Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Uprated "10-ton" Ariane 5 Fails 311

Posted by chrisd 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uprated "10-ton" Ariane 5 Fails More

Uprated "10-ton" Ariane 5 Fails

Comments Filter:
  • Not like the good old capitalist USA!

    Oh wait, all our space stuff is run by the government? Uh, nevermind.

    • Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:34PM (#4867521) Homepage
      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.

      • Re:Well.... (same with the CSA) (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MarvinMouse ( 323641 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @10:01PM (#4867726) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • No offense, but I would have been disillusioned the moment I found out Canada had a space agency.

          What exactly is thier mission, aside from the aforementioned "stickers - posters - advertising". The only things I can recall Canada being involved in spacewise is the shuttle arm and being a great impact zone for errant soviet satellites.

      • Re:Well.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @10:35PM (#4867941)
        "Yes, I'm glad we got some peaceful dividends from ICBM work, but this could have been achieved more cheaply,"

        Um... the US space program has had little if anything in common with our ICBM program since the Gemini program at the latest. Sure, the Redstone and the original Atlas were originally made to lob nukes, but once we were launching something bigger than a Mercury capsule, our ICBM boosters just didn't cut it. Unlike the Soviets, we could make nukes that were small enough to be launched on rockets too small for a manned space program (where do you think their head start in the space race came from?).

        I mean, come on, unless you're going to nuke a target on the Moon, what use is a Saturn V in a nuclear war? Sure, it could be used to throw kilotons of conventional explosives half-way around the world (think "Skylab made of C-4"), but...

        • Re:Well.... (Score:4, Funny)

          by susano_otter ( 123650 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @11:03PM (#4868105) Homepage
          (think "Skylab made of C-4")

          Thanks! Don't mind if I do!

          Mmmm... Skylab made of C4... throw kilotons of conventional explosives half-way around the world... :9

        • Re:Well.... (Score:3, Informative)

          by MacAndrew ( 463832 )
          Hmm, I guess it's how you judge the overlap. It's a good question, for one, whether we would have gone to the Moon when we did, or ever, without the race against the Soviets, a race with strong military overtones. Or to ask how much it would have cost to go to the Moon if ICBM and the Cold War had never happened. Either way, it is undeniable the U.S. was terrified of the Soviet Union, particularly its (largely imagined) nuclear missile capability. Kennedy ran in 1960 partly on a fabricated "missile gap" platform.

          Small nukes? I don't think they got really small until the 60's, when we became interested in MIRV's. The ICBM business took its own path when it switched to the far more manageable and reliable solid fuel rockets, the Minuteman series. (I remember a Titan exploding when I was a kid because a wrench was dropped down the silo. It took them a while to figure out where the warhead has gone.) Obviously the Saturn V was designed with a special civilian purpose, but its roots were predictably military [si.edu].

          It was also not clear for a while whether we might have a manned military presence in orbit. Happily we went the stabilizing route of the ABM treaty instead. Oh yeah, the former ABM treaty -- but that's a whole 'nuther topic!

          My point anyway was to humbly acknowledge that the American dominance of space flight wasn't just due to our brilliance and hard work and love of discovery :); we subsidized it with many billions for grim military reasons, some altogether necessary. The secondary point, before anyone could say the cold war didn't waste trillions, was that military objectives are an inefficient way to pursue civilian space exploration. Programs like Ariane went straight to the target (I'm hoping here that Ariane never had military purposes?).

          Gee, NASM even has a page [si.edu] on the military origins of the space race. I'm finding these things through Google, things I fuzzily recall reading elsewhere over the years. Anyway, what I'm seeing at the moment is a pervasive military motivation, even if the ways the monery was spent didn't always make sense. I would bet Americans somehow felt more secure that it was Americans landing on the Moon rather than Soviets. I remember the vague worries about being incinerated in the 70's quite clearly.

          I don't believe that the civilian space program has ever fully disengaged from the military. The Space Shuttle itself was designed with significiant military purposes in mind [nasa.gov]. IIRC most of the military business went elsewhere after Challenger, and our satellite launching rockets may still be behind because of exaggerated hopes and hypes that the Shuttle could do it all. As the subsidies have been reduced the space program has suffered, to the point that I believe the military is very concerned with maintaining our current launch capabilities. I assume that the market for military satellites is still strong, and that the U.S. won't be launching these on foreign rockets anytime soon.
          • One of the main customers for satellite launchs is the military. Something as simple as google search should be able to pick this up (e.g., search for "ariane military")...

            Military percentages of various orbit profiles
            Low-earth-orbit ~15% (rest is mostly comm stuff)
            Medium-earth-orbit ~65% (bulk of military stuff)
            Geosync-orbit ~10% (rest is tv/telephone/dbs)

            Things might be skew a bit when the ESA starts launching Galileo (the GPS competitor), but the direction depends on your view of dual-use technology. However, they don't call it the military-industrial complex for nuthin' (military contracting is just as popular in europe as it is in the US)...
    • funded, perhaps. But not built. The US govt doesnt build any spacecraft. Other companies do, like boeing, TRW etc. Also, many of these companies put a significant stake themselves in the projects rather than 100% govt. funding. Then there is competition between the companies for the awarding of the contract, so building a machine that works right the first time and consistently pays, literally.

      In europe, most of the major aerospace companies are actually government owned, and there arent very many of them as a result.

      • Re:american aerospace and the govt.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rolo Tomasi ( 538414 ) on Thursday December 12, 2002 @01:34AM (#4868518) Homepage Journal
        In europe, most of the major aerospace companies are actually government owned, and there arent very many of them as a result.

        In Socialist Europe, government owns companies. In Capitalist America, COMPANIES own GOVERNMENT!

        • thats the first funny and logical one of those ive read on slashdot. Most of them are just stupid. You guys ain't got nothing on fark...

      • 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.

    • Re:Those socialist europeans will never get anywhe (Score:5, Informative)

      by Keebler71 ( 520908 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:52PM (#4867660) Journal
      Actually, all of our (American) unmanned rockets are launched on Lockheed [lockheedmartin.com] and Boeing [boeing.com] vehicles. The government owns the launch sites but I seem to recall recently that even that has changed with one of the pads at KSC being purchased by someone. The space shuttle is maintained by a Boeing/Lockheed conglomerate [unitedspacealliance.com] under contract with NASA. And many of our space probes are built at least jointly in cooperation with industry. [lockheedmartin.com] NASA is the beurocracy (don't mean that negatively) who pays for and manages these programs.

  • I suspect... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Aliens. TOo many rocket launch failures. They probably watched Taken and decided that we are all too stupid to go into space.

    The stars are not for man.

  • Good news for DIY rockets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sabinm ( 447146 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:11PM (#4867334) Homepage Journal
    I consider this good news--a nation with billions of dollars invested in a project get the same results as some amatuer projects : kerplop. Gives me hope that non institutionalized entities can make it to space despite the negative publicity they get because of the trial and error process.

    Can't say that they shouldn't be in space when some one this big fouls up too.
    • A billion-euro rocket goes up in smoke, potentially blowing a one of the best comet research projects ever, and once again put in question the competence of the second largest space research company in the world...
      *drumroll* And the "insightful" /. comment:
      "Hey, this is GREAT news for space travel!"

  • Yet Another Space Launch Failure? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:12PM (#4867345)
    Hey, why can't they get this right? It isn't rocket sci- ...oh, never mind.

  • Again?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:12PM (#4867352)
    When the very first Ariane 5 rocket launched, it blew up on the pad, taking with it, the (uninsured) Cluster probe. The new and improved Ariane really isn't....

    • Re:Again?? (Score:3, Informative)

      by MavEtJu ( 241979 )
      On the pad? Try again.
    • Hey, "The First One Always Blows Up" isn't really that bad of a record to have, comparitively speaking. I mean, look at microsoft: the first *two* versions of each of their products always waste millions of dollars and explode messily when you try to use them, and most people's reactions is to just kind of excuse them for it and wait for version 3..!

      ^_^
  • I think it's good that they're actually testing these things out. People make mistakes, they learn from them, and then progress in made.

  • At Least they are Persistant (Score:5, Funny)

    by Coffee Warlord ( 266564 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:15PM (#4867379)
    "He speculated the mission might have to risk a flight rather than see years of research and millions of euros go to waste."

    Kudos to them for keeping at it, at least. Too many space missions/projects are canned after a few failures. If we're going to get ANYWHERE in space in the next 100 years, we need more of this persistance. Take some risks, see what happens.

    (Admittedly, I don't know how wise it would be to scrap it now and tell the gov't you just wasted a zillion bucks, but still.)

  • Why are we picking on thr Russians? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:18PM (#4867393)
    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.

  • Two payloads lost (Score:5, Informative)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:19PM (#4867404) Homepage Journal
    There were two satellites on board, a Hotbird TM7 spacecraft, which would have served TV and music. It was supposed to replace Hotbird 3 at 13.0EL, though now that obviouosly wont happen.

    Also the Stentor spacecraft was on board, this satellite was equiped with six Ku transponders, and was destined for 11.0WL.

  • new meaning (Score:2, Funny)

    by greechneb ( 574646 )
    space junk no longer refers to articles that make it into space - it now includes failed rockets that are junk

  • ouch (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cat_Byte ( 621676 )
    That's the fifth failure in 14 launches for them and it comes at the same time Russia is stating it can't fulfill all of it's missions to the ISS. Or is it that the Russian missions won't fulfill the ISS?

  • I remember the last one... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:23PM (#4867427) Homepage Journal
    I was studying Computer Science at Edinburgh University [ed.ac.uk] when the first Ariane 5 rocket exploded in flight. A guy, I wish I can remember his name but he was quite senior, from the ESA came to speak to us about why it had happened. Basically, it was an unhandled exception in some could which shouldn't have been running when the rocket was in-flight which caused both navigation systems to fail.

    He was a great speaker, his lecture was actually really funny in places. He joked about how rockets, by nature, tend to explode (just look at the early Chinese rockets centuries ago), so this one was really just fulfilling its mission prematurely. My favorite line was something like:

    The primary navigation system failed at 37.126 seconds after take-off. The backup navigation system failed at 37.778 seconds after take-off for exactly the same reason. Reproducability is normally something scientists like to see - but not so much in this case.
    • You mean this [around.com] bug? Here [tu-muenchen.de] are some other doosies!
    • Your post was very interesting and informative, but:

      Basically, it was an unhandled exception in some could which shouldn't have been running when the rocket was in-flight which caused both navigation systems to fail.

      I'll be damned if I can figure out what that meant.
      • If I remember correctly the guidance system had some debug code which printed some data. When it did it cast a floating point number to a integer. That conversion threw an exception when the floating point would overflow that int. That exception was unhandled and caused the guidance to abort.

        Generally a bad thing.

        • Re:I remember the last one... (Score:4, Informative)

          by GregWebb ( 26123 ) on Thursday December 12, 2002 @09:45AM (#4870141)
          Yup, that's roughly it, data overflowed.

          The reason the code was still running after launch at all was that it was related to rocket gyroscope calibration and took a long time to set up. By setting it to carry on after launch as opposed to shutting down bang on takeoff was that, if there was a late abort, there could also be a really quick restart because they didn't have to recalibrate. This was sensible and was used at least once.

          What wasn't sensible was:

          * Carrying over code from Ariane 4 to 5 without checking the spec for differences, as it overflowed unprotected due to a ground speed reading Ariane 4 couldn't have achieved

          * Having a redundant backup that was identical on the assumption that they'd only need one for random hardware failure. With this as a software failure, the two went almost simultaneously.
    • I mean... all of us here at /. could probably do a better could, er, code, review than whoever did that one.
    • fscking brainfarts.
    • ARIANE 5 Failure - Full Report

      "The reason why the active SRI 2 did not send correct attitude data
      was that the unit had declared a failure due to a software
      exception."

      "The OBC could not switch to the back-up SRI 1 because that unit had
      already ceased to function during the previous data cycle (72
      milliseconds period) for the same reason as SRI 2."

      "The internal SRI software exception was caused during execution of
      a data conversion from 64-bit floating point to 16-bit signed
      integer value. The floating point number which was converted had a
      value greater than what could be represented by a 16-bit signed
      integer. This resulted in an Operand Error. The data conversion
      instructions (in Ada code) were not protected from causing an
      Operand Error, although other conversions of comparable variables in
      the same place in the code were protected."

      "The error occurred in a part of the software that only performs
      alignment of the strap-down inertial platform. This software module
      computes meaningful results only before lift-off. As soon as the
      launcher lifts off, this function serves no purpose."

      "It has been stated to the Board that not all the conversions were
      protected because a maximum workload target of 80% had been set for
      the SRI computer. To determine the vulnerability of unprotected
      code, an analysis was performed on every operation which could give
      rise to an exception, including an Operand Error. In particular, the
      conversion of floating point values to integers was analysed and
      operations involving seven variables were at risk of leading to an
      Operand Error. This led to protection being added to four of the
      variables, evidence of which appears in the Ada code. However, three
      of the variables were left unprotected. No reference to
      justification of this decision was found directly in the source
      code. Given the large amount of documentation associated with any
      industrial application, the assumption, although agreed, was
      essentially obscured, though not deliberately, from any external
      review."

      http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_plasma/missions/clus ter/about_cluster/cluster1/ariane5rep.html [ucl.ac.uk]
    • SPARK Ada [sparkada.com] this would never have happend.

      Go static analysis!

    • More details here [weizmann.ac.il]. This has become a frosh rite of passage for CSE's, i.e., to read this case.

  • How long does it take?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:30PM (#4867473) Homepage
    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...

    • Re:How long does it take?! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Keebler71 ( 520908 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @10:04PM (#4867737) Journal
      Last I checked, France hasn't even launched a monkey into space so who do you mean by "we"?

    • Re:How long does it take?! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FTL ( 112112 ) <slashdot@neil.fras[ ]name ['er.' in gap]> on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @10:22PM (#4867853) Homepage
      >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% [aol.com] 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.

    • 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.

  • More links and commentary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:32PM (#4867503)
    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.
  • What, is that the magic key sequence to initiate an abort?

    Sounds like they're using Emacs (ESC-A in Emacs does the same thing as the HOME key does: beginning of line).

    :-)

  • I'm sure she just has a Gland problem. It's not Ariane's fault she's that heavy.

    hrm.. maybe I should read the post.
    ;)

  • Paris, we have a problem... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tuxinatorium ( 463682 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:39PM (#4867551) Homepage
    nah, it just doesn't sound right.

  • First Ariane 5 failure... (Score:5, Informative)

    by @l3X ( 149197 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMalepape.net> on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @09:41PM (#4867568) Homepage Journal
    ... was due to re-used software code from the Ariane 4 program, except that some values that the soft was supposed to handle were WAY bigger than during the (near perfect, by the way) Ariane 4 program. It was a plain overflow issue... The worst comes: the issue was known and documented, but somehow forgot during the upgrade from V4 to V5...

    Anyway, it's pretty sad (AND NOT DUE TO THE USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM, for you US fellows ;))
  • No explanation for the loss has yet been given by officials from Arianespace.....

    ...put one of these babies (rocketcam) [eclipticenterprises.com] on it.

    Related to this story [slashdot.org].

    • Actually, they hit the self-destruct. That's why it blew up. RTFM
    • I'm sure they do have a good amount of telemetry, and will be able to release more details about the failure.

      But why did they blow it up? As soon as some system on board or on the ground detected whatever major problem it was, it triggered a self-destruct, according to the article.

      Given nearly half a billion euros' worth of payload, wouldn't some sort of safe abort procedure make sense? Jettison the payload along with a big parachute?

      Seems almost silly just to intentionally blow it all up -- unless they know that it's much safer to do that than risk it falling to earth intact. One of those rocket-science decisions... :)

      - Peter

  • French rockets... (Score:5, Funny)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @10:08PM (#4867774) Homepage Journal
    Its like the old joke...

    In heaven....
    The French are the chefs....
    The Germans are the engineers...
    The British are the policemen...
    The Italians are the lovers...
    And the Swiss organize everything.

    In hell...
    The British are the chefs...
    The French are the engineers...
    The Germans are the policemen...
    The Swiss are the lovers...
    And the Italians organize everything.

    (BTW, this was a french made rocket)

  • First Launch Failures (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2002 @11:25PM (#4868215) Homepage
    History says that you should never put your satellite on the first launch of a new launch vehicle, or the first launch of a substantially modified launch vehicle. The odds are that your satellite will need an underwater tracking beacon.
    • > History says that you should never put your satellite on the first launch of a new launch vehicle

      If it is truly irreplacable, and if nobody is willing to insure it, then sure. But what else is supposed to go into a inaugural launch, an amateur satellite? Oh yeah... those worthless things usually *do* make it up on inaugural launches.
  • I watch in amusement as yet another euro-firework goes pop. Yet another demonstration of the uselessness of the United Socialist Bureaucratic States of Europe. Yet another demonstration of the shoddiness of that oxymoron "nationalized industry".

    My prediction: in less than a decade from now, only businessmen will own space vehicles, and space will be settled by commerce, not governments. And at long last, with honest capitalism at the wheel, space tourism will become as normal, safe, available, and comparatively inexpensive as a luxury sea cruise.

    • Re:Atlas shrugs again (Score:2, Insightful)

      by j-b0y ( 449975 )
      Well, ESA is comparatively unbureaucratic compared to NASA, especially the manned-spaceflight part.

      The Ariane 4 series (another product of that 'shoddy nationalized industry') had one of the best launch records around and was incredibly successful, along with Boeing and Lockheed designs, in opening up space for commercialization.

      And if you think that it'll take just 10 years to move from a government organized, but market driven space industry to 'space settled by commerce, not governments', you must be stark raving mad.

      Your general tone and lack of actual knowledge (as opposed to half-baked opinions) just say' The lights are on, the door is open, but Mr Brain has long since departed.'

  • ESC-A? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Eric Wayte ( 4583 )
    ...more like STOP A

    (bad Sun humor)
  • We're launching all our satellites on Yemeni SCUDs.

  • A damn shame... what to become of the 5-ECB? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by patiwat ( 126496 ) on Thursday December 12, 2002 @03:19AM (#4868939)
    This is a damn shame. The Ariane 5-ECA would have 60% increased capacity (10T) at a per vehicle cost significantly lower than the original Ariane 5Gs.

    For a time, I thought that the miracle of industrial mass production was actually going to make a difference. Ariane production costs have fallen some 5-7%/vehicle with each production batch.

    By the time the Ariane 5-ECB was to have come out, with its next generation upper stage (12T!), heavy lift launch costs would be lower per kilogram in an expendable vehicle than they had ever been. If humanity was ever going to make it to space in a real way, this was going to be it.

    Does the failure of the 5-ECA mean the end of the 5-ECB plan? Probably not - the failure was in the Vulcan-2 main engine, not in the upper stage. But if the main engine doesn't work...

    Ignore the stupid provincial politics of it all, this is the worst thing to happen in space in some time.
  • Huh. If the core was going to shut down like that, it should have been named the L1-A.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close