Europe's Venerable Ariane 5 Rocket Faces a Bittersweet Ending on Tuesday 75
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Ariane 5 rocket has had a long run, with nearly three decades of service launching satellites and spacecraft. Over that time, the iconic rocket, with a liquid hydrogen-fueled core stage and solid rocket boosters, has come to symbolize Europe's guaranteed access to space. But now, the road is coming to an end for the Ariane 5. As soon as Tuesday evening, the final Ariane 5 rocket will lift off from Kourou, French Guiana, carrying a French military communications satellite and a German communications satellite to geostationary transfer orbit. A 90-minute launch window opens at 5:30 pm ET (21:30 UTC). The launch will be webcast on ESA TV. And after this? Europe's space agency faces some difficult questions.
Summary quality? (Score:5, Informative)
The summary could have been a bit more worked on...
Europe's space agency faces some difficult questions.
Europe's space agency is not facing difficult questions. It is facing delays in the Ariane 6 launche (initial first flights were planned for 2023, but in May 2023 commercial partners said it would not be until early 2024). Which means they have to use the Falcon 9 SpaceX rocket in the meantime. The ironic part is that Ariane 6 is a modernization for Ariane 5, to make it more competitive with Falcon 9.
Difficult questions [Re:Summary quality?] (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary could have been a bit more worked on...
Europe's space agency faces some difficult questions.
Europe's space agency is not facing difficult questions. It is facing delays in the Ariane 6 launche...
and the difficult question is whether to cut their losses and move to reusable, so they can compete with SpaceX.
After spending tens of billions on Ariane 6, this is a hard choice indeed, since it would mean spending another tens of billions developing a new launch vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sales tax?
Barter with associates for all your goods. Don't buy from registered retail stores that charge tax.
For that one, don't forget that there are also states without sales tax. Many municipalities inside those states might have their own sales tax, but there will be some areas that have none at all. The other thing you can do is just don't buy any items that have sales tax on them. Staple food and medicines fall under that category. So do things bought with food stamps and, since you're already below the poverty line to avoid income tax, you may be eligible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you talking about the public schools that I don't use
You do use them though. Among other things, you use them so that the kids who go to school every day don't all end up as "roving bands of armed thugs shooting people for no reason or whatever."
As for the five miles you drive every month, do you have any idea how much five miles of road even costs? Actually, another important question there. The fact that you say you drive five miles a month suggests you have a car. Why on Earth do you have a car if you only drive it five miles a month? Owning a car costs wa
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, you use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oe noes taxes!
I assume you're living it large and posting from a libertarian paradise some failed state right now? I mean of course you're not, you're posting from a country where civilization is purchased with taxes while whinging about the taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Just trying to follow this thread is a little difficult. Where exactly did you establish any similarity between believing that human sacrifice will make the sun rise (note: I'm not aware of any culture that actually believed you had to throw a virgin into a volcano to get the sun rise, I think you're thinking of the tradition of hunting someone down through the snow and chopping off their head at the winter solstice so that the sun will rise again) and paying taxes? One is a religious/superstitious notion a
Re: (Score:2)
Just trying to follow this thread is a little difficult. Where exactly did you establish any similarity between believing that human sacrifice will make the sun rise (note: I'm not aware of any culture that actually believed you had to throw a virgin into a volcano to get the sun rise, I think you're thinking of the tradition of hunting someone down through the snow and chopping off their head at the winter solstice so that the sun will rise again) and paying taxes? One is a religious/superstitious notion and the other is pretty basic economics. Where did you show that that they're somehow equivalent?
Government is a religion. Pay your taxes or the roads will crumble and warlords will kill your family.
Re: (Score:2)
Government is a religion. Pay your taxes or the roads will crumble and warlords will kill your family.
I'm a little confused here. Are you somehow under the impression that road construction happens miraculously? Like instead of planning the road and sourcing labor and materials and equipment and then using that to actually go through the process of construction, instead the road just appears by magic? That's not an argument, that's just some weird, deranged fantasy on your part.
It should be noted that warlords and crumbling roads (and other infrastructure) are, in fact, a common feature of areas without gov
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little confused here. Are you somehow under the impression that road construction happens miraculously?
Are you under the delusion that somehow government is the only entity that can build and maintain a road? Where I live we have a handful of roads, and even several bridges that are privately owned and managed. You have to pay a toll to use them.
Like instead of planning the road and sourcing labor and materials and equipment and then using that to actually go through the process of construction, instead the road just appears by magic? That's not an argument, that's just some weird, deranged fantasy on your part.
It should be noted that warlords and crumbling roads (and other infrastructure) are, in fact, a common feature of areas without government.
Government gets all of those services from private companies. And frequently those contracts are given to the most well-connected company that is friends with specific politicians or have donated the most money to specific campaigns--not based on the "best use" of taxpayer dollars.
Unlike the OP, I don't think a complete elimination of taxes is feasible, but I do think they need to be severely curtailed. While we need a military (for example), spending at the DOD is insanely wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you under the delusion that somehow government is the only entity that can build and maintain a road? Where I live we have a handful of roads, and even several bridges that are privately owned and managed. You have to pay a toll to use them.
Is the "private" concern that owns and manages them a heavily regulated, effectively semi-public entity? How did they acquire the land to build a road? What kind of tolls do they charge?
Government gets all of those services from private companies.
It often does, as a matter of government doctrine. The law essentially demands, for most things that they contract it out instead of running their own department with their own labor. This often seems to be a poor financial choice and can lead to corruption. Organizations run directly by the government often turn out to be f
Re: (Score:2)
Is the "private" concern that owns and manages them a heavily regulated, effectively semi-public entity? How did they acquire the land to build a road? What kind of tolls do they charge?
I have no idea about the regulation, but I would assume they are heavily regulated. Most businesses are...unless you're selling seats on a tin can to the bottom of the ocean. In the case of one of the bridges, a very wealthy family owned the land for the last ~100 years or so and hired a company to build the bridge. As for tolls...well...it's waaaaay less than what I pay in taxes every year.
If the commercial bids are more attractive (not necessarily less expensive, just overall less trouble, etc.) then go ahead and go with a commercial bid. If they go significantly over budget, fire them.
Unlike the OP, I don't think a complete elimination of taxes is feasible, but I do think they need to be severely curtailed. While we need a military (for example), spending at the DOD is insanely wasteful.
Heh...now when government goes way over budget, or siphons funds away to pay for other random stuff I don't want or need...how do I fire them?
I would call it ironic that the very people that say that government can't get things done are the ones who demand that government use contractors for everything in the first place, thus making government more expensive - except that I think sabotaging the government was always the intent.
If we switched from private companies doing all the work, to having federal employees do all the work, I guarantee it would cost more. Any time you get a bloated bureaucracy (either private or public), all sorts of stuff kicks in that raises costs significantly. For example, I intentionally keep the number of clients I have under the number that would require me to hire 5 more employees and be forced to buy them all healthcare. Because of this, I can pay employees significantly higher than market rates, I retain better talent, and the employees are allowed to make their own decision on pocketing some extra cash, or buying their own healthcare. In my own personal case, I'm fit as a fiddle (family history), but my wife isn't...so I use the extra cash to buy health insurance on the "open market" (as if there was such a thing) so that I have the privilege of paying up to $6k in medical bills before health insurance kicks in and covers stuff. But it costs less than if I were forced (as a company) to buy the same insurance. Same goes for government employees--unless you end up doing your own healthcare like the VA. I have a number of friends who served, and they suffer at the hands of the VA.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea about the regulation, but I would assume they are heavily regulated. Most businesses are...unless you're selling seats on a tin can to the bottom of the ocean. In the case of one of the bridges, a very wealthy family owned the land for the last ~100 years or so and hired a company to build the bridge. As for tolls...well...it's waaaaay less than what I pay in taxes every year.
Less than the amount you pay in taxes that actually goes to support a similar bridge that isn't tolled? Almost certainly not. Less than the entire amount you pay in taxes? Of course it is. Why on Earth would your usage of one specific bridge ever cost more than you pay in taxes for thousands of bridges, thousands of miles of roads, utilities, railroads, all kinds of other infrastructure, defense, police, fire, schools, etc., etc.? Would you actually be happy with no taxes but paying those tolls at every bri
Re: (Score:2)
Less than the amount you pay in taxes that actually goes to support a similar bridge that isn't tolled? Almost certainly not. Less than the entire amount you pay in taxes? Of course it is. Why on Earth would your usage of one specific bridge ever cost more than you pay in taxes for thousands of bridges, thousands of miles of roads, utilities, railroads, all kinds of other infrastructure, defense, police, fire, schools, etc., etc.? Would you actually be happy with no taxes but paying those tolls at every bridge, and on every stretch of road, I wonder?
Yup. I'd be fine with that.
I don't see anything wrong with paying for what you use as opposed to forcing some people to overpay for what they don't use and others to underpay (or not pay at all) for things they use.
If there were a toll booth, virtual or otherwise right at the end of your driveway and backing your car out and turning it around and backing it in cost you every time? I doubt it, and I seriously doubt it would be less than the portion of your taxes that goes to roads and bridges.
I mean...that's a ridiculous example, but most people technically own "to the center line" in front of their property, so backing out to turn around isn't a problem. But I also live in the country, so I have a mile-long gravel driveway. Costs about $200/year to maintain. But in the current s
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I'd be fine with that.
I don't see anything wrong with paying for what you use as opposed to forcing some people to overpay for what they don't use and others to underpay (or not pay at all) for things they use.
As a result, you would be forcing everyone to overpay as a captive market. You may think you're being taken advantage of with taxes, but that's nothing compared to what a commercial monopoly controlling a vital resource will do.
I mean...that's a ridiculous example, but most people technically own "to the center line" in front of their property, so backing out to turn around isn't a problem.
Not as ridiculous as all that. Also, why, in this example, would you own to the center line in front of your property? Remember we're talking about a private road. If they built it without government, then the private entity that built it owns the land. Even if they didn't, it would
Re: (Score:2)
As a result, you would be forcing everyone to overpay as a captive market. You may think you're being taken advantage of with taxes, but that's nothing compared to what a commercial monopoly controlling a vital resource will do.
At least I can refuse to do business with monopolies. If you don't like Amazon (remember when they were revolutionary and the "little guy"), try Walmart. If you don't like either of them, try a small "mom and pop" store.
I'm not a fan of Home Depot, so I go to my local hardware store and pay about 10% more for the stuff I need. You can't refuse to do business with government.
Not as ridiculous as all that. Also, why, in this example, would you own to the center line in front of your property? Remember we're talking about a private road. If they built it without government, then the private entity that built it owns the land. Even if they didn't, it would still be their road and, if they can track your movements on their road well enough, they could totally charge you every time you pull out into the street. What could you do about it?
I'm not sure what it's like in the cities, but out here in the country in my area, most roads straddle the line between two propert
Re: (Score:2)
At least I can refuse to do business with monopolies. If you don't like Amazon (remember when they were revolutionary and the "little guy"), try Walmart. If you don't like either of them, try a small "mom and pop" store.
You seem to be confused about what a monopoly is.
I'm not sure what it's like in the cities, but out here in the country in my area, most roads straddle the line between two properties. And yes, you do own up to the center line...but it's a "right of way", so you can't prevent people from coming on "your property" because you sorta "gave it up" (by force) to the government.
My point was that, if the road were private, it would be a different situation. You would not "own" the road up to the center line. It would be a parcel of private property abutting your own.
Out to the east of us, the roads are particularly funny. They'll run straight as an arrow for miles, then suddenly do a zigzag because someone wasn't forced to give up the right of way to the middle of their property and the road had to go around the edge. Usually because there were established buildings.
If the roads were entirely private, using property acquired on the free market, those crazy zigs and zags would be everywhere.
As for tracking, the government totally wants to do that. Several states are pushing for GPS-based road usage. While I'm not happy with the potential privacy implications, it would allow usage-based charges. Although I doubt the government would ever willingly cut off a revenue stream and stop charging gas taxes. It'll just be a new fee added to it.
I certainly don't like that either. It's worth noting though that government _wants_ to do it but, in the meantime, private companies have gone ah
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that, if the road were private, it would be a different situation. You would not "own" the road up to the center line. It would be a parcel of private property abutting your own.
...or it would still be your property and they leased it to them. Or you "join the road club" and agree to maintain your section for a share of the profits.
I certainly don't like that either. It's worth noting though that government _wants_ to do it but, in the meantime, private companies have gone ahead and just done it. Don't like it? You can't ever buy a new vehicle again. The only hope is if government regulates out of control private industry.
Most states have "black box laws" that tell manufacturers to collect certain data. Since vehicle manufacturers don't have to make 50 different models of their car because of the different laws, they typically collect everything they are required to for every state and they don't care if they're "ov
Re: (Score:2)
And government achieves their position by forcing peasants like you
Until very recently I lived in SoCal my entire life. I love SpaceX's stuff. But I've met too many people who worked there to ever want that kind of experience.
Re:Difficult questions [Re:Summary quality?] (Score:4, Informative)
When my wife had some medical issues pop up, I had no problem taking off all the time I needed, leaving a little early sometimes to make appointments with her or just do errands or be around more often. Then she died suddenly from a medical emergency that nobody saw coming.
There isn't enough cool technology or rockets or happy hours on earth that would have been worth those last few months with her, and I had no idea at the time how valuable that time actually was.
But, cool, enjoy that unpaid overtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my ! My condolences for your loss.
Good that you were at her side.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're under the impression that Arianespace is in the business of launching cargo into space. They serve 2 purpose: to underwrite French and Italian solid rocket production line for military while also having the secondary effect of attaching to commercial rocket for launch and to spread jobs across member states. The fact that they sometimes launch 7 times a year (their record) was a side benefit.
Re: (Score:1)
and the difficult question is whether to cut their losses and move to reusable, so they can compete with SpaceX.
Typical American, or what?
Which losses? They have no losses.
They are on the way to reusable as far as I know: but develop it themselves.
It is a fucking space AGENCY> . It is a (multi) government run project/agency. To develop technology and have its own space launch program.
No one in Europe is for fuck sake canceling that and buy rockets from SpaceX - for the sake of just operating. We might bu
Re: Difficult questions [Re:Summary quality?] (Score:1)
Sure, times have moved on since 10 - 15 years and perhaps we could invite SpaceX to join ESA and set up production facilities here. At the moment however this is not happening, no idea why.
I can think of numerous reasons, but most importantly I think would be export controls, which basically every country has. Given most money spent on rocketry is for military use, it makes the most sense to operate in a country that has a big military budget.
Second to that, good engineering talent is harder to come by in Europe. The best engineers from Europe always end up emigrating to the US anyways. The rest, e.g. you, are all that remain. So why settle for less?
Also, given the way Europeans got really pi
Re: (Score:1)
The best engineers from Europe always end up emigrating to the US anyways.
You are mixing up Europe with Asia.
USA is not a very popular place to migrate to for an European.
Re: (Score:3)
Ariane 6 is modernized to compete with Falcon 9 circa 2014, 9 years ago when SpaceX haven't landed their first booster yet. It wasn't clear at that point SpaceX would be a serious contender for their business as at that time SpaceX is only capable of medium launch. They just want a cheaper version of rocket to Ariane 5 which was build to launch cancelled Hermes Spaceplane. Ariane 5 was just a bit overbuilt for just sending a satellite to GSO, but for sending a big and small satellites in pair, it was a
So competition wins? (Score:3)
Space X makes money only if they launch. So lack of competition did not help the Europeans "stay ahead".
Would we have the new version 6 rocket if it had to compete for loads? Who knows?
Re:So competition wins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ariane 6 have a captive market for their national security and prestige cargo. One such cargo is Euclid that was supposed to be launched by Ariane Space in French Guiana using Soyuz (with European guidance and flight termination system). This cannot be done without Roscosmos technicians. Thanks to Putin's NOT War in Ukraine, that fell through. No one else have the spare launch capacity to launch their telescope to Sun-Earth L2 in such short notice except SpaceX. They launch it over the weekend 6 months after signing the contract. This is the kind of spare launch capacity that no one else have in their back pocket.
Still remember the initial fiasko... (Score:3)
Where they blew up $800M of uninsured solar research satellites because of a really demented decision by management. Good times. I bet the accident analysis by the independent expert team is still good reading today and a lot of software developers could learn a thing or two.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, to be fair, the success odds of the first launch of any rocket system is pretty abysmal.
If you have a payload on such a flight, it would be best to either insure it or make sure you can afford the not-unlikely loss. Better still might be to pick an already proven launch vehicle, and leave initial launches to hoisting things like sports cars.
Re:Still remember the initial fiasko... (Score:5, Informative)
The failure of Ariane 5 has been used as a case study for software developers. I studied it at school, and then again at my first job, both in the context of critical embedded software.
It looks like software developers learned a thing or two as Ariane 5 ended up as one of the world's most reliable rockets.
Re:Still remember the initial fiasko... (Score:4, Informative)
First launch of a new vehicle is always risky-- the common wisdom is to expect a 50% chance of success on any first launch. (And that may be optimistic for new-space companies). And, every failure looks obvious in retrospect.
SpaceX, for example, has a first-launch success record of one for three: failures on first launches of Falcon-1 and Starship; success on first launch of Falcon-9.
(call it a 50% success rate if we consider Falcon Heavy a new vehicle and not an evolution of Falcon 9).
Re:Still remember the initial fiasco... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's never nice to be the ones responsible for the failure of such a massive undertaking.
Being "involved" does not make you "responsible".
If their software process was ruined by meetings and deadlines, it is the managements responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent. That is the right way to do it. I already had finished my CS Master's at that time, but I remember printing the accident analysis something like two weeks later and reading it over lunch. Absolutely fascinating management failure.
Re:Still remember the initial fiasko... (Score:5, Informative)
They were reusing Ariane 4 guidance program, and a part of the code that they didn't sanitized (and frankly wasn't needed at the time it kicked in) decided to turn the rocket around.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the problem was that "countdown zero" was very different for Ariane 4 and Ariane 5. And that is what caused the guidance modules to self-diagnose as faulty and switch themselves off. Both of them. Shortly after liftoff. And yes, that code-piece did nothing useful really, but the error handling was "obvious hardware error, lets go offline".
Of course, the root-cause was an absolutely boneheaded decision by management to re-use the component without making sure the functionality needed had not change
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever get over your big ego, you may eventually be able to start to work on your small skills. But not anytime soon, I can see that. You can literally find that story and the accident record online with a single search. Well, a smart person could, I doubt you can do it.
Re: (Score:1)
It had nothing to do with software engineering. The official report said it was because they reused a smart part from an earlier rocket without reviewing its software operating specs. Turns out that the part detected acceleration that was "impossible" - according to its specs - and started dumping debug data on its output bus, exactly like it was designed to do.
The software performed perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it had a lot to do with software engineering. You see, the guidance modules were designed to handle conditions like that as "obvious hardware failures" like software could not have faults. And the error handling was to switch the guidance module off without even checking how bad the situation was or whether the other one was still online. Unfortunately, an Ariane 5 that has lost both guidance modules is just essentially a bomb that has no clue where it is going.
You may want to read that report aga
Re: (Score:1)
Thanx, that you finally linked the incident you are ranting about.
As I for my part was thinking you meant a completely different inciden.
How do you suppose the simpleton you are arguing with, know s you mean THIS incident?
Re: (Score:2)
Takes one simple search for "Ariane 5 disaster". But apparently that is beyond many people these days. I am still getting used to how incapable and at the same time highly arrogant many people have become. I probably have too many interactions with STEM Students that already have survived for quite a while.
My apologies for that, you are right.
Re: (Score:1)
There were several Ariane disasters, were the reason was "faulty software".
So: how should anyone have a clue about what you are talking if you speak over several posts in riddles?
Or did you now insist that there was only on Ariane five disaster and that everyone should know about that? Hint: I don't count shit. I don't even know which Ariane version right now is the actual one.
Re: (Score:2)
Ariane is launched from French Guiana because it's more efficient to launch rockets to certain inclinations from the equator. They could launch from France proper if they had to, or Spain, or Sweden. The Israelis launch in the worst possible direction because their alternative is to fire rockets over one or more countries like Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran.
Not difficult. (Score:2)
They will spend less paying SpaceX to launch their satellites than they would paying RosCosmos or ArianeSpace. They can use that money to help them complete the development and deployment of Ariane 6.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but somewhat humiliating.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not so much about pride or humiliation anymore. it is about sovereignty and self capability to orbit any payload, including military without depending on foreign country outside the EU and private SpaceX largely funded and or abiding by foreign US interests.
Sucks (Score:2)
They should have been working on a reusable launch system but sat on their hands.
Re:Sucks (Score:5, Informative)
SpaceX announced their intention to make Falcon 9 re-usable in 2005. Everybody laughed at them, including Arianespace. SpaceX built prototypes intended to flight-test reusability in 2011 with Grasshopper. Everybody said they were wasting their time, including Arianespace. In early 2013, SpaceX began testing propulsive landing on full-up flights. In mid 2015, Arianspace was still dismissive, with their CEO saying that even though they expected SpaceX to succeed in first-stage recovery, they could still outcompete SpaceX. In late 2015, SpaceX successfully landed and recovered a first-stage booster. Over the following years, SpaceX would leverage the cost savings from reusability, ending up at roughly a third the cost of Ariane 5.
Arianespace only started work on a partially reusable rocket in 2022, planned to enter service in the 2030s, at which point they'll potentially have a system competitive with the Falcon 9, which will have been rendered obsolete by the fully reusable and much cheaper Starship.