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."
The Russian's didn't get Astra 1K into proper orbit and it's now fish food in the south Pacific, not to be left behind Eutelsat have now got Hotbird 7 fish food in the Atlantic, less than 24 hours later! However, the rest of the latter fleet are only 5-6 years old whilst Astra are still running satellites dating from the late 80's!
The first Ariane 5 was apparently just a quick job mostly made of stripped Ariane 4 parts and poorly designed software. It was used a lot in an old Computers, Ethics, and Social Values text as well as a Software Engineering one, each time as an example of what not to do. The way the texts described its failures and the failure of the process behind its design, Im suprised ANY of the later revisions worked at all.
Actually, the correct spelling for metric is tonne, not ton. And a metric tonne is just a simplification of a commonly used weight. Kind of like an acre is 4840 square yards. Just is easier to say and deal with.
.sig: It's what's for dinner.
The Canadian Space Agency is just as bad, if not worse.
I was really excited when I got employed by them a few years back, and I have some great memories, but I just cannot work for a organization whose largest department is "communications" or more correctly "stickers, posters, and advertising."
The most aggravating thing about the space agency I found while I was working for them was the fact that they heralded every little success they've had and didn't pay attention to the people who were actually accomplishing work and doing stuff of use.
The public doesn't like experiments as much as giant big useless toys that the engineers send to space. It was quite sad really. That's why I left after a short while.
I may one day go back (or go work for the Canadian Arrow, if they get anywhere), but I just remember how disappointed I was when my illusion of the space agency was shattered by the realization of how much of that space agency goes towards advertising and promotion of itself.
~ kjrose
Russia was much more pragmatic in several ways about their space program. Once they had a working, reliable, man-rated launch vehicle and spacecraft, they stuck with it. They built other launch vehicles for heavy lift. They didn't try for the super-amazing do-everything all-in-one model made out of 102% pure unobtanium, the way NASA tries to do everything.
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?!
I think one of the things people don't realise about the Apollo program is just how much it cost.
I remember reading that at the height of the Apollo program, the amount of money being spent was 40 cents per day for every single American. Think about that for a minute - it is an absolutely staggering figure, especially when you consider that it's not in today's money terms. There is now way that any project is ever going to get that level of funding again.
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
Not strictly true. Most NASA spacecraft are built by contractors, but not all. GSFC has built several small satellites at their own facility with a mix of Civil Service and contractor labor. They also build science instruments to fly on satellites.
NASA does have a long standing problem of attracting technical talent to the NASA ranks in sufficient numbers. It is also far more difficult to lay off civil servants when budgets are cut. That is why they use so many contractors, and will likely always do so.
Helium balloons want to be free.
40 cents per day for every single American really isn't that staggering of a figure when you realize we throw away more than that on Cokes and potatoe chips. So we put people on the moon for less than we spend on Cokes... cool. :)