ESA Completes Important Step Toward Vega Launcher

Sven-Erik writes "ESA is reporting that 'An important step forward has just been made in the development of ESA's Vega launcher. After several months' work at the Guiana Propellant Plant at Europe's Spaceport the inert casting of the main Vega motor has been successfully carried out.' The 30-meter tall Vega launcher will be capable of placing a 1.5 ton payload into polar orbit, and it is scheduled for its first launch in 2006 from Europe's Spaceport in French Guiana, where the Ariane 1 launch facilities are being adapted for its use. It will be a perfect complement to ESA's large Ariane 5 and the medium-classed Soyuz."

Comments

Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Vega is a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) launcher. There isn't a commercial market for low earth orbit satellites. Commercial satellites want GEO (geosynchronous orbit). The US military is not going to outsource to ESA (they aren't Indian). So I dont see the point of Vega. If I was doing research and needed a LEO for taking pictures or whatever, I would go with the cheaper reliable Chinese launcher.

ESO need to concentrate on improving Ariane 5 reliability and cost.

Or yeah, and ESO needs to build the OWL!! This earth based telescope should be able to image some planets better than space probes that visited them up and saw them up close.

http://www.eso.org/projects/owl/

Re:Useless

[Polkyb]

I give you two quotes from TFA

Costs are being kept to a minimum by using advanced low-cost technologies and by introducing an optimised synergy with existing production facilities used for Ariane launchers.

and

Unlike most small launchers, Vega will be able to place multiple payloads into orbit.

Seems to me like two damn good reasons to me. Another, being; If you were Europe, would you REALLY want the Chinese to launch your Top Secret military satelites...?

What's the matter with you people?

[marsu_k]

It seems every time a story gets submitted here about ESA and new technologies they're trying to develop, most of the comments are negative. Let's take a look at the discussion so far: "Useless" by AC (+4, insightful), "Is it any good?" (+3, interesting), "Why not fuel free?" (+3, interesting), "A step backward" (+3, informative)... see a pattern here?

First of all, I really have a hard time believing that your random slashdotter would have sufficient knowledge to make any intelligent observations about the projects involved (posting as AC doesn't certainly help); furthermore, even if they would have (I've seen people claim working for NASA here), ESA press relases are (naturally) very thin on technical details. After all, you wouldn't want the whole world to know all of your research, right?

OK, so there have been failed ESA projects (NASA/Russians have also failed more than once if I'm not mistaken), Beagle 2 being the latest (however it is often forgotten here that Mars Express was the real purpose of the mission). So yeah, they might be wasting my tax Euros. I wish they'd waste more! IMHO more research put into space programs ultimately helps everybody, it certainly isn't "useless".

Re:Polar orbit?

[Sven-Erik]

Scientific satellites very often use polar orbits since it allows them to cover the whole of the earth surface.

And if the US military hadn't been involved with NASA and space development throughout its history, I doubt there would be much, if any, NASA.