Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uprated "10-ton" Ariane 5 Fails

Posted by chrisd on from the boom-boom-boom dept.

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."

7 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Why are we picking on thr Russians? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This failure 'was the fourth failure of an Ariane 5 rocket in its 14-mission history'

    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
    1. Re:Why are we picking on thr Russians? by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can you back up that claim that the Russian's have the best success rate in space?

      For decades the Russian space program was shrouded in secrecy. They publicized only their successes, and frequently lied about them as well. i.e. -- gutting their 1-man capsule, stuffing 3 people in there and claiming it was a new capsule.

      Often, the only way we knew what was going on was successive spy sattelite passovers. Pass #1 showed a rocket; pass #2 showed a blast crater strewn with debris. These trials were denied by the Kremlin.

      I'm not saying you can't be right -- I'm saying I want to see where you get your stats from to justify the claim.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  2. How long does it take?! by FyRE666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    Ironic that /. 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...

    --
    Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
    1. Re:How long does it take?! by FTL · · Score: 5, Insightful
      >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?!

      The Europeans are attempting to send large payload into orbit without spending 1% of the US GNP in the process.

      Remember that the Europeans are the ones who pioneered comercially affordable access to space. They suceeded brilliantly. Now they're trying to do even better. At the moment they're having problems with their new generation of rocket.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
  3. More links and commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From:
    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ariane/v157/i ndex.ht ml
    ".... 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- 02s.html
    ".... 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.

  4. Well.... by MacAndrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Why do metric users use "tons"? by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...