Slashdot Mirror
Uprated "10-ton" Ariane 5 Fails
Soft writes "The latest version of the European Ariane 5 booster ("ESC-A") has failed on its first launch. Liftoff was good up to booster separation but the core stage shut down one minute afterwards or so. The rocket was supposed to lift ten metric tons (22,000 lb) to geostationary transfer orbit, versus 6.7 for the previous Ariane 5G (and 5 and 5.3 for the latest Atlas 5 and Delta 4). Arianespace planned to retire its other launchers (Ariane 4, Ariane 5G) in favor of Ariane 5 ESC-A. Next launch, of space probe Rosetta, was due in mid-January."
I consider this good news--a nation with billions of dollars invested in a project get the same results as some amatuer projects : kerplop. Gives me hope that non institutionalized entities can make it to space despite the negative publicity they get because of the trial and error process.
Can't say that they shouldn't be in space when some one this big fouls up too.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
When the very first Ariane 5 rocket launched, it blew up on the pad, taking with it, the (uninsured) Cluster probe. The new and improved Ariane really isn't....
I think it's good that they're actually testing these things out. People make mistakes, they learn from them, and then progress in made.
umm, the Challenger disaster or the Apollo crisis anyone?
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
When the recent Rusian launch failed it was a 'Huge Faliure', 'A Terrible Blow'. etc.. Admitedly it was a big sattelite, but the Russian's success rate in space is better than anyones. This makes the ESA look pretty stupid.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
That's the fifth failure in 14 launches for them and it comes at the same time Russia is stating it can't fulfill all of it's missions to the ISS. Or is it that the Russian missions won't fulfill the ISS?
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Am I missing something here? I mean, we managed to send a bunch of guys over to the moon over 30 years ago with the combined processing power of today's toasters, yet now we have a 33% failure rate on the latest technology, computer designed craft and all that experience?! What are they using cheap taiwanese chipsets and Fujitsu hard drives in these things or something?
/. just hard an article about modern consumer goods being unreliable when compared to items from 5 years ago. Looks like the space agencies are following the same path...
Ironic that
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
From:i ndex.ht ml ......"
- 02s.html ......"
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ariane/v157/
".... Arianespace has scheduled a news conference for 1300 GMT (8 a.m. EST) Thursday to provide information on the mishap.
So we get more details tomorrow.
From:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/launchers
".... Wednesday's flop could jeopardize Arianespace's dominant position on the commercial satellites market. The Ariane 5-ESCA is the European consortium's latest weapon in its battle with Boeing and Lockheed Martin of the United States for domination of the world satellite launch market.
It appears the Ariane 5 has proven to be one troubled rocket. It appears the US companies (Lockheed-Martin and Boeing) have gotten on track again with their new redesigned Atlas and Delta launchers. Actually, I think it is fun to some kind of space race again, even if it is just to orbit.
No, not all our "space stuff" is government, such as Pegasus, and most of the projects are run by contractors. NASA just picks the worng, er, right programs to fund. Someone quipped that while most agencies have a public relations dept., NASA is a public relations dept. that happens to have an agency. In other words, politics.
It should be noted that our arms race gave a huge boost (ha-ha) to the space program that came as a very heavy price. Yes, I'm glad we got some peaceful dividends from ICBM work, but this could have been achieved more cheaply, as with the Ariane.
I wouldn't be too quick to pick a winner by political system or nationality. The Ariane is quite the success story, and now the Russians are picking up some significant American contracts with their wonderfully reliable booster, and it looks like the Chinese will in time get it together. The overall payload delivery system will ultimately be quite international -- as any non-jingoistic capitalist would want it to be, competition will spur innovation and lower price. Also, as a peacenik I would be delighted to see everyone preoccupied with getting stuff into orbit and leaving it there, not dropping it on someone else.
That said -- I will admit feeling a little twinge each time the American space program shrinks one little bit more. Living here, we all have it as just a bit of our pride, silly or not. Same for passenger jets.
Humm... do you really know what you are talking about? I think you are just expressing what people whose interest is money thinks. Quiet franckly not everyone is money driven. Life show me that there is no such things as one size fits all. I think your comments do have so truth in it but are not relevant to the current failure of Ariane. If you are a little bit involved in any space related programs (I am am involved with several NASA projects) you will learn that even though we have done a lot of progress in this area since the program started, we are still like infants experimenting. It is true for both the US and Europe and any failure should remind us how much will still have accomplish and how much we already did accomplish.
A metric ton is 1000 kilograms. It fits nicely into the International System, where multiples of 10 are used. The question is not why there is a metric ton, the weird thing is why there is an Imperial ton? How about an Imperial meter, measuring 40 inches? Or an Imperial hour -- oh, sorry...
History says that you should never put your satellite on the first launch of a new launch vehicle, or the first launch of a substantially modified launch vehicle. The odds are that your satellite will need an underwater tracking beacon.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I watch in amusement as yet another euro-firework goes pop. Yet another demonstration of the uselessness of the United Socialist Bureaucratic States of Europe. Yet another demonstration of the shoddiness of that oxymoron "nationalized industry".
My prediction: in less than a decade from now, only businessmen will own space vehicles, and space will be settled by commerce, not governments. And at long last, with honest capitalism at the wheel, space tourism will become as normal, safe, available, and comparatively inexpensive as a luxury sea cruise.
In Socialist Europe, government owns companies. In Capitalist America, COMPANIES own GOVERNMENT!
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
I almost wish I could agree, but, for example:
e lta2_delay_ 021030.html
0 2b/120602okeefe.htm
In October, a Boeing Delta 2 was severely damaged on the pad after a crane operator accidentally ripped the satellite and third stage off the top of the second stage after they were bolted together:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/d
LockMart seems to be doing okay lately with the Atlas launches, but can we forget Mars Climate Orbiter and Polar Lander, lost to failure to convert units and and inablility of software to properly detect the ground, respectively?
And don't get me started on ISS. Too late---ISS is a massive, catastrophic failure in agonizing slow motion. Everybody at NASA is patting themselves on the back because they think they can put more than three crew members on the piece of junk after all---in 2006!: http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/20
If you want to see how much the US space program values intelligence and ingenuity, ISS is your answer. A few unmanned rockets blowing up on the pad or on ascent is almost refreshing by comparison.