Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Launch of new heavy-lift Ariane 5 rocket

Posted by Hemos on from the heavy-lifter dept.

obiwan2u writes "In the article Europe's super-rocket rides high, BBC talks about the Feb 12th launch of Arianespace's new bigger/better Ariane 5-ECA. The new rocket can lift multiple satellites totalling 10 metric tons (10K kilograms or about 11 olde english tons) into geosync orbit. The price will hopefully around $15K-$20K per kg. The first launch included a communications satellite and a science experiment called (I'm not making this up) SloshSat , designed to investigate the dynamics of fluids in microgravity. "

32 comments

  1. What is it actually for? by JaxWeb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is more of a technological progression and commerial tool than a scienfic exploration unlike a lot of other projects, which I think is a shame, but in any case, this diagram looks very impressive.

    Just to explain where that funny sounding "Sloshsat" comes from:
    The name Sloshsat Flevo is derived from: 'Slosh' for the movement of liquid, 'sat' for satellite and FLEVO, the acronym for Facility for Liquid Experimentation and Verification in Orbit, and also one of the newest regions in the Netherlands, Flevoland, east of Amsterdam.

    --
    - Jax
    1. Re:What is it actually for? by bhima · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's for putting really big things in space.

      Or several smaller things in space, at the same time.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:What is it actually for? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      This is more of a technological progression and commerial tool than a scienfic exploration unlike a lot of other projects, which I think is a shame

      How exactly were you planning on getting scientific projects into space in the first place? Improving launch engineering brings launch costs down (usually), which makes it easier to pursue scientific projects in space.

  2. Tons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    10 metric tons (10K kilograms or about 11 olde english tons)

    Hang on a moment, if you're being literal, than an "olde english" ton is not the same as a US ton (2000 pounds). The imperial ton is is 2240 pounds, which would make the sentence:

    10 metric tons (10K kilograms or about 9.8 olde english tons)

    Thank you, and have a good day.

    1. Re:Tons by PhilHibbs · · Score: 3, Informative

      The old English tonne was 2160lb, though.

    2. Re:Tons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. The "Olde" english ton is 2000 pounds. The old long ton is 2240 pounds. There are about 2.2 pounds per kilogram (ok to be pedantic, 2.2046226) , and 1000 kilograms is one metric ton. And just to give you more information than you wanted, if you make a cube 1/10 of a metre on each side (we will call this volume 1 litre), and fill it with (pure) water, it weighs 1 kg (at 0 degrees C). Note that this is water at 0 C and not ice at 0C (0 C is the temperature where water freezes, 100 is where it boils). The 1 kg of water must lose 4.19 kJ (kilojoules) of energy to become ice.

  3. This is a dupe! by marat · · Score: 3, Informative

    02/12 version of this story got mysterious lost, but thanks to redundancy on slashdot it finally reached us now just two days later.

    1. Re:This is a dupe! by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      I misread the names of one of the satelites launched, and wondered if launching SlashSat was worth it: surely a dupe.

    2. Re:This is a dupe! by demachina · · Score: 1

      Here is some rocket news that is current. Slashdot moderators in their infinite wisdon rejected it in favor of a Linux based cat feeder.

      George W's Missile defense system attempted another test flight today. The target warhead launched great, the interceptor once again sat on the pad and refused to launch, for the second time in a row. They've had 4 outright failures in 9 attempts and I'm not sure the 5 were entirely successful, its hard to tell with the people running the progream controlling all the information on the test. They can't easily hide the fact the missile didn't launch so they have to admit to those failures.

      Last time they discovered the data busses were overloading and when they started dropping data the flight control computers aborted the launch. Rather than fixing the overloaded busses and dropped data, which would probably be time consuming they just increased the threshold at which point an abort would occur. Yikes, for $8 billion a year you could hope for better engineering than that.

      This time they did the same thing they did last time, damage control, and tried to blame ground equipment and claim the interceptor is great, though they most probably have no clue what the problem was just like last time. I'm going to laugh so hard if the dropped data exceeded the new higher threshold.

      We are spending around $8 billion on this dog that wont hunt, and with its current dismal track record it wont serve as any deterrent. If it doesn't work against one missile being launched from a known location on a known trajectory launched at a known time what are the chances it will work against a surprise attack from a location not knowm in advance and attacks with potentially multiple missiles, multiple warheads and decoys or maneuvering warheads like the ones the Russians are developing to defeat it.

      --
      @de_machina
    3. Re:This is a dupe! by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      It didn't work? What a shock! That's why it's called a *test*.

    4. Re:This is a dupe! by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's why it is called a dud.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    5. Re:This is a dupe! by demachina · · Score: 1

      Only problem is they've failed the last 4 tests in a row. The first 5 tests kind of worked but its widely recognized that they were heavily scripted and not even close to realistic, now that they are attempting something realistic its failed everytime.

      The other obvious point being the last *test* failed too. Normally if you are test flying something and you have a failure you fix the problem. If you don't fix the problem what's the point of testing in the first place, other than you are hoping everything just works. As nearly as I can tell they didn't fix the cause of the last failure, they just brushed the problem of overloading data busses, and data dropouts, under the rug. If you don't actually fix the problems you find in testing chances are high they will continue to recur in future tests and when it goes operational. Low and behold they did have another failure which sure looks a lot like the last one.

      And finally, as nearly as a I can tell, though the missiles are still in testing, and obviously not ready to go in to production, they did in fact put them in to production and have deployed 14 or so in Alaska and California. The project is under huge pressure to go operational NOW and though the obviously aren't ready, but they declared it operational anyway. If they missiles are in fact defective two things follow:

      - The missiles which have been deployed will have to be taken down and repaired, when a fix is known, probably at great expense
      - The system has zero credibility as a deterrent. If North Korea decides to launch missiles at the U.S. they can do so with reasonable confidence that the missile defense will fail. A key point behind testing is to prove to your enemies the system works so it serves as a deterrent. By having test failure after test failure and still going operational you have the opposite effect, you make your deterrent look like a joke and a laughing stock.

      --
      @de_machina
  4. Oblig. Simpsons by SB5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

    So how many rods to the hogshead does it get?

    --
    If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
    it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
  5. Am I just out of the loop... by Spytap · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...for thinking that $20,000 per Kilogram is insanely expensive for a craft built to haul 10,000 Kilograms?

    1. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hauling things to the geostationary orbit is quite expensive in general, it's almost 1/10 of distance to the Moon.

    2. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by themoebius · · Score: 1

      1.5 billion for one launch? Why don't they just build a f**king space elevator?

    3. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by zeur00 · · Score: 1

      Well $20K/Kg multiplied by 10,000 Kg makes $200,000,000. That's 0.2 bil per launch. And that compares quite well with shuttle launch costs (~$400 mil).

    4. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      " 1.5 billion for one launch? Why don't they just build a f**king space elevator?"

      Because we do not know how too yet.
      Yea lets just build a space elevator. While we are at it let's whip up a faster than light drive. And even better let's get that anti-grav launch system working to lift the stuff up for the space elevator.
      Currently there is no way to make the massive amounts of bucky tubes that a space elevator would take. We also do not yet know how to make a working cable from them.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      Am I just out of the loop...
      Pretty much, yah. 20,000*10,000 is 200 million dollars. That sounds about the right ballpark for a heavy-lifting rocket into geo-stationary orbit.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I believe the Delta IV Heavy has similar capabilities and a similar price. Launch costs in general are still insanely expensive.

      I currently have my hopes for lower launch costs pinned on SpaceX's Falcon series, which (if all goes well) should start launching this year. Their Falcon V, although it's overall payload to GTO is only around 2000kg, should have a price equivalent to $10,000 per kg. Hopefully their planned even-larger rocket will have even better prices per kg.

    7. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by furiousgeorge · · Score: 1

      >> That's 0.2 bil per launch. And that compares
      >>quite well with shuttle launch costs (~$400 mil).

      Yet again demonstrating what a colossal, fucking joke the shuttle is.

    8. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by Oopsz · · Score: 1

      But the D-IV heavy isn't commercial-certified, it can only be used for military applications.

    9. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Is that the case? Even if Boeing isn't actively trying to sell their rocket for non-military applications, I doubt that they would turn away a commercial customer if one popped up. I could be wrong, though.

    10. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by Oopsz · · Score: 1

      from the bbc:

      "US company Boeing recently launched its biggest-lift rocket, the Delta 4-Heavy, which has the capability to put 13 tonnes of payload into a geostationary transfer orbit.

      However, the Boeing vehicle *is not currently being offered to the commercial satellite sector and is being reserved for US military work*"

    11. Re:Am I just out of the loop... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Hum. I guess that's just further evidence of how screwed up the launch market is.

  6. Not the first launch by magsilva · · Score: 3, Informative

    This isn't the _first_ launch of the Ariane 5 ECA. The first was on december 2002. Unfortunately, the vehicle was self-destroyed after three minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5) due to a software bug.

  7. Im just waiting by Striker770S · · Score: 1, Insightful

    until they stop using chemical burning rockets to escape orbit. If all the first world countries pool some money in, then we could have a space elevator. It is within our reach.

    --
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
    1. Re:Im just waiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all the _first_ world countries pooled their money in for an actual useful purpose, their wouldn't be third world countries.
      Imagine if the cost of one of these launches were put into building decent infrastructure in a single 3rd word country, what benifits it could bring.
      Screw space, it's time man starts looking out for their own kind, before they start looking for others out there.

  8. Re:Oblig. Simpsons by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1
    12 apostles -- 12 inches

    If the metric system wasn't composed of pure heathen evil, there would have been 10.

  9. Re:Oblig. Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 plagues in Egypt.

    10 horns on the Beast of Revelation.

    10 sephiroth.

    10 Commandments.

    10 "I am"'s spoken by Jesus in the Gospel of John.

  10. Re:Not the first launch (not a failure due to bug) by eternaltedium · · Score: 1

    The reason the ECA was self-destructed in 2002 was due to the engine's cooling system not working correctly, thus the shape of the engine started to bend and twist which in turn made it impossible to porperly control the launcher.

    The engine is cooled by a number of tiny loops thru which liquid hydrogen (not 100% sure about that) is pumped to keep the metal from getting so hot that the above mentioned happens.

    --
    Carpe Noctem
  11. Re:Oblig. Simpsons by JoneK · · Score: 0

    If the metric system is the tool of the devil! Then The The inch system is the tool of the fools :)