ESA's Vega Launcher Has Successful Maiden Flight 32
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."
Chevy? (Score:2)
Hope they do better than Chevy's Vega.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Never quite understood this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Never quite understood this (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]
It is likely that the buildings that were used for Ari
Re: (Score:2)
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 [space.com]. So manned launches would require a redesign.
europe's spaceport? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is "Europe's Spaceport" in South America? Isn't that South America's Spaceport?
Mind your own business ....
Re:europe's spaceport? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is "Europe's Spaceport" in South America? Isn't that South America's Spaceport?
"Europe's Spaceport" [esa.int] is in Kourou [wikipedia.org], in French Guiana. Which is a French colony in South America.
Re:europe's spaceport? (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Those French prisoners have had a devil of a time trying to escape. Nice to see their creativity rewarded with success.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
loose political association between satellites (Score:5, 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. :)
The loose problem is a good solution. (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 embassie
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Eagerly awaiting follow-up launchers (Score:4, Funny)
Bison, Sagat and Balrog.
Newspaper ad on VEGA payload (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!