engine is not what malfunctioned. It was one of the small Solid Rocket Motor strap-ons. And any way, the engine being used on the Ares V is the RS-68b, adapted from the first stage engine of the Delta IV.
@Tyrannobeast I think you're thinking about the Delta II launch on January 17, 1997 which failed shortly after liftoff and rained fire on parked cars and alligators at the KSC in FL, USA.
you know, it's not actually tax money. the rocket is build by EADS (which is a contractor of ESA), but the payloads are usually bought by private companies. True, the failure means that ESA won't get payed by its clients, BUT they have insurance for that kind of stuff.
its not a big deal there r always some failures in development stage of launch vehicles but today ariane is one of most reliable and busy commercial launch vehicle with mind blowing success rate....
and prefers above US launch vehicles for launch of communication sattelites for all over the world...
You're right that there are failures in development, but in this case the problem was a fault in software testing. = 100% human error and thus preventable.
According to the ESA report, the system failure only caused the rocket to break apart. The explosion was caused by the Range Safety system aka the self-destruct device.
It is true that the rocket veered off course, but that did indeed trigger the safety system to destroy the rocket. Go to Wikipedia and look up "Ariane 5 Flight 501".
"Due to a malfunction in the control software the rocket veered off its flight path 37 seconds after launch and it was destroyed by its automated destruct system when high aerodynamic forces caused the core of the vehicle to disintegrate."
wikipedia is not a good source, anyone can change the info on the page. "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here" a cut and paste from the disclaimer
Wikipedia is an excellent source because 1) attribution/sourcing is required 2) it is peer reviewed 3) it has neutrality as a strongly enforced policy 4) it is completely open and history of edits is available.
The review of the Flight 501 wikipedia page shows no sign of vandalism that has corrputed the claim that the self-destruct system was activated. And in the External Links there is the inquiry report which conforms the claim.
i wasn't disputing your claim, however, I thought you would like to know that Wikipedia issued a letter to all univeristies that students should not use the website as a reference, however, the website can be used as a starting point to get the general idea. The fact that this is in the websites disclaimer as well mutes your point that it is an excellent source.
We can always debate what a "source" is. WP is not an *original source*... but it is a "meta-source"... a source of sources with the relevant information collected on the pages.
Excellent? No but very good. Wikipedia was found to have marginally more errors in 50 scientific subjects than the Encyclopedia Britannica in recent veracity tests. 3 and 4 errors per article rspectively. Maybe the Britanica should carry a diclaimer?
This is one "sturdy" video. =p
indseytate718l 1 month ago
Your video is a favorite on Cote d'Ivoire
lanemays513 2 months ago
They reused software and hardware from the successful Ariane 4. The Ariane 5 generated greater changes of value than the Ariane 4. Maybe there was an overflow in scaling a calculated value, but the root cause was that the software specification was "values up to x.yz", and Ariane 5 could generate larger values- deltas, rates, a dynamic quantity based on sensor data. At launch, the code looked at values it was getting (overflow? maybe) and concluded it couldn't be right. Both computers gave up.
wbaiv 7 months ago
@wbaiv that's what my teachers told me. The engines were stronger than on Ariane 4, so the rocket could go a bigger speed values, bigger than the computer could measure, and they took computer from Ariane 4 with enginer of Ariane 5 without updating the code, therefore comps gave up :D
JulesAlexanderJordan 5 months ago
The fact that the consortium swapped the guidance system contractors between A4 and A5 may (or may not) have been a factor also.. :)
bombdoc42 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What happened was they uprated the launch vehicle from Araine 4 to Ariane 5 but did not uprate the software. In turn, it could not compute all the data and thought the rocket was going off course so tried to correct it's trajectory. Downwards. The self terminate mechanism on board decided it's was his turn to activate and....... this was also carrying 6 cluster satellites that were not insured as the owners thought they were getting a free ride........
volvot5turbo 10 months ago
What happened was they uprated the launch vehicle from Araine 4 to Ariane 5 but did not uprate the software. In turn, it could not cimpute all the data and thought the rocket was going off course so tried to correct it's trajectory. Downwards. The self terminate mechanism on board decided it's was his turn to activate and....... this was also carrying 6 cluster satellites that were not insured as the owners thought they were getting a free ride........
volvot5turbo 10 months ago
@volvot5turbo
Not exactly. They used parts of the original Ariane 4 software and one of these parts couldn't handle the much higher initial acceleration values and caused an overflow while converting a floating point into an integer value. The guidance systems got totally wrong numbers and tried to correct them by gimballing all nozzles to the max...
Ironically, this part of software wasn't even needed on the Ariane 5.
Btw. Cluster consisted of 4 spacecraft, later launched on 2 Soyuz flights.
blablubb12345 10 months ago
Someone missed debuggin before launch :D
KillerJoeFIN 11 months ago
Remember this, kids. This is what happens when you try to do math. :)
avsfan331940 1 year ago
The trouble is, they were over-confident with their design. It's now a hugely successful rocket, but they were dumb to claim it would have a near-perfect success before even launching it.
MattTheSaiyan 1 year ago
silly frenchies
cannibalcarrie 1 year ago
silly frenchies
cannibalcarrie 1 year ago
Actually, the error just caused the rocket to go off course. A range safety system triggered the explosion.
denelson83 1 year ago
No, all engines worked fine, it was a fault in the flight software.
blablubb12345 1 year ago
shit happens!
jasong19711 2 years ago 3
Worst thing... it was the first launch of the vehicle and it was carrying a new communication satellite. You really think those ESA propheads would've made a few test launches before placing any expensive payloads on that rocket in the first place!
BigKwell 2 years ago
False, there was no communications satellite on board. This was a test launch, so they offered the rocket for free to anyone who wanted a risky ride. As a result it was carrying for small science satellites.
Odo987 2 years ago
lol :D
stigellmeister 2 years ago
pretty sweet visual
CHIHUAHUAconda 2 years ago
at least he didn't mention ruby
he didn't, right?
yarahahrwe 2 years ago
První zkušební let Ariane-5 dne 04.06.1996 byl neúspěšný a skončil několik desítek sekund po startu explozí ve výši 3500 metrů a to včetně družic Cluster za 500 milonů dolarů.
Nosná raketa Nosná raketa Ariane 5 je součástí vesmírného programu evropské kosmické agentury ESA Ariane. Raketa je konstruována zejména pro vynášení telekomunikačních družic na geostacionární dráhu z kosmodromu v Kourou ve Francouzské Guyaně na americkém kontinentu.
ostrovan21 2 years ago
heh! wow! i was there that day as well! i spilled my tang all over my six million dollar man.
shotocam 2 years ago
Heh. I remember that day. Dave Hinton and Jim Goddard were sitting across from me while I was monitoring the rocket's ascent. I lost all trajectory information and thought it was instrumentation until the deafening rour of the explosion rocked the control room.
Needless to say, the original programmer for that sub-routine was fired (and later hired by NASA) and quite a few quality control personnel were reassigned -- to unemployment.
Sad day indeed.
aphexcoil 2 years ago 4
Sure, fire the engineer for not writing perfect code. Did they also fire the guy responsible for test-as-you-fly testing? Because that was primarily his fault in not understanding the system engineering aspects of what shoving the same software on a different vehicle would do.
Stuff like that cost SpaceX a vehicle too when they thought they could just switch an ablative to a regen engine almost as an afterthought.
Ahh, aerospace is hard...
ugowar 2 years ago 13
@ugowar aerospace isn't hard, stop bitching.
seadmaker 1 year ago
@seadmaker Sure it isn't.
ugowar 1 year ago
@ugowar geek
nukz0r 1 year ago
did he died?
DidHeDied 2 years ago
Who? There is no one onboard :)
dyrsten 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this rocket is a ussr russia SS-18 missile explosion
bestamerica 2 years ago
No, it is an Ariane 5 from the European Space Agency. This launch was on June 4, 1996.
bikingchad 2 years ago 8
the rocket broke donw coz of too much g`s rolf this is the second video that i found of rocket that rip apart of g forces nice one
GIANNHSPEIRAIAS 2 years ago
Titan Rocket Crash is also a breakup due to shroud failure and a pitchdown..........
artwleb 2 years ago
@bikingchad the first ariane 5 in fact ;-) ......
volvot5turbo 10 months ago
@bestamerica no its not are you serious its araine 5 explosion and i was there when it launched i was on vacation in south america
MrInsects 10 months ago
bad Software Engineering
SmartProgramer 3 years ago
the most expensive computer bug ever
undeadwarrior69 3 years ago 4
what is the name of computer
bestamerica 2 years ago
it was programmed in ADA, it was an unhalndled exception now easily solvable if we program in java :)
ThjeshtLife 2 years ago
exactly how would java fix this? by sending an error message to the user? you obviously have no idea about what a real-time system is.
herrting 2 years ago
you have no idea of what yo're talking about, java doesn't allow you to run something if it predicts something can go wrong
ThjeshtLife 2 years ago
Obviously you don't really know ADA. Its compiler has been MATHEMATICALLY proven.
Java wouldn't help.
Vanadyel99 2 years ago
Obviously you don't know ADA. ADA has been mathematically proven.
Java won't help.
Vanadyel99 2 years ago
What a fucking moron. Java is not a magic bullet. Java does not solve the halting problem. You absolutely do not program aerospace software in Java. STFU
lettucemonster 2 years ago
hahaha
fucking stupid, yes really high tech firework
I was wondering about sound,
after explosion completed what was the sound?
arozise 3 years ago
As opposed to you, I actually know very well what I am talking about. I am working in the aerospace industry and has written several pieces of mission critical software for space missions.
Your perception of java's error detection capabilities should indicate that no software written in java should ever have bugs. This is wrong on so many levels that I have no idea on how I should explain it to you. Suffice to say that you should try to grow up. Good luck with that.
herrting 2 years ago
What language(s) do you develop in?
bikingchad 2 years ago
@bikingchad Ada??
sriram87 1 year ago
@herrting software engineering,cute.
cannibalcarrie 1 year ago
really "high tech fireworks"
oswaldotovar 3 years ago
holy stipids
the busters have to stay in front of the rocjket, never behind
sdrfgvrfgvsfravgdsvS 3 years ago
French people thought integers were snails and went to lunch
monobrowperson 3 years ago
Challenger was whorse.
Helge129 3 years ago
delta 2 was worse too
smithy84it 3 years ago
Yeah, raining fire onto parked cars and alligators is a bad idea. Its interesting to see that the Delta's second stage engine is going to be re-used on the Orion.
bikingchad 3 years ago
@bikingchad: The second stage engine is not what malfunctioned. It was one of the small Solid Rocket Motor strap-ons. And any way, the engine being used on the Ares V is the RS-68b, adapted from the first stage engine of the Delta IV.
Tyrannobeast 1 year ago
@Tyrannobeast I think you're thinking about the Delta II launch on January 17, 1997 which failed shortly after liftoff and rained fire on parked cars and alligators at the KSC in FL, USA.
bikingchad 1 year ago
Having a live crew, that is definitely true.
bikingchad 3 years ago
Duff?
Dojan5 3 years ago
BOOM! A whole lot of tax money pulverised in seconds.
OnniDaWanda 3 years ago
you know, it's not actually tax money. the rocket is build by EADS (which is a contractor of ESA), but the payloads are usually bought by private companies. True, the failure means that ESA won't get payed by its clients, BUT they have insurance for that kind of stuff.
NighthawkJM 3 years ago 2
Ok, you know better ;)
OnniDaWanda 3 years ago
A Cluster fuck indeed.
hallsirius 3 years ago
integer division by zero
rpaulinich 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fireworks haha
nekoraba 3 years ago
expensive fireworks
AreaQNH870 3 years ago
happy new year!!
09217566275 3 years ago
Ein schlechter Start in den Tag!
SparkIV 3 years ago
Now I wonder why this has been voted down.
He says "A bad start of the day" and I agree.
Ja, schlecht.
Dojan5 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
everyone died
phartknocker1 3 years ago
Who died?
blablubb12345 3 years ago
My mom's name is Ariane!
z1nk666 3 years ago
Good firework!
superkarro2001 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WELL IT WAS FRENCH WHAT DO YOU EXPECT
rmather161 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ahah so agreed.
2Sp3cKo 3 years ago
So funny, poor ignorant, now this is the best lancer in the world. HAHA
houlala16 3 years ago
oh put..........
guitardjoe 3 years ago
lame.
cameronlian 3 years ago
I call it a real firework! Where to buy?:)
z1mo 3 years ago 5
i feel bad for the guy who fucked up and it was his fault :)
fultonhockey46 4 years ago
that was cool
ROFL360 4 years ago
cooool!!!
EmeraldFilms 4 years ago
If you really think about it, that's billions of dollars blown up in an instant.
DreamScape1229 4 years ago
It's not billions.. Few hundreds million, even with current rate of euro/dollar it's not a billion.
dimitrislam 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People died. I guess thats more important than money
Watzitoya 3 years ago
Nobody died, it was an unmanned launch. An expensive satellite got destroyed though.
CommunistHamster 3 years ago 7
*sigh* lol
Watzitoya 3 years ago
Actually, four satellites (ESA "Cluster" mission)were lost.
blablubb12345 3 years ago 2
stop making up stupid lies like that. No one died.
joachim2464 3 years ago
It is one rocket and two boosters. It, Ariane 5, can carry as much as the Space Shuttle.
colmleydon 4 years ago
Close...Ariane 5 can carry 21,000kg to LEO; Shuttle carries around 25,000kg to LEO.
Sanjacsouth 4 years ago
shuttle costs A LOT more to operate, though.
mhansl 3 years ago
HURRY THE CODE FO INFINITE HEALTH.....x triangle explosion up to late..........
Contosoldier 4 years ago 2
lol
xBMTHx42 4 years ago
huh?
44R0Ndin 4 years ago
Yep, that was what caused the problem. The software was tested and certified for the A4 but was not properly tested on the A5 guidance system.
bikingchad 4 years ago
its not a big deal there r always some failures in development stage of launch vehicles but today ariane is one of most reliable and busy commercial launch vehicle with mind blowing success rate....
and prefers above US launch vehicles for launch of communication sattelites for all over the world...
manumanish 4 years ago
You're right that there are failures in development, but in this case the problem was a fault in software testing. = 100% human error and thus preventable.
bikingchad 4 years ago
yes a sign that a united europe wont split up
Falsbourg 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ariane 5 Carp low performance rocket:)
superkarro2001 4 years ago
It was in 1996, now it s the best in the world, learn more people, you re just jalous or ignorant. So shup up now i leanrned you something haha
houlala16 4 years ago 16
i could do a better job!
Chubachus 4 years ago
And fucking noob techniks :P
BASSMANN2007 4 years ago
:((((
Saigonrus 4 years ago
According to the ESA report, the system failure only caused the rocket to break apart. The explosion was caused by the Range Safety system aka the self-destruct device.
itchycam 4 years ago
not true, as you can see, the rocket makes a turn to the right. Thats not good, to much pressure, and the result is BOEMMMM!!!!
i like it
raymondgreat 4 years ago
It is true that the rocket veered off course, but that did indeed trigger the safety system to destroy the rocket. Go to Wikipedia and look up "Ariane 5 Flight 501".
"Due to a malfunction in the control software the rocket veered off its flight path 37 seconds after launch and it was destroyed by its automated destruct system when high aerodynamic forces caused the core of the vehicle to disintegrate."
mkarnerfors 4 years ago
uhm maby you got it!!
but i like the big BOEM!!!
raymondgreat 4 years ago
wikipedia is not a good source, anyone can change the info on the page. "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here" a cut and paste from the disclaimer
irishrover81 4 years ago
Wikipedia is an excellent source because 1) attribution/sourcing is required 2) it is peer reviewed 3) it has neutrality as a strongly enforced policy 4) it is completely open and history of edits is available.
The review of the Flight 501 wikipedia page shows no sign of vandalism that has corrputed the claim that the self-destruct system was activated. And in the External Links there is the inquiry report which conforms the claim.
mkarnerfors 4 years ago 3
i wasn't disputing your claim, however, I thought you would like to know that Wikipedia issued a letter to all univeristies that students should not use the website as a reference, however, the website can be used as a starting point to get the general idea. The fact that this is in the websites disclaimer as well mutes your point that it is an excellent source.
irishrover81 4 years ago
We can always debate what a "source" is. WP is not an *original source*... but it is a "meta-source"... a source of sources with the relevant information collected on the pages.
mkarnerfors 4 years ago
Aye fair enough, just don't write anything academic and quote WP, you will be crucified. Friendly advice :)
irishrover81 4 years ago
Excellent? No but very good. Wikipedia was found to have marginally more errors in 50 scientific subjects than the Encyclopedia Britannica in recent veracity tests. 3 and 4 errors per article rspectively. Maybe the Britanica should carry a diclaimer?
jackjude 4 years ago
doesnt matter.. its still a failure.
decimuscarrerus 4 years ago
Wich type of rocket this really is caus it isn't arianne 5?
repsollenny 4 years ago
forget that last comment sorry
repsollenny 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
POGO POGO!
vsyncci 4 years ago
Perhaps someone fed the guineapig some baked beans before takeoff ...
SiliconBong 4 years ago
Owned.
AndyII6III9 4 years ago
I doubt that.
mbrownkcmo 4 years ago
They should use Visual Basic ... :)
mcossy 4 years ago
Damned strongly-typed languages.
danielusfrnz 4 years ago 5
Damned noob programmers :p
kallash47 4 years ago
lol
minichaders 4 years ago