Comments for http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml en-gb 30 Sat 19 Apr 2014 21:17:43 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml vkolotilov http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=88#comment8 This post has been Removed Sat 08 Jan 2011 10:43:21 GMT+1 U14717710 http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=77#comment7 Le Gall's response to the question about competition was quite interesting, but he overlooked (deliberately or otherwise) the upcoming threat from the Indians.The GSLV Mk2 is a pretty effective Ariane 4 clone and the soon-to-be launched GSLV Mk3 will compete for business at the lower end of Ariane 5's range. It won't be subject to the same US restrictions as the Chinese launchers are. This is the dark horse candidate from the next generation of global launchers.It's also interesting that he claimed Ariane 5's run of 35 consecutive successful launches was a World record. Ariane 4 had 74 consecutive successes before it was retired in 2003 (and America's Delta 2 has had a longer run, too).The reason cited at the time for the launcher's retirement was that satellites were getting bigger and that Arianespace needed to be able to dual-launch payloads, yet in November 2003 - just 9 months after the last Ariane 4 - the agreement to bring Soyuz to Kourou was signed. Clearly there is a case for a mid-sized launcher.It's therefore intriguing to hear that Le Gall thinks Ariane 6 should consist of a family of rockets focusing on the 3 to 6 tonne to GTO range. Isn't this exactly what the Ariane 4 family was? Might it not have been more sensible to evolve those highly successful launchers and continue to amortise their original development cost, rather than design another model from scratch - with the consequent (in his words) 18 year period to make the rocket reliable?Best regards, Yuriy, CEO of youtube downloader Fri 10 Dec 2010 16:07:43 GMT+1 John http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=66#comment6 Just think in 1960 the UK already had a Military Space programme in place with the production/assembly line for the first phase family of a joint missile, Satellite Launch Vehicle started and in production to fulfil the original fifty a year capacity for the MoS. The Launch pads at Woomera were designed and built to take the second phase satellite launch vehicles with a maximum of 1,000,000lbf thrust. The service gantries were designed and could take the sixteen foot diameter enlarged Blue Streak vehicles that could have placed sixteen to twenty ton payload in a circular 300n.mile polar LEO.The Woomera air liquefaction plant was already constructed and was required to produce up to 36,000ton of LOX annually.Four UK companies had developed and tested spacesuits for the programme and were so advanced that they directly influenced the American Apollo Moon suits.The UK and Australia had already invested so much in creating the facilities and hardware that it was stated at the time of cancellation that it only needed the equivalent expenditure annually to that spent on November 5th fireworks in the same period to have had a fully fledged ongoing space programmeWhen this investment was thrown away key UK rocket scientists helped get Ariane started and tens of thousands of British workers ended up on the dole! Thu 04 Mar 2010 13:24:47 GMT+1 Keir Jakich http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=55#comment5 If you're interested in this, please download or listen to a recording of Me Le Galls full talk, free at http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/2010/02/arianespace-30-years-of-success/ - the Royal Aeronautical Society's official online media channel - Please feel free to add your comments while you're on the channel, and browse the other lectures and resources too.Aero Society Channel Team Tue 23 Feb 2010 21:42:56 GMT+1 Lloyden http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=44#comment4 The facts are that the industries involved in the production of Ariane 5 cannot survive without further R&D 'enhanced' or 'advanced' versions of Ariane 5 funded by ESA. So there has to be a constant subsidy by ESA to even stay afloat. And to earlier comments, Ariane 5 was never man-rated from the start, this was studied as part of the Hermes programme which went out with a ... capsule named ARD, Ariane re-entry demonstrator. The last time I saw Hermes was in the Clignancourt flee-market. Finally, you have to admire the French, ESA is headquartered in Paris, the DG is French and so is the boss of Arianespace. Vive l'Europe! Fri 19 Feb 2010 12:10:36 GMT+1 tychobear http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=33#comment3 The Ariane-5 may well have originally been intended to launch the Hermes, but that was cancelled along with the Man-Tended Free Flyer and the original Polar Platform (then resurrected in part as ERS/Envisat) quite early on. Whether the man-launch requirements were descoped after the majority of the development/test activities were performed - and therefore the relevant aspects were just not validated although left in place - or before, in which case they were specifically removed (which would help with launch mass by removing redundancy, greater safety margin elements, etc) is unclear. I expect the latter, in which case an effort to man-rate the Ariane-5 would be a significant upgrade and test activity, with a considerable associated cost.And I think it's a moot point. Arianespace, for now, are not interested in the human-launch market. This they will leave to the Falcon-9 and the other nascent projects running around the world. NASA, although still reeling from the Constellation program cancellation, will also have its own man-rated vehicle in the future. Add in Soyuz for smaller missions to LEO and you can see that there is no obvious huge demand for a new man-rated launcher. This also ignores also the several tourism-oriented concepts that could, in future evolutions, address orbital rather than sub-orbital. Fri 19 Feb 2010 09:32:35 GMT+1 callisto http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=22#comment2 There are a few points here .....Might it now be the right time to write "satellite launchers are never going to be commercially viable" on a model of the Ariane 5 and insert it forcefully into UK Governments' collective backside? How blinkered were they in their short-sighted ignorance of how the launcher market would develop. Ariane (aka Blue Streak) could have been a UK success story if politicians had not been so toothless. But we won't make THAT mistake again, eh? As you say, Jon, watch this space ...The man-rating of A5 puzzles me. Considering it was initially designed to launch the Hermes spaceplane, one would think it was already man-rated.And HYLAS is more Indian-built than UK. The UK has provided the communications payload to the Indian Service Module and testing. A great move to forward UK space capability - give it away. The fact that the UK has been involved in space (rocket propulsion especially) since 1945 should not be allowed to prevent us developing our rivals' industry. Thu 18 Feb 2010 20:42:08 GMT+1 Jonathan Amos http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=11#comment1 @David. Mr Le Gall calls every flight a new world record. It is... for the Ariane 5. ;-) I would love also at some stage to talk to the Japanese about their H-IIb vehicle. It's very capable. Would they fancy a punt at the commercial market? Thu 18 Feb 2010 20:32:46 GMT+1 David http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/02/arianespace.shtml?page=0#comment0 Le Gall's response to the question about competition was quite interesting, but he overlooked (deliberately or otherwise) the upcoming threat from the Indians.The GSLV Mk2 is a pretty effective Ariane 4 clone and the soon-to-be launched GSLV Mk3 will compete for business at the lower end of Ariane 5's range. It won't be subject to the same US restrictions as the Chinese launchers are. This is the dark horse candidate from the next generation of global launchers.It's also interesting that he claimed Ariane 5's run of 35 consecutive successful launches was a World record. Ariane 4 had 74 consecutive successes before it was retired in 2003 (and America's Delta 2 has had a longer run, too).The reason cited at the time for the launcher's retirement was that satellites were getting bigger and that Arianespace needed to be able to dual-launch payloads, yet in November 2003 - just 9 months after the last Ariane 4 - the agreement to bring Soyuz to Kourou was signed. Clearly there is a case for a mid-sized launcher.It's therefore intriguing to hear that Le Gall thinks Ariane 6 should consist of a family of rockets focusing on the 3 to 6 tonne to GTO range. Isn't this exactly what the Ariane 4 family was? Might it not have been more sensible to evolve those highly successful launchers and continue to amortise their original development cost, rather than design another model from scratch - with the consequent (in his words) 18 year period to make the rocket reliable? Thu 18 Feb 2010 11:54:06 GMT+1