Do you see the error in this code. I sure as hell do not. Cost DM 1200 milllion

[rs20]

Marco,

My point is that if you ran the rocket with assertions turned off, the rocket still would have crashed in this case. Regardless of your opinion of whether assertions should be on or off, that doesn't change the fact that this crash would have occurred even if assertions were turned off, and therefore blaming the crash on the assertions is therefore simply ridiculous and wrong.

As I side note, I respectfully disagree that running a secondary computer with assertions turned off is preferable to the popular triple-redundant system, but I'm not going to try to defend that point, other than to question if there has ever been a rocket failure where that would have helped, and to defer to the experts who designed the system, fallible as they evidently are. You seem to be focussed on the incredibly thin theoretical chance that "forging" ahead could lead to mission success, yet blind to all of the cost, complexity, and extra failure modes exposed by having multiple different computers with different stacks. But I digress, all I really want to claim and defend is what's in the paragraph above.

[Marco]

My point is that if you ran the rocket with assertions turned off, the rocket still would have crashed in this case.

"This software module computes meaningful results only before lift off".

No garbage value it would have produced would have been relevant.

So as I said, bugs happen ... but not just soldiering on is a fundamental design flaw.