@wiyosaya You've probably have already seen this but I'll put it up in case anyone who's interested hasn't.
en.wikipedia.org
The intriguing thing about the design, is that has has exactly the same engine configuration as the space shuttle..!
The main engine is liquid fueled, (Oxygen & Hydrogen) with the two side boosters being solid fuel. It makes you wonder how the ESA has gotten, (as of now 98 launches), with only a partial mishap. Which wasn't an explosion, but rather lost telemetry, and an off course insertion of a double satellite launch.
@captaincranky Given Ariane 5's first flight was in 1996 and
the Challenger Disaster was in 1986, the o-ring problem was corrected by then. So, IMO, there should be no problems there.
As well,
the Columbia disaster was, as far as they know, due to missing or cracked heat tiles, which Ariane 5 does not rely on, so no problems there either.
I am willing to bet that Ariane 5 was designed and flown with an abundance of caution. I am sure you know what is said about the link to success with the ability to delay gratification.
Unfortunately, those design flaws got great news coverage and it looked like the shuttle, and its launch system were
by then to who knows how much of the public and politicians (likely) that fancied themselves as knowing better than NASA.
It looks like correcting a design flaw has worked out well for Ariane 5, and in this case, the JWST. With whatever lead to the cancellation of the shuttle program (and I am not saying loss of life is trivial in anyway) it makes me wonder whether the US has lost some of its understanding that to make great strides sometimes, unfortunately, requires great sacrifice, and is often worth the cost.
I am sure that you are able to imagine where we would be now if the US had given up on the Apollo program after the
Apollo 1 disaster. There's an adage I think is appropriate - Experience is the best teacher, but she sends enormous bills.