Europe Debuts New Ariane 6 Rocket Successfully... Mostly. What Went Wrong?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- Arianespace had expected Ariane 6 to begin flying in 2020, allowing a few years for launches to transition to the new rocket. Not only was this late for all sorts of project management reasons, but Europe lost access to the Soyuz launcher and had problems with Vega-C.
So even though the second stage had some problems Europe is no doubt happy to have made this launch happen.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley
I was the lead engineer for those on-board cameras for A6! Great to hear praise from the man himself! We actually flew the same system on A5 for the JWST launch
Is it more software image stabilization or more physical dampers and isolators?
@@jakeroper1096 Physical. It was an easier solution to implement. As far as I know, Ariane used rubber damper plates under the cameras.
video and images like these make it difficult for the flatters and their silly conspiracy.
You and Réaltra did a fantastic job on these. It's class to see Irish space having such a visible impact, and it's a sign of all the good things happening in the Irish space industry at the moment.
Name checks out :-)
I've been working on the Vinci engine for years so for me and all of my colleagues it was an long awaited launch. This was an unforgettable, once-in-a-lifetime moment of both stress and euphoria. It feels like a total success for us, considering the intense pressure and hard work required to make Ariane 6 possible! People sometimes don't realize that rocket science is REALLY hard, getting everything right on the maiden flight is quite an achievement.
Thank you Scott for your in-depth analysis, it was great and thorough as always!
Big congrats!
I think I'd distinguish rocket science from engineering. SpaceX has changed perceptions of how space is done, so it's nice to see such a success.
It's a beautiful engine, I was lucky enough to see a cut view of the combustion chamber at the factory. Fantastic work
@@AndrewBlucherRocket engineering then. We know what's meant. The big difference is that you're dealing with regimes where normal engineering margins just aren't viable... Constantly running on the edge of materials failure.
Respect
Why wasn't A6 reusable?
@@Yuhyuhmuhmuh - because at the time the A5 follow-on was being considered, no-one other than SpaceX thought it was possible. Note that Vulcan isn't reusable either.
That launch trajectory is looking a lot like my KSP launch trajectories
Ah yes, the classic 'okay, now let's slowly start our gravity turn, oh wait, no so quickly, oh-oh pitch up, pitch up, we're burning up here!' maneuver.
Maybe they wanted to have a worse effecient accent, bc it is overkill for the cubesats and they still want to test the full burn time
@@Robert-uh9vf
I've heard many good things about "Juno: New Origins", it's even made for mobile in mind, but it's also got a bit more complicated construction due to things being mostly procedural.
Time to apoapsis just creeping closer and closer, trying to nose up enough to not sink into the thick atmosphere... Yep, been there.
They also left their 2nd stage in orbit which is very KSP.
It's intresting to see how hard it is to relight a space engine, while in KSP it's just "whatever, I'll do a very unoptimise trajectory and yoloing the thrust"
Yeah, KSP is comparatively very forgiving. I'm currently playing a mod pack called RP-1 (realistic progression 1) where among other things, it replaces the Kerbol system with the real solar system to scale and also adds parts failures, very limited to no thrust adjustment ability and limited to no relights to it's various engines; certainly gives perspective to the challenges spaceflight brings.
Using RSS and all the Real (fuel, engines, etc) mods gave me a new appreciation for space engineering.
The Ariane's boosters are made in Colleferro, Italy. My town!🙂🙂
And the upper stage is made in Bremen, Germany. My Town.😊
Vulcain is from Ottobrunn❤
Better than Rocket is here
Easy lift off
Easy land on with antigravity Spaceship
No Fire
No Explosion
No Flame
Just Spin and
Lift off
Powered by Baterry
Work base on Gravity just spinning by using Battery
can fly in bad weather, plunge in the ocean even in outer space
Can lift more than 100 Ton
Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity?
It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums:
A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time.
The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof.
.
.
In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like.
People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:
YAY tribal alegences! So moral!
@@hiha2108 mope, the Vulcain is made in Vernon, in Normandy. That's the manufacturing of the Vinci which was unfortunately transferred to Germany.
Vinci is actually a clean sheet engine design, it was on paper for many years, but was always a clean sheet design. With basically 3x the thrust of the old HM-7B and a 15s ISP improvement. While the Vinci has higher thrust, the RL10 still has lower mass, NASA crunched the numbers and found that the lighter RL10 was better for sending payloads into deep space. Gas generators for tank pressurization aren't a new thing. Solid cartridges for tank pressurization have been studied and solid cartridges for spin starting were used in multiple vehicles. However, I believe liquid gas generators are new. ULA had a concept like this called the integrated vehicle fluids I'm pretty sure, where they would have a small hydrogen/oxygen otto cycle combustion engine, either a straight four or straight six that would provide electricity, while the exhaust would be tapped off for tank pressurization and RCS.
Short correction here about date of Vinci motor design time : It was from a blank sheet since the begining and dates from the early 2000, as I saw one prototyp in final assembly in Vernon, the french design and manufacturing site, in 2005.
Thank you, I edited the comment.
Interesting, do you know how they start the Apu? Because if the Apu is needed to pressurize the tank to start the Vinci, how does the APu get Fuel to start without Tank pressure, or is it always running idle?
@@julianholstein3840 The APU architecture is a well guarded secret, and is possibly the most inovative part of this new rocket. As far as I know, this is a pretty recent development (maybe the first Idea was in 2005, as during my training a "low power H2 O2 motor" was envisioned for R&D. It strongly relies on 3D printing.
If I would guess, from my fluid mechanics and combustion background, I'd say it's only driven by gaseous H2 and O2. As natural boiling ensure some pressure in the tanks, opening a valve is enough to feed this small gas generator. I don't expect there is much moving parts in here. Once the valve open, the reaction might be activated using a reliable way (either a calytic element or some sort of spark plug). Overall, it seems a highly advanced piece of fluid mechanics.
@@julianholstein3840 Subscribing to this thread because I want to know the answer to that too.
@scottmanley One small detail. The failed APU prevented the last burn needed to deorbit, not to push it into a higher orbit to release satellites. The reason the actual orbit was lower than planned was that if the APU had worked it would have pushed it into higher orbit by itself.
Weren’t the remaining satellites suborbital vehicles? Why would they need an even higher orbit?
@@osirisapex7483 I think they were going for a steeper reentry trajectory.
Can they just deploy the remaining payloads where they are?
@@paulblase3955 No, they have to slow them to a speed that will cause them to fall out of orbit. They are reentry experiments. To do that, they need an engine to slow them down, and without the APU, they can't fire that engine. It's a serious disappointment for those experiments, but still a great day for the Ariane 6 booster, which worked flawlessly. 🙂
@@beenaplumber8379 Ah, ok. Thanks.
For the Ariane 6 compared to the Ariane 5, they chose to build it with less efficiency in mind in order get it cheaper to build. Basicly, a trade off to keep competitive price for their clients.
The payload was replacable stuff (universities cubesats, prototypes in testing phases from the European newspace, that kind of stuff - the university cubesats were there for free btw, which is very cool, I don't know for the rest of the payload) because it was a test flight and evidently no one wants to loose a precious payload during a test.
For this inaugural test flight, that Ariane 6 was packed with sensors to get as much data as possible, so there will be a lot to analyse in the coming days, but as far as we know of for now, everything went perfectly nominal with no deviation detected whatsoever until the 3rd ignition that failed as you described (part of the test was to see how that last stage would behave in micro-gravity, something that can't be tested on land, so such a fail is less a problem, more of a possible outcome that now needs to be analysed). From there, both the onboard system and the crew on land decided to abort anything of last step of the test (after a burn to put it on re-entry trajectory, it was supposed to release the 2 test prototypes of re-entry technology) - nobody wanted to add more space debris by forcing the release of the rest of the payload.
No planed contract with their clients will be impacted by that failed third ignition.
As a Frenchman, I can tell you that it was a very long awaited launch, and despite the perfect record of Ariane 5 since its chaotic first launches, we were all very stressed out (precisely because of the chaotic debut of Ariane 5 - and of course the strategic importance of having a new Ariane). It's such a relief to have witnessed that succesful test!
There were 5 experiments and 8 cubesats along with a 1.3 ton payload simulator all successfully delivered, the 2 re-entry capsules were not delivered.
I agree, this launch was a success. However, I don't see this rocket making commercial sense to anyone but European governments that subsidise the launches and in extension part of their economy. As someone from Europe I just hope that companies like Rocket Factory Augsburg or Isar Space succeed in developing (partially) reusable launch systems
Well, SpaceX get away with saying a failure is also a successful test.
@@niklas6576You might want to have a read about Amazon buying 16 Ariane 6 launches for Project Kuiper a couple years back. Also, RFA and Isar Space rockets have nowhere near the power needed to lift geostationary payloads. When 2 companies each manifest a geostationary payload at the same time, it makes Ariane 6 very competitive in the Geostationary market; which is what it is designed to do. Ariane 6's new payload adapter will also allow for more ride-share payloads to LEO and MEO.
Plus having a rocket with the capabilities and decreased cost of Ariane 6 will allow European companies and Govt agencies to launch on their schedule and not ship sensitive technologies to the US for launch.
Sure, there isn't any reusability baked into the system but the only company that is doing reuse is SpaceX, with a side note on Rocket Lab. There maybe others in development, but none of them are flying. All said, I think that Ariane 6 will do just fine.
@@niklas6576for these private companies to succeed, Ariane has to die. It is sucking too much resources and wasting a lot of them, just like Nasa did with the shuttle. ESA could have chosen to follow NASA‘s model, instead they doubled down. €4 billion spent on a new rocket that is supposedly 20-30% cheaper, so it will barely pay off in its lifetime compared to just continuing to use Ariane 5 for one or two strategic launches per year and contracting private companies for the rest.
Congrats to everyone who had a hand in making it possible.
It failed.
R U havin' a larf? If you are serious, then you have fuck all idea.
@@elitnoctua tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me.
@@grahamcook9289 It even created space junk and possible future impact on populated areas.
Better than Rocket is here
Easy lift off
Easy land on with antigravity Spaceship
No Fire
No Explosion
No Flame
Just Spin and
Lift off
Powered by Baterry
Work base on Gravity just spinning by using Battery
can fly in bad weather, plunge in the ocean even in outer space
Can lift more than 100 Ton
Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity?
It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums:
A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time.
The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof.
.
.
In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like.
People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:
I was waiting for your video since the launch. I spotted the payload at it's second orbit, when it was at 604 km height. I live in Hamburg, Germany and spotted a small bright point with 2 half circles going out from either side. Mind you, that was with my eyes, no telesscope or anything. I'm still flabbergasted. Seeing the Twilight effect for the first time and my first "rocket launch". Love your videos, lov
e Luna
Thanks for sharing! There have also been reports of sightings from other parts of Germany and from Poland. This encourages us to look for them next time. Best regards from Berlin!
Not wrong about the onboard camera shots - beautifully sharp and stable !
For anyone asking the second stage will deorbit in 15 to 25 years.
At first I didn't believe it, because the screen shows their apoapsis at 604 km and speed at 7.32 km/s, and I typed that into my orbit calculator and it gave a periapsis at 25km... but they must be showing ground speed, since they really did circularize, so they are going more like 7.56 km/s wrt a non-rotating Earth, implying they got almost 250 m/s extra from the equator launch. Really shows what a big difference a small bit of delta v can make.
So, before Starliner then?
Hope nobody gets hit.
@@PhantomHarlock78more chance to get hit by a starlink
@@vannoo67 LMAOOO
I was at work, with people who worked on parts for this rocket. It was great to watch the liftoff, you could hear a pin drop.
You can get a much better shot of the payload fairing in the 2 min compilation Ariane space shared on its youtube channel!
Fast jets chasing space rockets is something that will never get old for me.
One othe thing to mention, is that the boosters also serve as the first stage of Vega C, which is meant to bring costs further down.
None the less a very good performance for a first flight!
The main goal for Europe with Ariane 6 is to be independent from the US to launch his own satellites (military satellites and so on).
@@williamyamm8803 Why couldn’t they keep using the A5 if that is its main purpose?
@@elitnoctuaRussian engines
@@elitnoctua Because the goal was to reduce the cost. The Ariane 6 is less expensive than Ariane 5. And also to be able to replace 2 rockets, Ariane 5 and Soyouz. The Soyouz is replaced by Ariane 6 with the 2 boosters version. The Ariane 5 is replaced by Ariane 6 with the 4 boosters version.
@@williamyamm8803spending 4 billion € to reduce cost by maybe 50mil per launch isn’t going to pay off anytime soon.
@@mx2000 you pass from 250M$ of A5 to 120/150M$ of A62/64. Plus can rise up launch rate, produce more A6 at the same time, etc.
The payload I was most looking forward to was the Nyx re-entry capsule by The Exploration Company, one of the most promising new commercial space companies coming out of Europe. They were planning to launch it on an Indian rocket but were lured back to the Ariane 6 inaugural launch. It's a damn shame. I wonder how far back this will set them.
It was not Nyx fitted on top of the rocket but the very small Bikini demonstrator. They explained that Nyx schedule is not affected by this
Same here. I'm really interested in the Exploration Company.
Great video Scott. Excellent breakdown as usual.
What a data-dense video. Barely a wasted phrase or sentence. Great stuff!
A small correction, both capsules don't feature parachutes, they are just meant to collect data of the reentry and communicate them after the blackout
Ok so they were relying on landing in a safe place
@@scottmanley No, they were not supposed to land safely.
To land in a safe place, not to land safely. Different things.@@Dakta96
@@scottmanley No, they were supposed to transfer data on free fall and crash land.
@@Dakta96 he said in a safe place. Meaning they were planned not to crash into some ones house
6:05 Five minutes and forty seconds into flight before somebody noticed the mission clock was still negative!
9:31 "A?ores"... yeah I think I wouldn't necessarily trust ESA's digital systems at all if I were a customer.
Perhaps it was not actually the mission clock? How would we know? Does it matter? Do we really care?
I don't see that as a bad thing. It means their public presentation was less important than the mission at hand. Contrast that to the constant parade of hyper-enthusiastic teenage team-player cheerleaders you have to listen to during a SpaceX launch. I'm an observer, not a target demographic. I want information, not motivation. This was more like the old NASA launches, and it was refreshing.
@@geraldhenrickson7472 I care a lot
and the english/french mix ... unnecessary.
Good to the flight of Ariane 6 getting a positive review by Scott - it has a good list of payloads to launch and it keeps an Independent access to space for Europe !
Considering the spectacular service performed by ESA, Arianespace, and Ariane 5, in launching the James Webb Space Telescope, and many other platforms, I'm willing, as I'm sure many commercial and government customers are, very willing to give Ariane 6 the benefit of fixing issues that happen during test missions like this. At least it didn't blow up or crash into the ocean. ;p
Explanation for the camera pointing downward: the rocket is slowly rotating on itself (they call that "barbecue") and this is to get the heat (from the sun) spread homogeneously across the rocket (and not on one side).
The altitude was climbing steeply at the same time.
The whole segment was about pitch and not orientation, rewatch and pay attention
@@u1zha Pitch is one of the 3 axes of orientation.
@@stargazer7644 True but barbecue isn't conducted by pitching over 360 degrees, totally do rewatch
@@u1zha Perhaps you should spend a little more time re-reading the comments.
If the engine relight fails, couldn't they just open propellant valves and just let it out through the main nozzle without burning? Like a big cold gas thruster? That would lower the delta v drastically but it may still be enough to do a controlled deorbit.
You thought through your own question. Good job!
I suppose ground control hadn't the chance for such a maneuver. The rockets computer followed its program and passivated the second stage after the fault. Also the iivetime of the batteries is limited.
Also. Maybe the attitude of the stage was wrong. Pointing in the wrong direction
It didn’t go 100% perfect due to the APU issue on the 3rd ignition of Vinci, but still it’s a great result for the 1st flight of a largely new design. A big g emphasis has been put on optimizing design to lower manufacturing costs as compared to Ariane 5 type manufacturing, hence almost all parts are new or have been redesigned.
Hopefully the telemetry data will help understand and solve the APU issue quickly.
Market wise, I understand that demand is currently high for commercial launch services, so even though it is more expensive than SpaceX, it seems Ariane 6 has a substantial order list for commercial launches besides the government missions.
Newest rocket in the industry and it's still inferior to Falcon 9. Built more efficiently but still too expensive, lol
@@bbeen40
Last time I did the math, with the kind of Geosynchronous payloads the Ariane does, the Falcon 9 needs to fly expendable, resulting in the Ariane 6 actually being cheaper than the Falcon 9 per kg of payload.
And Elon has been price gouging since, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Ariane 6 has become even cheaper, for big, multi-satellite payloads to GTO.
With that kind of failure where a lot of mass potentially become a space junk capable of surviving reentry but with unknown timing? Wtf would use this kind of rocket?
@@roku_nine
Knowing Arianespace's history with booster reliability, that one failure will probably be the one big failure of the design.
Kinda like the one Ariane 5 that failed due to an overflow error in one of the computers.
@@ShadowFalcon With the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies every year from member countries it's kind of ridiculous to say that. They will never have much of an argument on price.
You ALWAYS give a nice presenation. Thanks and YES the pics were AWESOME.
But attention please: Such a flight profile also existed during the launch of the JWST with the Ariane. There, too, the rocket flew back towards Earth for a short while. And as we know, this launch was so good that a lot of fuel could be saved, allowing JWST to operate for longer than originally planned. I hope I understood everything correctly at the time, but the curve towards Earth can definitely be seen in the flight profile when JWST was launched
with the old Ariane.
It is a great pity that the 2 landing test objects could not be dropped as planned, because the test results of the heat shield materials are certainly particularly valuable for the future development of reusable spacecraft. But space is hard and what has been achieved is still great. Congratulations ESA and partners!
These Rafale pilots must have enjoyed the view quite a bit!
One of the best parts of going on a four day bikepacking trip is coming home to two new Scott Manley videos!
I will always love the Ariane series of rockets after ESA used one to put JWST in a great position, and I live in TX!
Yep, Ariane Space absolutely nailed it, thank god!😊
Using the open cycle exhaust for roll control is a nice clawback of some of that lost efficiency
Ariane 5 did exactly the same thing.
Wow! You can even see the paint starting to bubble in the onboard footage @2:16
It was visible over Europe using thrusters. Spectacular view.
That thing took off like a rocket
Yes, it is odd how fast that was flying up. Payload must have been very light!
@@mortenlund1418 No, it's not just that. Ariane was already known for this very fast take-off. It's very nice to see every time. I also think the Ariane looks pretty good.
@@user-li7ec3fg6h So do I. Really looking forward for the next launches. Not least Vega C!
A5 had a bigger problem and ended up making JWST operation much longer than planned. They'll be good.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the conceptual similarity between APU and the semi-abandoned IVF engine that was slated for ULA's ACES .
Mr. Scott Manley, your video intro/outro music is really good and unique!
Awesome review Scott thanks. That is crazy that one day the payload will return to earth with shielding and no parachutes!
We should have debris removal capabilities at this time.
@@AViehl who's going to pay for that
Always good for the west to have alternative rockets that are manufactured in the west.
absolutely 👍
Well, at least it was not rocky a first flight as Ariane 5 flight 1.
Actually the ESA made a press conference right after the launch and they said that they think that the problem was an electrical one. So it should be simpler to correct, although the development of Starliner teach us that everything can be difficult if missmanaged! But Arianespace doesn't have a record for that, so let's hope for the best! (like this comment so everyone can read it!)
Nobody of Ariane Space said a worth of it. But on board of the tiny little space capsule, there where tiny little micronauts. And now these tiny little micronauts are stuck in space like major Tom and Butch and Sunnie.
If it's Boeing, you ain't going!
Back to earth, lol
Hello scott, remember that is the FIRST launch of Ariane 6 . How much rockets did work at the very first launch ? Yes, they have to work on the APU but i think it was a success.
But if you are not sure about your capability, why not test like Space X, where it is on a trajectory destined to return at a safe place, no matter what?
The rocket did well for a first flight, but leaving a stage in low orbit, high enough to stay for decades, is messy.
I think Ariane 6 will be a worthy, reliable successor to Ariane 5. But the engine relight tech was new. Not placing the second stage into a rapidly decaying orbit on the very first in-flight test is just bad planning.
@@r.b.4009 It proves it can do at least as much as Ariane 5 at half the cost.
@@r.b.4009That strategy only work for a private company. And not even that. It's a SpaceX strategy alone.
@GuigEspritDuSage Well, it wasn't 64 variant which is more comparable to Ariane 5. But assuming there won't be issues on the first 64 launch (...next year) then ye.
Space flight is like a truck beeping: back-up back-up back-up. Or, in other words, have at least triple redundancy for mission-critical systems.
Always make sure you have a backup backup-beeper
Thank you for addressing the weird orientation during flight! I was wondering about that while I was watching the launch.
Flight was "rich in data", so therefore a total success according to the new standards put forth by SpaceX.
The difference: There were payloads aboard Ariane 6 that couldn't be deployed due to a failure in the launch vehicle. SpaceX did do this with some of the earliest Falcon 9s, but hasn't with Starship.
The goal of testing the capabilities of the launch vehicle was achieved. The test flight was a success. The failed deployment of payloads is what makes it less than perfect.
I wonder what you would be saying if a starship was stuck in orbit because it can't relight its engines.
It does put into perspective the different approaches. Starship wasn't meant to demonstrate full capabilities yet, so it was intentionally placed in a suborbital trajectory. On flight 3, as expected, they had issues. But it was fine since they made the mission profile assuming something went wrong.
For Ariane 6 the flight was arguably much more successful than any Starship flight so far. The whole thing looks very reliable, they just have to get to the bottom of that one issue. A great result for a first flight. However, this was a demonstration flight, not a test flight. They aimed for perfection and they didn't achieve it. Now there are payloads in the wrong orbit and they left space debris. And we'll still have to see how this impacts the schedule going forward.
I wish Ariane was a bit more cautious. You don't know if a system will work until you try it. One flight with a proper mass simulator on a (initially) suborbital trajectory would've been preferable.
It wasn’t just rich in data, it delivered the important payload and proved it could do what it is expected to do in the next 3 years
@@IndigoSierrathese payloads were very small scientific payloads that needed a very specific orbit to re enter the atmosphere, most payloads for Ariane 6 will be equivalent to the other payload which were successfully delivered
Ariane 5 was the key to the James Webb ST and has reached the orbit beyond the moon orbit L2 Point so precisely that JWST will have even more lifetime because there are more correction possibilities with the correction engines.
The JWST is not behind the moon...
Beyond the moon, rather.
JWST is at the Earth-Sun L2 point. The earth is always between JWST and the sun, it is nothing to do with the moon.
@@owensmith7530 correct, but is the tele parked beyond the lunar orbit?
@@owensmith7530The moon is the disturbance that leads to the oscillation around L2
“I’m sure SpaceX will happily sell them rides on a Falcon 9…”
Oh no. That aged somewhat poorly after yesterday’s MVac RUD (I’m fairly confident they can perform a full investigation and start launching again before the next Ariane 6 launch, but still - unfortunate timing lol)
Next few launches won't need the Vinci to be restarted so I'm guessing it should be fine.
My reaction when I went out of the house around midnight to get some fresh air and on the sky I could see huge wierd ass lights! Had no idea what im looking at for a while, thought it's aliens :D
It was the first time ever we could see the space rocket here from Poland. Crazy and insane stuff!
2:30 “…footage was top notch.”
I remember an earlier quote of yours “…first rate rocket porn.”
Can't wait for the money shot.
(slips a folded 1$ bill into the exhaust nozzle actuator)
17:00 about this time they did 4 small puffs of RCS above Russia, which were visible in the twilight of Germany! I wish I could post photos here
D-Orbit may have found a customer
Great to know Ariane 6 is almost operational!
Almost
2 minutes since upload, like winning the "what should I watch over lunch" lottery!
Scott if you're reading the early comments. I have been watching your stuff for a long time, and I love your content! I remember waiting not so patiently for each interstellar quest episode to come out while I was in middle-school/high-school and now I wait slightly more patiently for your videos to come out after each major launch or big space news to hear your take on it.
Your channel has aged perfectly from my frame of reference, and I can't wait to see what the future holds.
Expander cycle engines don't boil the hydrogen, it's instead a smooth supercritical expansion between the pump and combustion chamber
Yes, but i need to use words regular people understand.
@@scottmanleyI often get comments like this on my channel and I give the same answer 😂
While I understand why the 'legacy aerospace' guys were skeptical of 'reusability', it has now been 10 years since it was clear that SpaceX were on course to solve that problem. So what have the legacy guys been doing since then? It took SpaceX less than 10 years to get it working from 'tabula rasa'. Now that everyone has seen how to do it, none of them have actually replicated it. The Chinese are closest (or maybe the Rocket Lab, but don't tell me 'Vulcan Centaur'...), but no-one has succeeded yet. Even more baffling, they seem to have conceded the market to SpaceX and think that they can survive with non-reusable architectures. SpaceX is arguably further forward on Starship than everyone else is on 1st gen reusability. @Scott Manley: maybe an idea for a video?
Apparently the program cost 4 billion euro, and even before the first flight, there was orders for 3.2 bilions, (near 30 flight) so I think, Ariane group can be happy.
The US has plenty of space companies which haven't done anything much .... Why ULA, why SLS, why Boeing...? Why no New Glenn yet?
IMO someone has to use solid rockets so the nuclear missile makers have a way to stay in the game. Ariane and Vega are the only European rockets so they have to be the mechanism by which various strategic capabilities are maintained in many EU states. If you consider this a waste the the US probably does it much more. Spacex has no politics to deal with, but has access to the pool of talent and suppliers that has been created by a lot of government spending.
If there's enough booking for them , they don't need to worry (EU, India,China,and Russia all want independent launch solutions, so their governments support the legacy systems). There's still enough time to make reusable systems.
You need to worry more about the US launch providers
Nice try elon, we know this is your CZcams account
Excellent detailed summary Scott, thanks!
De-orbit and flight in conclusion:
I find it a huge succes they went from building a new site to 1 fuel test to launch works, light it all on schedule into designed orbit did relights.
Confirmed the concept of it all works.
1 durability failure, that's going to get fixed.
Just a very smooth introduction of a new rocket, with upgrades to come.
De-orbit, ESA have been working on de-orbit methods.
This object should be a very promising candidate to perform de-orbit vehicle designs to.
Maybe even multiple.
Make the best out of a unfortunate situation.
I like how the visualisation software can't handle the letter "Ç"
Exactly! I'm not sure I would trust any digital systems from ESA after seeing they can't even handle Unicode in 2024.
More embarrassing than the equipment failure, imo.
What do we see at 2:10 ff.? The Paint on the Hull seems to start boiling?
Probably some trapped gases in the paint escaping as the rocket enters the vacuum of space.
Could be microscopic trapped bubbles of air expanding as it increases in altitude. Not uncommon for some paint bases to do this if not completely degassed before deployment. At the end of the day it is a consumable so not a big concern I wouldn't think.
@@zbubby1202 Yeah, the paint has no purpose once the rocket is out of sight. :)
@@zbubby1202 Yea and looks like its paint from logo. while the main paint of the structure is probably done differently
@@zbubby1202 seems like if it flakes off it becomes micro-debris, not great.
Scott, the moment that APU failed, a million people were immediately ready for your video lol
Thank you for the excellent explanation as always, Scott! :)
This was a triumph. I'm making a not here “huge success".
You haven't got a fucking clue.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction
Aperture Science
We do what we must, because we can
For the good of all of us
Except the ones who are dead
It was an appalling waste of European tax payers money.
"We heard you like liquid-propellant ullage motors. So, we made an ullage motor for your ullage motor :)"
I had the same thought after SRB sep - "Bummer! Oh, wait." 😂 I still don't understand the trajectory but "showing off for customers" makes sense. Pity about the space debris.
So that was a GEMs maneuver. These maneuvers are common on solid fuel missiles where there is no way to throttle the engine. It also eliminates the need for an elaborate thrust termination system.
Well it was nice the launch was mostly a success, certainly went better then Ariane 5 in that aspect.
Huh, I just realized it doesn't have any tailfins. I thought it did this entire time. Now I feel dumb. Lol.
Also, that footage was SO MUCH clearer than any SpaceX footage. Elon needs to get a hold of that Irish optics company.
Love to see it, even as I am sad to see Ariane V go, Imho the V was peak rocket aesthetic.
It was so chonky, indeed peak.
Yes, and space X is not subsidized 😋 Falcon is a really good rocket, no doubt. The edge of Ariane 6 will be multiple customers having middle sized satellites to very different orbits. So basically, they will split the bill. Reuse is not cheaper by definition-we used to reuse many things (glass bottles-but we don't any more). If you manage to make first stage simple, cheap-you might be on to something. I can see, Ariane 6 was made to be expandable the best way possible-solid boosters+not many engines(2)+simple engine+each engine takes payload as high as possible. Basic question is-Ariane 6 sacrifices 2 simple engines, is that really more expensive as overhauling 9 Merlin engines? To be fair Falcon 9 reuses only first stage-which is comparably small (second stage burn starts much earlier, otherwise first stage can't return). If we compare energy invested-Ariane 6 boosters do the work of Falcons 1 stage-separation at comparable level. So maybe the real question is; Are Ariane 6 boosters more costly as overhauling Falcon 9 first stage.
Yeah, sure, not subsidized, not like when NASA sent them a blank check while they only had a 25% success rate light rocket unable to put something into orbit?
Or by gov paying pretty much the double than SpaceX is bragging about pricetag?
Interesting. It is all exciting to follow all the different ways of cutting the cheese!
Not a bad start, really.
Hey, Scott. You mentioned the Vinci engine was an evolution of the HM7B but I couldn't find anything about it online. Plus, the Vinci has about 3x the thrust at less than 2x chamber pressure, implying a different chamber design. Do you have something that says Vinci comes from HM7B?
Love your vids.
Vinci is a brand new design.
@@DC2022 that's what I suspected
Oh no Scott you said "zero gravity"! Twice!
Aux Propellant sure would think enlightened , seems to need more aux. Seems they explained their attitude to reuse and this was interesting further detail.
well you say all that. In quite a snarky tone. But i think the Russia thing has made it clear: You don't want to be (completely) reliable on somebody else! Even if they are currently (and likely for the long run) friends. And while SpaceX is obviously private, it will hop, when the US gouvernment say "hop. And recent US gouvernments have said worse things then "hop".
So It is not just a prestige object like SLS. "Having the capability" is something Europe should look at as much as the US or China. You can still launch most stuff cheaper elsewhere. but keep your options.
Europe had a bad history of relying on foreign partners for space. USA that tried to vassalise them with the Symphonie case where USA said they won't launch the sat if they didn't accept a non-competition agreement who would pretty much kill the program. That's one of the reason Ariane existed. And recently with Russia who unilaterally forbid Soyuz exploitation by ArianeGroup. Well, this was a shot on their own foot because we can see how dead in the water is their space industry now but still.
So yeah, it's not about pride, it's about sovereignty and full access to space. It's already a shame we rely on other to human access to space.
Gee Scott, if you are going to compare Ariane 6 to Falcon, at least be precise: Falcon 9 can only match Ariane 6 LEO lift capability in an expendable configuration. It's lift capabilities are much better compared to Falcon Heavy, which is almost never flown and semi-expendable.
And with less accuracy than Ariane 5 (which is comparable to A64 since this one is the replacement, A62 being the smaller and cheaper sister) ever had. Remember JWST.
Hard feelings ??
No, but F9 can deliver about half of the payload to GTO compared to A64... and the price of two F9 launches is considerably less than the price of a dual-payload Ariane launch.
So Ariane 64 is left with a fairly small niche... basically, single payloads which need to go to high orbits (where that hydrolox upper stages excels over F9) and which are too bulky to fit the smaller Falcon Heavy fairing. Or government launches where cost is deemed irrelevant, of course.
@@simongeard4824 2 F9 for a A64? Tell that to most of the customers (NASA and Pentagon) who pay way over 120M$ apiece. For a rocket who has far worse capabilities for anything else than LEO in expandable mode which means launch being even more expensive.
Right now Ariane 6 has over 3 years worth of launches, apparently its fairly small niche is quite large.
@@simongeard4824Even government launches are moving to Falcon 9. EUMETSAT was supposed to launch on A64's first flight, but switched to F9. The German government launched two military satellites on F9, the EU did so for some Galileo sats, and Spain wants to launch some military sats on F9.
The launch coverage was quite impressive. I only watched through the initial orbital burn, and didn't find out about the APU issue until a few hours later.
Thank you for this detailed technical description and explanation. 😊❤
It flew over scotland!
I assume it flew safe 😊
No way you can peek under the kilts from up there, Francis.
@@JZsBFFNo need to. Everything is in perrfect worrking orrderr
NICE
Thanks, Scott! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
One thing you can notice on those swanky new cameras is the Ariane 6 decal on the interstage bubbling abd blistering under the heat of supersonic flight
Scott, what happens to Falcon Heavy 2nd stages after geostationary orbit insertion?
They burn up, the second stage of the falcon heavy can't be reusable due to fuel limits
@@Alucard-gt1zf They are too high up in GEO at ~36,000km and can't burn up in the atmosphere any longer. I guess they steer the stage even higher into a graveyard orbit at ~37,000km.
They end up in a graveyard orbit. If it’s a “direct injection” launch I suspect they go into the same orbit as the disused geo com says. Not sure what happens to the ones that put the satellites on a transfer orbit.
if I'm not mistaken old geo satelites and 2nd stages are required to move to a graveyard orbit as none have enough fuel to deorbit like in LEO
this was the main stage.
As Scotty of Star Trek said famously:
"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to jam up the works!"
"The easier it is to stop up the drain"
Lofted trajectory is pretty common if your second stage is weak. Atlas 5 uses this to give centaur more time to burn.
Reason why starliner has two engines on second stage is to avoid an highly lofted trajectory as it would dangerous if second stage dies and you reenter at an steep angle.
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing... hydrolox upper stages are efficient, but they're often underpowered. A lofted trajectory gives them a bit more time to complete circularisation before the atmosphere can drag them back down, at the expense of some efficiency.
@@simongeard4824 This is especially true for expander cycle engines, like the Vinci on this rocket, or the RL10 on many American ones. They are great, because they are efficient, simple and reliable, but their thrust is anemic compared to a turbopump engine.
Great video, Scott...👍
Why is any failure by any company but SpaceX "embarrassing", while SpaceX total failures are just part of normal learning? Because they said so and set expectations? Pretty absurd. One standard.
Because SpaceX is cool, disruptive, while all the other companies in the world are useless.
Keeping an upper stage in LEO is criminal, but launching thousands of short-life satellites is an “innovation”.
You can see the same discourse with Tesla, probably the same fanboys
Because of know-nothing musk fanbois who think spaceflight began with the Falcon 9.
@@stargazer7644 well, you're right, but when ppl like Scott start to jump in that same bandwagon it become very concerning.
Nice prototype launch, for a first, it's good enough. What a beauty
Watching the line that shows trajectory is not the expected trajectory, it is showing its anticipated trajectory based on its engine burn. The line changed in the middle showing the line was adjusted not stable as you would expect for a graph showing an expected trajectory
Rocket going downwards after a steep climb is typical of Arianes 5 and 6. Mainly because de core stage has so low thrust to weight ratio. Those who played KSP already know of this fact.
Ariane 6 isn't meant to compete.
not sure why you would think it is.
it's ESA's rocket, that's what they'll use.
Also Ariane Next is a thing.
Sadly Ariane Next won't be a 'thing' for quite a while. Let's see where Themis goes first, but even then... it's a technology demonstrator on the level of Falcon 9, even China has gotten ahead in this race.
Ya, it will mostly be used for government payloads since it cannot compete for commercial use.
No, it’s meant to compete, it is just not competitive.
@@bluesteel8376 oh, yeah, that's why flights are booked for the next THREE YEARS. What a failure, "oh lala!"
@@GigAnonymous it's not a race.
Themis being a demonstrator makes sense, they are testing wether or not it is econmically viable.
A lot of people seem to forget that we haven't actually seen SpaceX's books. We have no idea how viable reuse actually is in financial terms.
ESA and by extension Ariane Space have no real need to rush this, it's not like it's bankrupting anyone.
Better than any muskrat crap.
Can we all appreciate the Starfield screen saver background?
What went wrong: 11:05 (they couldn't perform third relight to de-orbit the upper stage. There are also two re-entry payloads that are effectively lost).
I think it is inappropriate to shame Ariane Space for polluting LEO over 1 failed objective, during the first launch of their new rocket and meanwhile celebrate Spacex for polluting LEO with their over 6000 Starlink satellites, with more launching 1-2 times per week.
IF you care about polluting LEO because of Kessler syndrome and such, I think that in the long run, Starlink might become a larger problem than the upper stage of Ariane 6's maiden flight.
Well, Starship devastating natural reserve with their shitty barn? SUCCEEEEEESS! There will be so much to leeaaaaaarn! Ariane 6 first test flight worked 99% right. "Ahhhhh! they did ONE thing WROOOOOONG!"
And that's quite saddening to see Scott playing this card as well.
@@DC2022him and so much of the space community, blinded by this cult-ish approach to spacex, it is really sad
@@DC2022actually Scott is not playing any “card”, Scott is reporting honestly as he should. He is committed to detail and honesty no matter who launches. This ESA fanboy crowd is actually quite annoying. Press on your ESA to come up with something inspiring not a conventional rocket then perhaps sentiments would change, btw, I have nothing against ESA, wish them success but they play second or third fiddle in space.
Well not to disagree about the general point of your comment, but I'll have to argue the details. After 3-4 years most of Starlink will burn up. They're intentionally very low for just this purpose - self cleaning. You'll be waiting two decades for this spacecraft to come back down.
@@olasek7972 we definitively didn't hear the same speak there, where snarky and derogatory comments were the norm.
12:23 "They performed the SECOND burn ... but then there was supposed to be a THIRD RE-LIGHT of the engine..."
No, this would have been the 3rd engine burn and the 2nd RE-light. The "RE-light" number will always be smaller than the "light" or "burn" number because the very first engine burn is never a RE-light (the 2nd burn is the 1st re-light, the 3rd burn is the 2nd re-light, etc). This is one of my pet peeves - people using "light" and "RE-light" interchangeably - ESPECIALLY coming from rocket people, but unfortunately I hear this interchangeable usage quite a lot from rocket/space people.
There are some videos of the upper stage doing some crazy stuff while flying over Europe. Looked like wall-e with two fire extinguishers. Would love to hear your comment on that.
You should check out "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by Bate, Mueller, and White. I think its a Dover book. Its a good read that also doesn't go too deep into all the math, as it assumes you already have a very solid background into differential equations and you are advanced enough in your vector calculus to not have to go through all the intermediate steps.
To this day I still think it has one of the best derivations of the N-body problem.