Arianespace successfully launched ESA’s Aeolus climate science satellite on their Vega rocket today. It is a much smaller rocket than we have been seeing with ULA and Spacex lately. You can sure see the acceleration it gets being smaller and lighter, looks like it move like a bat outs hell compared to the others.

Full video of the launch here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XLImXKgSo

A good report on the mission is here:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/08 ... us-launch/

Tugg

"Good acceleration"
One effect may just be the difference in height/length. ( 30m vs ~50m ).
you often perceive speed magnitude in relation to vehicle length.
a longer vehicle at the same speed takes longer to pass from one end to the other.
May look slower but isn't.

WIederling wrote:

"Good acceleration"
One effect may just be the difference in height/length. ( 30m vs ~50m ).
you often perceive speed magnitude in relation to vehicle length.
a longer vehicle at the same speed takes longer to pass from one end to the other.
May look slower but isn't.

Agreed. I would highly doubt it's accelerating any faster than other modern rockets. More G's means more structures which means less payload.

WIederling wrote:

you often perceive speed magnitude in relation to vehicle length.
a longer vehicle at the same speed takes longer to pass from one end to the other.
May look slower but isn't.

This is true, but when it comes to acceleration, smaller vehicles are often quicker than larger ones. e.g. Cars accelerate faster than trucks.

Erebus wrote:

WIederling wrote:

you often perceive speed magnitude in relation to vehicle length.
a longer vehicle at the same speed takes longer to pass from one end to the other.
May look slower but isn't.

This is true, but when it comes to acceleration, smaller vehicles are often quicker than larger ones. e.g. Cars accelerate faster than trucks.

Yeah but when you're carrying precious cargo in your vehicle (car or truck) you don't accelerate too fast or you'll tip the wedding cake over and it will spill everywhere. Doesn't matter if you're in a F350 or a prius or a Bugatti veyron.

trpmb6 wrote:

Agreed. I would highly doubt it's accelerating any faster than other modern rockets. More G's means more structures which means less payload.

I was looking through the live telemetry of some of the Falcon 9 launches for comparison with this Vega launch. The mission was to launch a satellite into a sun-synchronous orbit (SSO), so I picked the Falcon 9 launch from Feb 22 which was used for the same purpose.

At T+ 3.00 minutes,

- the Vega was at an altitude of 102 km going at a speed of 3.82 km/s or 13,752 km/h
- the Falcon 9 was at an altitude of 118 km going at a speed of 6,504 km/h

I've seen other Falcon 9s doing between 8,000-9,000 km/h at the same mark but those were to different orbits, so I'm not sure if you want to use those.

However, I think it is fair to say that the Vega considerably outpaces the Falcon 9 here. (Note: wanted to use a timestamp closer to launch but the Vega video doesn't provide one until about the two and half minute mark).

That's quite a bit of difference velocity wise. Good evidence.

I found additional evidence here: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/08/22/v ... th-aeolus/
and here for falcon 9: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/20/f ... -with-paz/

Vega achieved Max Q about 15 seconds earlier than Falcon 9 did.

I chose to look at the first point reported for Vega, T=141seconds (2:21) Alt = 53km Vel = 1775m/s = 6934km/h (from the link i provided above)
For Falcon 9 T = 141seconds (2:21) Alt = 62.4km Vel = 1561 m/s = 5620 km/hr (based on youtube footage provided in your post)


So something is fishy there because at that point Falcon 9 is higher altitude than Vega but Vega is now moving faster.

trpmb6 wrote:

That's quite a bit of difference velocity wise. Good evidence.

I found additional evidence here: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/08/22/v ... th-aeolus/
and here for falcon 9: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/20/f ... -with-paz/

Vega achieved Max Q about 15 seconds earlier than Falcon 9 did.

I chose to look at the first point reported for Vega, T=141seconds (2:21) Alt = 53km Vel = 1775m/s = 6934km/h (from the link i provided above)
For Falcon 9 T = 141seconds (2:21) Alt = 62.4km Vel = 1561 m/s = 5620 km/hr (based on youtube footage provided in your post)


So something is fishy there because at that point Falcon 9 is higher altitude than Vega but Vega is now moving faster.

Could be explained by lag time between actual telemetry and presenting the telemetry data in the launch broadcast. Let’s look a time the specs. (All data spaceflight101.com/space rockets.)

Rocket
Mass (kg)
Thrust at sea level (100% throttle on liquid engines) (kn converted to kg (simplied by using kn x 100 = kg))
Thrust / Mass ratio at liftoff

Vega
137,000
226,100
1.65

Ariane 5
777,000
1,390,000
1.79

Falcon 9
549,054
760,500
1.39

Atlas 5
334,500
382,700
1.14

So, Ariane is capable of larger acceleration than Vega at liftoff. Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 are not. Vega leaps off the pad and accelerates 20% faster than F9 and 45% faster than Atlas, which I would think should noticeable to the naked eye.

In relation to Ariane, I think the perceived difference in speed early in the launch between Ariane and Vega is likely related to the size of the rockets, as you point out. Their initial performance off the pad are similar, but Ariane sheds mass much faster (result of three engines running through 1st stage) and is likely much faster than Vega over time (in terms of velocity as a function of time).

This is also true of F9, which burns mass at a similar rate to Ariane. So as time passes, F9 would catch and surpass Vega if they were racing to an orbital altitude.

This is my first shot at trying to compare rocket velocities based on mass and thrust, so hopefully I’m in the ballpark.

trpmb6 wrote:

I found additional evidence here: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/08/22/v ... th-aeolus/
and here for falcon 9: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/20/f ... -with-paz/

Vega achieved Max Q about 15 seconds earlier than Falcon 9 did.

I chose to look at the first point reported for Vega, T=141seconds (2:21) Alt = 53km Vel = 1775m/s = 6934km/h (from the link i provided above)
For Falcon 9 T = 141seconds (2:21) Alt = 62.4km Vel = 1561 m/s = 5620 km/hr (based on youtube footage provided in your post)


So something is fishy there because at that point Falcon 9 is higher altitude than Vega but Vega is now moving faster.

Your calculations are off above, you note T=141s but it is actually T=114s



Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Your calculations are off above, you note T=141s but it is actually T=114s


Tugg

Thanks Tugg, I knew something had to be awry there. That re-orients everything into making sense.

Updated numbers with thanks to Tugg for finding my mistake:

Vega, T=114 seconds (1:54) Alt = 53km Vel = 1775m/s = 6934km/h (from the link i provided above)
For Falcon 9 T = 114 seconds (1:54) Alt = 33.8km Vel = 906 m/s = 3261 km/hr (based on youtube footage provided in your post)

Also regarding the altitude, the Aeolus cut its altitude and went into a high speed lower altitude orbit of 199 miles. (I was confused by the little CG video Arianespace had running during launch because here: https://youtu.be/Z4XLImXKgSo?t=1726 they had the vehicle basically "pointing down" and I am always used to them "going up". It took me a bit to figure it wasn't a screwup on the computer graphics part but was them killing altitude increase while still accelerating.)

Tugg

trpmb6 wrote:

Updated numbers with thanks to Tugg for finding my mistake:

Vega, T=114 seconds (1:54) Alt = 53km Vel = 1775m/s = 6934km/h (from the link i provided above)
For Falcon 9 T = 114 seconds (1:54) Alt = 33.8km Vel = 906 m/s = 3261 km/hr (based on youtube footage provided in your post)

Excellent. Data is improving with each post! So at T+114, thrust to weight ratios should be approximately:

Vega: 2.23
Ariane: 3.88
F9: 4.19

Vega still leading the pack in altitude and velocity but the pack is gaining.

DarkKnight5 wrote:

Excellent. Data is improving with each post! So at T+114, thrust to weight ratios should be approximately:

Vega: 2.23
Ariane: 3.88
F9: 4.19

Vega still leading the pack in altitude and velocity but the pack is gaining.

Another thing to consider, at least with Vega vs F9. Vega has 3 stages whereas F9 has only 2.

Are all three stages of Vega Solid Rockets or is the last stage a liquid?

First three stages are solid (HTPB 1912) according to the site I posted above. Fourth stage (AVUM) burns hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide.

And another correction! I feel enlightened already.

Well, to summarize my position. I find it interesting that they accelerate so fast. As a structures engineer I cringe a little thinking about the g forces applied. I'm sure it's all taken into account and just fine.

I wonder if that's why the F9 is a little slower out of the gate. So that they can also be man rated.

trpmb6 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

"Good acceleration"
One effect may just be the difference in height/length. ( 30m vs ~50m ).
you often perceive speed magnitude in relation to vehicle length.
a longer vehicle at the same speed takes longer to pass from one end to the other.
May look slower but isn't.

Agreed. I would highly doubt it's accelerating any faster than other modern rockets. More G's means more structures which means less payload.

Due to VEGA's 4 stage design min ( after ignition ) and max acceleration ( @ brennschluss ) have less span
than the 2 stage systems.

Something to potentially consider here is if SpaceX was trying to gain data for their recoveries I.E. flying a profile closer to that of a launch they were trying to recover even though the one referenced above was expendable. I don't know the answer and may be way off base, I was hoping you guys could chime in.

Should have thought about this earlier but I think we have good enough data to work out a sense of what the actual average acceleration is like.

For the Vega, using Tugger's chart above,

- T=0 to T=114, acceleration is 15.6 m/s^2
- T=114 to T=217, acceleration is 20.7 m/s^2
- T=217 to T=390, acceleration is 20.2 m/s^2

For the Falcon 9, using the Feb 22 launch video above,

- T=0 to T=114, acceleration is 7.9 m/s^2
- T=114 to T=217, acceleration is 9.5 m/s^2
- T=217 to T=390, acceleration is 7.9 m/s^2

So the Vega does what, 1.6 - 2g and the Falcon 0.8 - 1g?

Erebus wrote:

Should have thought about this earlier but I think we have good enough data to work out a sense of what the actual average acceleration is like.

For the Vega, using Tugger's chart above,

- T=0 to T=114, acceleration is 15.6 m/s^2
- T=114 to T=217, acceleration is 20.7 m/s^2
- T=217 to T=390, acceleration is 20.2 m/s^2

For the Falcon 9, using the Feb 22 launch video above,

- T=0 to T=114, acceleration is 7.9 m/s^2
- T=114 to T=217, acceleration is 9.5 m/s^2
- T=217 to T=390, acceleration is 7.9 m/s^2

So the Vega does what, 1.6 - 2g and the Falcon 0.8 - 1g?

I don’t know if those G-figures can be supported. To lift off, the rocket must surpass 1G.

So add 9.8 m/s^2 to each of your acceleration figures to account for the force of gravity.

Vega:
15.6 + 9.8 = 25.4 or 2.6G
20.7 + 9.8 = 30.5 or 3.1G
20.2 + 9.8 = 30.0 or 3.06G

F9:
7.9 + 9.8 = 17.7 or 1.8G
9.5 + 9.8 = 19.3 or 1.96G
7.9 + 9.8 = 17.7 or 1.8G

My estimation gets less accurate as time passes since the flight path changes from perpendicular to the force of gravity to the parallel to it, but you get the idea.

Either way, Vega puts more G-load on the payload and therefore accelerates faster, as you said.

DarkKnight5 wrote:

I don’t know if those G-figures can be supported. To lift off, the rocket must surpass 1G.

So add 9.8 m/s^2 to each of your acceleration figures to account for the force of gravity.

Oops sorry, it's been more than a decade since my last physics class and it has nothing to do with my profession either. I tried, haha.

Vega acceleration is still 2x Falcon 9 though.

And to trpmb6's point about man-rating, I've seen most sources put the maximum limit of such vehicles at 3g.

Erebus wrote:

DarkKnight5 wrote:

I don’t know if those G-figures can be supported. To lift off, the rocket must surpass 1G.

So add 9.8 m/s^2 to each of your acceleration figures to account for the force of gravity.

Oops sorry, it's been more than a decade since my last physics class and it has nothing to do with my profession either. I tried, haha.

Vega acceleration is still 2x Falcon 9 though.

And to trpmb6's point about man-rating, I've seen most sources put the maximum limit of such vehicles at 3g.

You were definitely right on the point that Vega accelerates faster than F9. And yes, for man-rating, 3G seems like the standard for what an agency will subject a naught to. They might all be fighter pilots, but nobody wants them blacking out during launch.

Gotta say, I am really enjoying this different discussion that I accidentally started with my comment about apparent launch velocity. Actual science! (Well OK, just math really)

As to launch velocity while trying to find more on that I came across this for the Saturn V:

https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... es-history

I am hoping it gives just a bit more insight that those more knowledgeable than I can use.

Tugg

Erebus wrote:

So the Vega does what, 1.6 - 2g and the Falcon 0.8 - 1g?

you have to figure in gravity the rocket drive has to compensate for to begin with.
So it is the vector sum of 1g + a(rocket). a simple sum as long as you go straight up.

On page 20 and 21 of the Falcon 9 User guide, there is a discussion about axial and lateral loading. For a typical 4000 lb payload the design envelope has a maximum 6g axial requirement (combined simultaneously with a 0.5g lateral loading) and a maximum 3.5g lateral requirement (combined simultaneously with a 2.0g axial loading). So these would be the do not exceed limits of the flight envelope.

Interestingly, on page 21 they make a note. For payloads of 2000 lbs or less (ultra-light payloads they call it), they have a secondary profile. With g loading as high as 8.5g axial and 4.0 lateral (not occurring at the same time - see the graphs they are very helpful in visualizing the envelope).

There's other cool nerdy stuff in there as well. That being said, I'm pretty disappointed they used the basic Microsoft word template. Didn't even bother to create their own styles. Lame.

Great chat everyone! Nice to rummage around in some of these weeds, even if it is just some wags based on the limited public info.

Tugger wrote:

Gotta say, I am really enjoying this different discussion that I accidentally started with my comment about apparent launch velocity. Actual science! (Well OK, just math really)

As to launch velocity while trying to find more on that I came across this for the Saturn V:

https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... es-history

I am hoping it gives just a bit more insight that those more knowledgeable than I can use.

Tugg

This is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen posted on this site! I read lots of the 55 pages of PDF leading up to your figure. So fun.

You can see they didn’t want to accelerate faster than 40 m/s^2, so they cut the center of the five F-1 engines as they approach 36.5 or so (3.7G). It’s not noted in the events on the chart, but it’s in the abbreviations section of the PDF as CECO (center engine cutoff).

They burn on for a few seconds while with just 4 engines and probably hit 38 (3.8G). And then in a split second those engines cut out at T+161.63 and acceleration drops to zero. (Event 1 in chart)

Five seconds of weightlessness until stage 2 starts, which comes with a solid kick going from 0 m/s^2 to about 7.5, but it’s less than 1G for about 110 seconds.

They CECO stage 2 at 460 seconds (event 2), adjust the the engine fuel mixture ratio on the remaining 4 engines at 498 seconds (event 3) and shutdown the remains four engines at 548 seconds (event 4).

Stage 3 has just one engine fire and it fires at 552 seconds and burns until 699 seconds (event 5). Official parking orbit insertion marked at 709 seconds.

So the real fun happened during the first stage with all 5 F-1 engines burning. As they burned through fuel and the rocket lost tons of mass, the acceleration climbs like crazy. So fast in fact that they had to shut one down before all the fuel was spent so the crazy people on top of the stack didn’t black out or worse.

For the rest of the stages, the engine cutoffs and restarts would be pretty good jolts, but the raw G numbers never surpass about 1.9G. That’s pretty similar to the bottom of the forst on most rollercoasters, I’d estimate.

The idea that Musk wants to do commercial space flight may be why the Falcon 9 seems to be limited to 3Gs. (The shuttle was also limited to 3Gs). I suspect the BFR will also be limited to 3Gs. I need to go back and look at some of the comparisons of the Saturn V to BFR and see if this has a significant impact or not on total capabilities. (On initial looking it's reported that BFR will have more payload capability than SV. More research needed.)

From the link Tugg gave us, the (seemingly an expert) user posted this:

Falcon 9 starts at about 1.15g, and depending on payload would have a first-stage peak acceleration of around 4.5g, but it appears to throttle its engines back toward the end of the first-stage burn to maintain closer to 3.5g.

Also, cool graphic on human capabilities. I wonder if we can artificially increase this range somehow in the future.

The 100th Ariane 5 launch is upcoming. Scheduled 25.09.2018, two satellites to GTO for Intelsat & some partners:
http://www.arianespace.com/mission/ariane-flight-va243/

By the way, congrats to Arianepsace on their 100 successful Ariane 5 launch last night!

Another shining success!

https://youtu.be/Snzmtr5Dghw?t=3280

Tugg

So the BepiColombo mission to Mercury launches tonight, in less than 2 hours.

You can watch it here:
https://www.space.com/17933-nasa-televi ... ce-tv.html

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

So the BepiColombo mission to Mercury launches tonight, in less than 2 hours.

You can watch it here:
https://www.space.com/17933-nasa-televi ... ce-tv.html

Tugg

Bepi Colombo came up when I worked on Rosetta.
These projects are nearly generation spanning.

Also interesting is it's orbital flight path:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK3F4fmqtbA

Tugg

Not really an imminent launch, but the Ariane 6 just found a customer for its initial qualification launch next year:
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releas ... -launches/

An Arianespace Vega launcher had a launch failure midway through flight, with the loss of the payload:

https://spacenews.com/arianespace-vega- ... lite-lost/

WASHINGTON — The fifteenth launch of a European Vega rocket ended in failure July 10, resulting in the loss of an imaging satellite for the United Arab Emirates.

The Vega rocket, built by Italian manufacturer Avio, lifted off at 9:53 p.m. Eastern from Europe’s spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana on the northern coast of South America.

Telemetry data indicated a deviation from the rocket’s intended course around its second minute of flight. The rocket left its intended course during its second-stage burn.

Arianespace of Evry, France, which markets the Vega rocket, confirmed mission failure nine minutes after liftoff.

“About 2 minutes after liftoff, around the [Zefiro]-23 ignition, a major anomaly occurred, resulting in the loss of the mission,” Luce Fabreguettes, Arianespace’s executive vice president of missions, operations and purchasing, said during the launch webcast. “On behalf of Arianespace, I wish to express my deepest apologies to our customers for the loss of their payload.”

So I'm watching the live stream for the Ariane 5 launch.

They have test sounds, test pictures... BEEEEEEP... this is the English soundtrack for... BEEEEEEP...

...still waiting for any broadcasts.

SpaceX doesn't show test images. This means ESA has technologically surpassed SpaceX.

Interesting how the aerodynamic forces make the fairings "flap" as they depart. Not suprizing of course, just interesting to watch.
https://youtu.be/kQ8HecMG2qs?t=3178

Tugg

Arianespace launched their first Ariane 5 of 2020 two days ago. It has only 10 more launches scheduled (one of which is hopefully JWST), after which all heavy lifting will be done by the Ariane 6. The first Ariane 6 launch is still planned for Q4 2020.
When including their smaller launchers Vega and Soyuz, Arianespace has 21 more launches upcoming in 2020 - they seem to be holding up fairly well against SpaceX, who only did 13 launches in 2019 but have more planned in 2020. The driving force behind both launch providers remain LEO constellations, with OneWeb and Starlink accounting for many launches.
https://spacenews.com/arianespace-could ... s-in-2020/


Regarding Vega, Arianespace seems confident that the problem with last year's launch failure will not repeat itself.

These investigations confirm that all preparation and countdown operations for the VV15 launch, as well as the flight conditions until after the ignition of the Zefiro 23 second stage (Z23) proceeded normally. In particular:

The operation of the P80 first stage (engine ignition, atmospheric phase, P80 propulsion and separation) was nominal; all parameters were as expected and in line with those from preceding flights.
The ignition and powered phase of the Z23 stage was nominal during the first 14s 25ms and all parameters were as expected and in line with those for preceding flights.

The anomaly occurred at 130s 850ms, based on the following observations:

At 130s 850ms, a sudden and violent event occurred on the Z23 motor.

This event led to a breakup of the launcher in two main parts: the Z23; and the assembly composed of the fairing, satellite, flight adapter, AVUM and the Zefiro 9 stage (Z9).

Based on these observations, and additional analyses concerning the few milliseconds around the anomaly, the Commission has performed a systematic and exhaustive analysis of the possible causes. The Commission identified as the most likely cause of the anomaly a thermo-structural failure in the forward dome area of the Z23 motor. Other possible causes such as inadvertent activation of the Z23 neutralization system have been found unlikely.

https://www.arianespace.com/press-relea ... tigations/

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding Vega, Arianespace seems confident that the problem with last year's launch failure will not repeat itself.

On November 17th, Arianespace launched the SEOSAT-Ingenio and Taranis satellites. The Vega's 2nd stage was lost due to insufficient thrust.

flyingturtle wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding Vega, Arianespace seems confident that the problem with last year's launch failure will not repeat itself.

On November 17th, Arianespace launched the SEOSAT-Ingenio and Taranis satellites. The Vega's 2nd stage was lost due to insufficient thrust.

Link: https://www.space.com/vega-rocket-launc ... ember-2020

Extremely unfortunate. It was the 4th stage however, not the 2nd stage again. The 4th stage's Avum motor is a liquid engine, unlike the first 3 which are all solid fuel boosters.

Nevertheless, 2 losses out of 3 missions over the course of 1.5 years is not a good record.

The next scheduled Vega payload appears to be the Pléiades-Neo imaging satellites: https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/pleiades-neo.htm
I guess their launch will be delayed again, it was originally expected to happen this year but was already pushed to early 2021.

That's not a good look for the Vega program. I feel a major program review upcoming.

Is Arianespace going to be cost competitive if SpaceX hits even a fifth of their goal with starship? I don't know what their future plans/evolution really are, just curious.

texl1649 wrote:

Is Arianespace going to be cost competitive if SpaceX hits even a fifth of their goal with starship? I don't know what their future plans/evolution really are, just curious.

Starship is not a competitor. It's like asking if Toyota will stop building the Corolla once the Tesla Semi goes into production.

There is definitely significant competition between the Falcon 9 and Ariane 5/6, and Vega competes with Rocketlab's Electron.

Arianespace is also hoping for more government orders, since in the past a number of EU governments' satellites were launched by SpaceX as the lowest bidder. I'm not sure if this practice will continue. In any case, Arianespace will have to prove that they're worth the money.

mxaxai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Is Arianespace going to be cost competitive if SpaceX hits even a fifth of their goal with starship? I don't know what their future plans/evolution really are, just curious.

Starship is not a competitor. It's like asking if Toyota will stop building the Corolla once the Tesla Semi goes into production.

There is definitely significant competition between the Falcon 9 and Ariane 5/6, and Vega competes with Rocketlab's Electron.

Arianespace is also hoping for more government orders, since in the past a number of EU governments' satellites were launched by SpaceX as the lowest bidder. I'm not sure if this practice will continue. In any case, Arianespace will have to prove that they're worth the money.

I don't think that analysis is right. If starship can be flown for $2 million per flight, it doesn't matter what the payload size/destination is, it will crush competition, period. I don't think it can hit that, but I think it is realistic to think they might only miss it by $10 million or so. Again, an array/package of LEO small satellites, or a geosynchronous large payload, any would be cheaper to launch if the second stage is recoverable, vs. a falcon 9 or certainly the Arianespace vehicles today.

https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spac ... link-craft

Tim Dodd, a YouTuber who hosts the channel "Everyday Astronaut," responded to concerns that Starship would be the "wrong tool for the job" by asking: "If the cost to launch is 1/4 the price of the [Falcon 9] and can carry 4 times the satellites... how is that anything but the right tool for the job?"

Indeed, the Starship is designed to reduce the price of rocket flights by a large amount. In November 2019, CEO Elon Musk said that the operational costs of flying Starship would be around $2 million per flight.

But one of the main issues could be deploying the satellites in space. SpaceX's website shows how the cargo bay could open up to release satellites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8p2JDTd13k&t=2917s

Talks of Starship are very premature at the moment, and also irrelevant to the market Vega is after.

We are a long way away from an operational vehicle, longer still from a rapidly and cheaply reusable operational vehicle. Currently, Falcon 9 boosters still take almost 2 months to refurbish between flights, have 'only' flown a maximum of 6 flights and there's no real indication of the amount of work required to refurbish them post flight.

Not that I am not in awe at the progress and breakthroughs achieved by SpaceX, but there's quite a long way from there to a very large rapidly reusable orbital vehicle that would only cost a few millions per launch.

I do hope they get there eventually though.

I don’t disagree on any of that frankoflier45. I think it’s an order of magnitude more difficult to do what they want with re-using starship, but I also think they’ve documented/shown why/how the first stage, regardless, should be ‘more’ reusable with it vs. Falcon (from a component perspective.).

Plausibly, they could be about 5 years from their objectives though; it seems like the majors (not just talking about Arianespace, but in terms of ‘western’ major launch providers I think they’re comparatively high cost) would logically have some steps/programs in place at this point to logically react. Other than their own proprietary engines, not much about Starship/Falcon seem that difficult to technologically...copy. I have to think some of their engineers might get some quite interesting job offers in the future.

texl1649 wrote:

I don’t disagree on any of that frankoflier45. I think it’s an order of magnitude more difficult to do what they want with re-using starship, but I also think they’ve documented/shown why/how the first stage, regardless, should be ‘more’ reusable with it vs. Falcon (from a component perspective.).

Plausibly, they could be about 5 years from their objectives though; it seems like the majors (not just talking about Arianespace, but in terms of ‘western’ major launch providers I think they’re comparatively high cost) would logically have some steps/programs in place at this point to logically react. Other than their own proprietary engines, not much about Starship/Falcon seem that difficult to technologically...copy. I have to think some of their engineers might get some quite interesting job offers in the future.

Even if Starship is a total bust, just the booster with disposable 2nd stages would still be a pretty huge change in things.
Other than the engines, there's nothing that hard to copy design wise. The corporate structure and philosophy is what is hard to copy. The reason RS-25 engines cost over 100 times as much to produce as a far superior Raptor isn't just design.

The good old crossed wires strike again...

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54979753

Come on, guys. Get it together (properly).

mxaxai wrote:

Extremely unfortunate. It was the 4th stage however, not the 2nd stage again. The 4th stage's Avum motor is a liquid engine, unlike the first 3 which are all solid fuel boosters.

I officially can't count past 2... Naah, I'm so used to Two-Stages-To-Orbit vehicles.

Francoflier wrote:

The good old crossed wires strike again...

OMG. Did the guy from Lufthansa Technik (the famous A320 sidestick incident) make it to Arianespace?

I thunk they were checking such critical cabling doubly or even triply.

Francoflier wrote:

The good old crossed wires strike again...

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54979753

Come on, guys. Get it together (properly).

Ouch, not good!

flyingturtle wrote:

I thunk they were checking such critical cabling doubly or even triply.

Good production includes designs that can't be "crossed", I wonder what change can be made for that here.

Tugg