ESA's Vega Launcher Has Successful Maiden Flight

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ESA's Vega Launcher Has Successful Maiden Flight

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @09:08AM from the russia-take-note dept.

Zothecula writes "The European Space Agency's new Vettore Europeo di Generazione Avanzata — or Vega — launch vehicle lifted off from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, at 10 a.m. GMT on February 13 on its maiden flight. Designed for launching small payloads, Vega is intended to complement Europe's existing family of launchers that includes the Ariane 5 heavy-lifter and Soyuz medium-class launchers. The qualification flight, designated VV01, saw the first Vega successfully carry nine satellites into orbit."

32 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Chevy? by garyoa1 · 2012-02-14 09:20 · Score: 2

Hope they do better than Chevy's Vega.

--
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
1. Re:Chevy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Great. Now I have Tom's Diner by Suzanne Vega going through my head. Better than Luka, I guess.
2. Re:Chevy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Curse you.
Goliat! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 09:46 · Score: 0

First Romanian satellite was launched named Goliat !
1. Re:Goliat! by cronco · 2012-02-15 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Considering it's a 10cm^3 cube, it's good to know we still have our sense of (self-)irony :)
Never quite understood this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 09:51 · Score: 0

Why did the ESA replace the (European) Ariane 4 with the Soyuz, anyway? Both are capable of lifting 3 tonnes, so what was the thinking there?
1. Re:Never quite understood this by 2Y9D57 · 2012-02-14 09:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  ESA replaced Ariane 4 with Ariane 5 -- the last A4 launch was 15 February 2003 -- for cost reasons. two satellites on an A5 for less that twice the cost of an A4 launch. Soyuz didn't start launching from French Guiana until 2011.
2. Re:Never quite understood this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  Then why introduce the Soyuz-ST with a launch capacity that is almost exactly the same as the Ariane 4? There was either a need for a 3 tonne launcher or there wasn't. What am I missing?
3. Re:Never quite understood this by Super_Z · 2012-02-14 11:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Soyuz is man-rated. Ariane 4 apparently never had the amount of instrumentation needed for man-rating.
4. Re:Never quite understood this by hackertourist · 2012-02-14 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Around 1980, ESA came to the conclusion that by the end of the '90s, Ariane 4 would no longer be large enough to lift the predicted satellites to GEO. That's why ESA developed Ariane 5.
  ESA has been considering Soyuz since at least 2004. I suspect using Soyuz instead of Ariane 4 was a matter of cost.
  As for manned Soyuz launches: the capsule hasn't been designed for sea landings, according to a 2004 ESA report. So manned launches would require a redesign.
5. Re:Never quite understood this by IrquiM · 2012-02-15 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Not from French Guiana, as that would mean landing in the ocean, which it cannot do.
  
  --
  This is blinging
6. Re:Never quite understood this by root_42 · 2012-02-15 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Then why introduce the Soyuz-ST with a launch capacity that is almost exactly the same as the Ariane 4? There was either a need for a 3 tonne launcher or there wasn't. What am I missing?
  I am not sure, but I guess that costs per launch are a reason. With Soyuz, a bunch of russian companies manufacture the rocket parts and final assembly and erection happen in Kourou. I guess that this frees ESAs resources considerably, compared to having to make an Ariane 4 in Europe. Furthermore, I don't see any Ariane 4 integration buildings anymore on ESAs map of the Centre Spatial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plan_Centre_Spatial_Guyanais-en.svg
  It is likely that the buildings that were used for Ariane 4 have been assimilated by the Ariane 5 pipeline. So either way you would have had to build a new integration and erection facility, so it seems that Soyuz-ST was the most efficient and reliable way to do that.
  
  --
  [--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
europe's spaceport? by iiii · 2012-02-14 09:56 · Score: 1

Why is "Europe's Spaceport" in South America? Isn't that South America's Spaceport?

--
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
1. Re:europe's spaceport? by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-14 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Why is "Europe's Spaceport" in South America? Isn't that South America's Spaceport?
  Mind your own business ....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:europe's spaceport? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 10:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Why is Hawaii part of the United States of America? It's not in America?
  Although it is geographically in South America, French Guiana is an overseas region of France, and hence considered to part of the EU politically.
  As to why ESA put their spaceport there: You want to launch eastward (to get the best "speed boost" from Earth's rotation), and you get the best boost at (or near) the equator. You also want to launch over water, in case the thing comes back down unexpectedly. French Guiana is close to the equator and has an ocean to the east -- mainland Europe has neither.
3. Re:europe's spaceport? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  The equator is also directly below geostationary orbit.
4. Re:europe's spaceport? by Dusty · 2012-02-14 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  Why is "Europe's Spaceport" in South America? Isn't that South America's Spaceport?
  "Europe's Spaceport" is in Kourou, in French Guiana. Which is a French colony in South America.
5. Re:europe's spaceport? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Those French prisoners have had a devil of a time trying to escape. Nice to see their creativity rewarded with success.
6. Re:europe's spaceport? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 19:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's not a colony. It is a French department on equal standing as any other mainland department. They vote for national and EU elections and use the euro.
7. Re:europe's spaceport? by timbo234 · 2012-02-14 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  It's not South America's because French Guiana is part of France (and thus the EU), in the same way that Hawaii is part of the US despite being gegraphically separate. I.e. unlike with the UK and a lot of other European countries France has made their former colonies 'regions' with the same status as the regions in European France.
  
  --
  Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
8. Re:europe's spaceport? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 20:22 · Score: 0
  
  Why doesn't NASA launch from Hawaii?
9. Re:europe's spaceport? by hackertourist · 2012-02-14 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's Europe's space port because ESA built, paid for and runs the facility.
  As for why it's in SA: Europe wanted a site that was close to the equator (to take advantage of the Earth's rotational speed, and to make launches to GEO easier). Also, Europe isn't a good place to launch rockets from, due to rocket stages impacting downrange.
10. Re:europe's spaceport? by hitmark · 2012-02-15 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Not all of them. There are more then a few African nations using French that are not of France. And was not Vietnam a french colony at one point?
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
11. Re:europe's spaceport? by timbo234 · 2012-02-15 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  I meant the ones that haven't gone independent, i.e. the status of these regions within France is very different to, say, the status of the British Overseas Territories in the UK's political structure
  
  --
  Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
loose political association between satellites by schlachter · 2012-02-14 10:19 · Score: 4, Funny

The 9 satellites are expected to fly in a lose formation based on political and trade cooperation. If any satellite fails, the mission will fail. Each satellite will manage it's own fuel, but always report that it's got plenty of fuel, until the moment that it has none. :)

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
The loose problem is a good solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 11:07 · Score: 1

Poor countries can put their lightweight satellites to this ESA's launcher system VEGA at lower costs that are affordable for them!.
And for little time of development!
And they could have the specifications of the satellites's boxes that the ESA could provide them (engineering dimensions of the payloads).
Collaborative countries don't need fear the confidentiality of their satellites. ESA could provide mechanisms camera-vigilated (among other mechanisms) that in the time for the launching, from their embassies in the ESA building, they will start to run their satellites's cars into the launching platforms in lesser time that was walking between their local embassies and the zero time for the launching.
Loose political collaboration between satellites is a SAFETY for PRIVACY of technologies from many countries (poor countries can benefit from it at affordable commercial costs).
LOOSENESS and PRIVACYNESS could be compatible.
JCPM: in the past, Boeing vs Airbus in the aerial space, in the present, NASA vs ESA in the Earth's low-orbit race, in the future, hahahaha, a mistery.
1. Re:The loose problem is a good solution. by schlachter · 2012-02-14 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand how you managed to generate all this meaningless text from my satirical post above.
  Nonetheless....I am particularly impressed with your claim that
  
  LOOSENESS and PRIVACYNESS could be compatible.
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
2. Re:The loose problem is a good solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 15:10 · Score: 0
  Yes, my claim is useful!
  Imagine two scenarios X & Y.
  
  1. Scenario X: one satellite from one launcher for two countries that reject to reveal information of their instruments each other. It won't work for their needs in this shared collaborative scenario.
  2. Scenario Y: two satellites from one launcher for two countries that reject to reveal information of their instruments each other. It will work perfectly well under my claim above :)
  JCPM :)
Eagerly awaiting follow-up launchers by rsborg · 2012-02-14 13:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Bison, Sagat and Balrog.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
What NASA? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 15:52 · Score: 0

Since NASA does not have a launcher any longer you can rename your agency to NO-VA ("is not").
I'm sure the Europeans and Russians will continue to let you hitchhike using their vehicles and facilities, it's not like there are any political differences that could stop that cooperation...
Newspaper ad on VEGA payload by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 23:23 · Score: 1

Today Corriere della Sera, the main Italian daily, was carrying a whole page ad on VEGA. It claimed something like: it's so cheap that your research project could be up here in space.
So cool!