Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Ariane rockets

re: Ariane rockets
Post Sputnik — (archived)

living proof

You need better drugs. I love it when nuts use the term 'proof' inappropriately.

Ariane 5 Flight 501) on 4 June 1996 failed, with the rocket self-destructing 37 seconds after launch because of a malfunction in the control software, which was arguably one of the most expensive computer bugs in history.

The second test flight, L502 on 30 October 1997 was a partial failure. The Vulcain nozzle caused a roll problem, leading to premature shutdown of the core stage. The upper stage operated successfully but could not reach the intended orbit.

So the Arianne has the same number of failures as the shuttle, plus 2 partial failures, out of 38 flights. The shuttle has flown well over 100 times, can launch seven astronauts, has already built a space station, and is reusable. The cost of the Ariane V in high value LEO flights is estimated to be approximately $250 M. Shuttle costs at Ariane V flight rates is roughly $500 M. Since the payloads are roughly equal, Ariane is clearly a cargo vehicle, and the shuttle a manned craft.

Furthermore, you appear unable to make architectural distinctions. The shuttle and the Ariane V are complementary launch vehicles, and not comparative at all. When you start launching seven astronauts at a time in a reusable spacecraft, by all means, get back to me, and then we'll compare notes again. In the meantime, I'll do everything I can to discourage the US development of Ariane V clones such as Direct and Ares V. The last thing we need is more duplication.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (54 posts)