Slashdot Mirror

Exactly. That is why I said: I doubt someone banished launches in Europe, but I'm to lazy to google that as it is kinda irrelevant ;D

ESA and others launch from French Guiana. http://www.arianespace.com/spa...
Kourou, where the space port is, is 5 degrees north, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The ascent isn't 9G, but about 4.2G max.

What has surprised me is that there has been no real attempt to move the launch platform up to 80,000 feet or so using gas balloon technology. I would have thought this would be feasible, and could result in a substantial fuel saving.

How so? Where are your numbers? What is "substantial"?

Do you know that for orbital launch, it's not the height you launch from but the delta-v that is important? Do you know that the most efficient launch site is probably the Ariane launch facility? I'll leave it to you to figure out why, though they even write the reason on their main page!

http://www.arianespace.com/spa...

Anyway, no one launches at altitudes except sounding rockets. And those, by definition, are never meant to reach anywhere near orbit.

Ah no. At best, they lease it. Of all people you should realize the impermanence of ownership.

As as aside, it should be pointed out that the Russia isn't the only country that makes rocket engines. Arianespace has some perfectly cromulent launch systems available for hire. Bulk discounts likely available. The advantage for them is that they are quite further along with the systems integration than SpaceX.

However, it may be even less politically palatable to be beholden to the .... French .... for space access.

'Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.'

Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.

http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp

And how many of these shareholders are government owned?

Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.

http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp

And they are the only possible competition SpaceX could ever have, right? With no government players involved anywhere in this industry, right?

Or maybe, just maybe, the summary mentioning two private companies doesn't take away a posters' freedom to bring up other related topics. Wow! Isn't that a mind-expanding thought?

Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.

http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp

You mean ULA, Arianespace and ILS.

Which is why most European Space Agency missions are launched from French Guiana.

I don't know why everyone is getting so excited about private spaceflight as if it's a new thing. Arianespace have been around since 1980 and have pretty much cornered the market in satellite launches.

The very first non-government satellite was AMSAT's own OSCAR-1.

The very first secondary payload was OSCAR-1. When other people thought they might be able to hitch a ride in to orbit the way AMSAT did, the Authorities suggested they look at how AMSAT did it.

The free rides in to orbit aren't as plentiful as they once were, but are based on one of two things: either stuff little satellites in to areas of the launch vehicle where "real" satellites won't fit, or take advantage of launch vehicles having excess capacity, since it's easier to build a really big rocket and launch a few tonnes of sand in to orbit along with your satellite than to have to reengineer your rockets every couple of years as satellites get bigger.

The launch system manuals are all available on line and make interesting reading - lobbing a satellite in to orbit is not trivial. You can read about little ones like Pegasus or great big ones like Ariane 5.

There are also people who make payloads that look and behave like satellites, but send them up on balloons instead.

...laura

For those interested, Arianespace toped 5th with 5 Ariane5 (omg 555????) successful launches in 2006. http://www.arianespace.com/site/launchlog/launchlo g_sub_index.html

This just in from the Arianespace website:

"A problem encountered during final preparations of the Ariane 5 ECA launcher has resulted in a postponement of the dual-satellite mission scheduled for this evening.

A new date will be announced in the next few hours."

Hey Boeing isn't the only one who can screw up a first launch, the 'sexier' Ariane 5 self destructed on its first launch do to a software glitch in the primary and redundent guidance systems. Of course on their site the launch log only marks the occasion with a * with no corrosponding note(see flight 88), and the milestones for the Ariane 5 makes the brief a very brief note, "The Ariane 5 501 test flight fails."

Hey Boeing isn't the only one who can screw up a first launch, the 'sexier' Ariane 5 self destructed on its first launch do to a software glitch in the primary and redundent guidance systems. Of course on their site the launch log only marks the occasion with a * with no corrosponding note(see flight 88), and the milestones for the Ariane 5 makes the brief a very brief note, "The Ariane 5 501 test flight fails."

Oh really? I wonder what these guys think of that...
http://www.sea-launch.com/
http://www.arianespace.com/

Ariane launchers are not reusable. So the name sticks to a design rather than a specific launcher. More info on the ariane family.

Was asking myself the same question; the only information I could find was on the ariannespace website: "It uses the Boeing 702 satellite bus and carries a mixed payload of 32 Ku-band transponders, 38 Ka-band transponders and 24 C-band transponders."
I imagine it's impressive, considering its size (48 metres solar array!)..

NASA is trying to fund lots of things and its priorities have shifted in accordance with its history and funding.

Back in the 1960s Congress funded NASA programs because it was "necessary" to beat the Soviets in technology. And the Space Race was the technology showcase that the Soviets chose for us (they were the first in Space with both unmanned and manned vehicles). Congressional candidates translated that into politics: If you did not vote for NASA funding, you were "soft on Communism."

By the time of the moon landings, the rhetoric had changed from "red scare" and "red baiting" to The Great Society, basic human rights and whether or not one was for or against the war in Vietnam. Detante was in vogue because Nixon was winning the "unfought wars" against China and Russia with his trips there.

NASA's attitudes changed from an assumption that funding would always be there, which encouraged a "can do" attitude, to wondering how to save programs and which programs to save. NASA negotiated with people who wanted launch vehicles and found it had competition -- not from the Soviets, who were still unacceptable to the West but from the newly-minted European corporation, largely funded by those governments in Western Europe who needed access to Clarke orbit for geostationary communication satellites.

NASA's first proposal, which I remember from my World Book Encyclopedia, was to build a reusable manned vehicle that it could fit atop a Saturn rocket engine. NASA would use the Saturn V (which was used to launch the moon missions as well as Skylab) to construct an outpost in low Earth orbit and use these reusable vehicles to transfer men and cargo to a space station. The space station would, in turn, be a waypoint for launches to the moon and beyond.

But NASA had problems getting customers to buy into its new concept, because its reusable launch vehicle, or "shuttle" was too small. The military insisted that its cargo bay be of a certain size, so that they could launch large spy satellites. NASA, fearing that all satellite launches would go to Arianespace, kowtowed to the US military and built our present shuttle system. The delay in changing the program cost them ten years and billions of dollars. It cost them most of their "can do" managers. It also cost them support in Congress and among the American people. With no regular launches, media started asking NASA the questions previously reserved for congressmen and the President: "Is this a good use of taxpayer money?"

NASA administrators and PR people started talking about spinoffs from their scientific endeavors to answer many of these questions and even initiated the publication of a magazine in 1996 to help convince the public and corporations that NASA programs are relevant.

Then came the shuttle program. It was over budget, very, very late and hugely popular, until the launches became routine. And what made them routine was a consistent refusal, within top level managers to see that space flight is more dangerous than flying in a private plane. Also, there was no funding for a place for the shuttle to get to as before the first shuttle launched, Skylab fell from the sky. By the time of the Challenger accident in 1986, upper level managers were no longer listening to the scientists assembling and handling the equipment And I would argue that the recommendations in management behavior didn't change.

Nowadays, NASA is infected with a "can't do" attitude as the Columbia tragedy grounds NASA and the facts are reported that managers felt it was best to risk the lives of the astronauts and the shuttle because they

Titan: NASA

While the Titan 2 has been retired and the Titan 4 is being phased out, those vehicles are not operated by NASA, nor are they commercially avaiable. They are built by Lockheed Martin for the US Air Force.

Delta: NASA

The Delta is built and operated by Boeing.

Ariane: unreliable, and run by a baby NASA that speaks French

Ariane is operated by Arianespace, although they do receive some funding from ESA to support development of the Ariane 5.

Pegasus: NASA

Pegasus is built and operated by Orbital Sciences Corporation.

Russian launchers: you're kidding right?

Russian launch vehicles, built by a number of Russian firms, are often an economically-attractive alternative to US and European boosters. Nothing funny about it.

Do you have a source for that 60% number? I did a search, and the most current numbers I found were for 2002, when ESA had 41% of commercial space launches (down from 50% in 2001).

To be pedentic, ESA's market share for commercial launches is 0%, as the agency doesn't conduct commercial launches. Most likely the poster is referring to Arianespace, which operates the Ariane launch vehicle. ESA and Arianespace have a close relationship, which can create confusion like this, but the two are indeed separate entities.

As for statistics, in 2003 there were 17 commercial launches, according to FAA/AST (see page 8 of the PDF file). Europe had four of them (three Ariane 5 launches and the final Ariane 4 launch), while the US and Russia had five apiece. The remaining three commercial launches were conducted by Sea Launch, an international consortium; these are sometimes counted as US launches since Boeing is the lead company in Sea Launch, and the launches are licensed by the FAA.

Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.

Pretty sweeping unsupported statement that, you might want to look at EADS before making any more blind assumptions there... That said I think you're missing the point.

The first space race might have been driven by the military, but if there is to be a second race between ESA and NASA I imagine it'll most likely be driven more by developments in civil aerospace.

Arianespace are hardly a minor global player, neither are Airbus. While admitedly they've yet to show a direct interest in space flight, they are part of EADS and given Boeing's development, it's unimaginable that Airbus hasn't got it's eye on space at some point in the future...

As it stands the ESA have already been working with NASA and the remnants of the old soviet space agency (calling it "Russian" is confusing, since Russia is in Europe) and I expect that they'll continue doing just that, the Space Station is after all an International venture, not just an American thing.

Race or not, this news seems to suggest that (as happened with civil aviation technology in the later years of last century,) Europe might be about to take the dominant role in Space technology now... maybe. Should be interesting anyway, and anything that drives us forward globally has to be a good thing.

Depending on the exact configuration, the Ariane 4 can have up to four solid-fuel strap-ons. The AR40 has none, the AR42P has two solid-fuel strap-ons, and the AR44P has four. It can also use liquid fuel strap-ons, alone or in conjunction with solid fuel strap-ons, giving the AR42L (two liquid), AR44LP (two of each), and AR44L (four liquid). It's really an amazing amount of flexibility.

Anyone wishing to launch a satellite today can do so with a handful of companies worldwide, such as Arianespace, Orbital Science, or you could launch your commercial satellite with a Titan, Proton, or Delta rocket. NASA does not have a monopoly on lauch capability. You're just misinformed and somewhat disturbingly paranoid.

speculative analysis of failure:

fact 1: Cooling pressure in the first (cryogenic) stage was nominal until T+00:01:36 (96 sec) as per BBC report

fact 2: Overall thrust by stage 1 and control of trajectory is dominated by the strap-on solid boosters until solids separate. This happens at about T+00:02:00

fact 3: further stage 1 (cryogenic) core engine problems developed at T+00:03:16. The bird was no longer in a nominal trajectory. per Arianespace This is well after solids separation. The nature of the engine problems were not specified right away. "flight control difficulties" were cited later by Arianespace. (No Kidding!)

My conclusion:

The cryogenic coolant circuit in the Vulcan-2 nozzle seems to have developed a leak, dropping the cooling system pressure.

The uncooled nozzle section in the immediate vicinity of the leak was immediately subjected to excess thermal shock. The coolant is rocket fuel (LH2 or LO2). If injected into the nozzle (as opposed to dumping outside the nozzle) then nozzle pressures and temperatures spike locally. In addition, the exhaust turbulence increases, along with acoustic loads. These factors could easily lead to burn-through of the nozzle wall near the coolant leak location. Burn-through leads to increasingly asymmetric thrust, which the control software does not figure in with its control laws. Unpredictable results (ie trajectory) follow.

Note that the US Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) have a similar cooling design, which had frequent cracking problems. The problems were sometimes discovered after flight, since the engines were thoroughly inspected post-flight. Static ground tests did not seem to uncover all failure modes. The Vulcan-2 is well tested, but no engines can be inspected post-flight since the booster burns up in re-entry.

The problems of extreme thermal shock, extreme thermal gradients, and enormous loads and vibrations make for a brutally unforgiving environment. Good Luck, folks!

speculative analysis of failure:

fact 1: Cooling pressure in the first (cryogenic) stage was nominal until T+00:01:36 (96 sec) as per BBC report

fact 2: Overall thrust by stage 1 and control of trajectory is dominated by the strap-on solid boosters until solids separate. This happens at about T+00:02:00

fact 3: further stage 1 (cryogenic) core engine problems developed at T+00:03:16. The bird was no longer in a nominal trajectory. per Arianespace This is well after solids separation. The nature of the engine problems were not specified right away. "flight control difficulties" were cited later by Arianespace. (No Kidding!)

My conclusion:

The cryogenic coolant circuit in the Vulcan-2 nozzle seems to have developed a leak, dropping the cooling system pressure.

The uncooled nozzle section in the immediate vicinity of the leak was immediately subjected to excess thermal shock. The coolant is rocket fuel (LH2 or LO2). If injected into the nozzle (as opposed to dumping outside the nozzle) then nozzle pressures and temperatures spike locally. In addition, the exhaust turbulence increases, along with acoustic loads. These factors could easily lead to burn-through of the nozzle wall near the coolant leak location. Burn-through leads to increasingly asymmetric thrust, which the control software does not figure in with its control laws. Unpredictable results (ie trajectory) follow.

Note that the US Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) have a similar cooling design, which had frequent cracking problems. The problems were sometimes discovered after flight, since the engines were thoroughly inspected post-flight. Static ground tests did not seem to uncover all failure modes. The Vulcan-2 is well tested, but no engines can be inspected post-flight since the booster burns up in re-entry.

The problems of extreme thermal shock, extreme thermal gradients, and enormous loads and vibrations make for a brutally unforgiving environment. Good Luck, folks!

Also interesting to note, that the Soyuz capsules are managed by Starsem, a french-russion joint venture, in which Arianespace is a shareholder. And for the record: Soyuz has made 1673 succesful launches! So much for anyone's doubt on russian reliability.

"HOT BIRD(TM) 7, Eutelsat's new broadcast satellite readies for launch on Ariane 5 ECA

Eutelsat's HOT BIRD(TM) 7 broadcasting satellite is ready for launch by Arianespace in the night of December 11 to 12."

"12 December - The launch of "10-ton" Ariane 5 failed about 3 minutes after the liftoff.
The reasons are still unspecified.

For more informations, see the website"Translation, OMG, their fucking fault, ask them about it! French tax payers money was proudly burnt on a French rocket"

and this site is not up to date, considering that this version(8 tons for GTO) and this version(10.5 tons to GTO) of Ariane 5 now exists, and that this one will be there soon too, this last one being able of 23 tons max payload into GTO for dual launch.

and this site is not up to date, considering that this version(8 tons for GTO) and this version(10.5 tons to GTO) of Ariane 5 now exists, and that this one will be there soon too, this last one being able of 23 tons max payload into GTO for dual launch.

and this site is not up to date, considering that this version(8 tons for GTO) and this version(10.5 tons to GTO) of Ariane 5 now exists, and that this one will be there soon too, this last one being able of 23 tons max payload into GTO for dual launch.

In out-lifting any rocket built, they must have really taken a subset of available rockets. It doesn't outperform the Ariane 5 either.
The heaviest on the Atlas V list only takes 8,2 tonnes in geosynch transfer, while the Ariane 5 ECS-A that's already flown, is already well over 10 tonnes. And next year it will add quite a bit of extra tonnage capacity to that.

They all do.

I've often wondered if it was some really deep hangup of the (almost exclusively male) people who create them, or if it is just how they must look to function. I've always felt Ariane 4 looked the part even more so. The web page at Arianespace shows this clearly.

All kidding aside, there are several orders of magnitude between the results reported in this thread, and actually getting in to space. I hope they can make it work. But the people at NASA, ESA et al are not fools, and if they spent that much time and money on the problem it just might be because it's a harder problem than it looks...

...laura

NASA should be focusing on things that the private sector can't do, like expensive R&D, non profitable science missions, going to mars, etc. They need to stop competing with private companies and start working with them. NASA has something like $13.6 billion a year to play with. The reason they only have a couple of hundred million left over for mars missions is that they are currently building a white elephant in low earth orbit.

NASA has screwed up priorities. Here is what I would like to see them doing:

• Help fund private missions that look promising.
• Do R&D on new propulsion, launch mthods, etc. Think long term. Asteroid mining is something that will probably be important in the future so do more NEAR style missions.
• Lead operations to go to Mars and other interesting places. Design and fund them while relying on other companies to build everything and launch them.

Another thing, try to make some money out of space. Put advertising on the side of spacecraft, etc. Install HDTV cameras everywhere. Strap IMAX cameras to the side of the shuttle and get some fantastic footage that could help make space interesting again.

Right now if you do a word association test with someone on the street and say "NASA" and they will probably say something about the recent Mars probe losses. We need to get that back to being "Cool!!"

Japan also have an ambitious booster program, even though they have been rather unlucky with it. (the H-2 rockets).

How come this article did not make a single mention of Arianespace which are easily the largest commercial launch company? Boeing and L-M are definitely also-rans in comparison.

If I'm not mistaken, this is part of the Cluster Satellite project, investigating "the Earth?s magnetic field and its interaction with the solar wind."

I think you mean Cluster II. The first one ended up in a swamp when the French Ariane 5 rocket blew up on its maiden flight due to a software bug. Parts of the instrument were actually recovered and are being used in the new mission under the name "Phoenix", a particularly apt use of the name. I say this only because I was working as a sysadmin at the UNH Space Science Center at the time. The SCC was building one of the instruments for Cluster. I remember a lot of people's dreams went down with that rocket.