As a European (Swede) I'd like to have ESA and Ariane Space to have better live coverage ‐ie SpaceX‐ so today I wrote Ariane Space to ask for MORE CAMERAS!!! The Ariane V is an awesome rocket and we Europeans should be more proud of is. Wat will A VI be like?
EVERYONE is asking them to put better cams on A6, and the PR team know there is a big demand. However, the said PR team is really small compared to other agencies and may not have the leverage to convince lead engineers to do so. Plus ArianeGroup had a really bad experience with a sensor added at the last minute causing the loss of an M51 nuclear missile a few years ago, so they may be reluctant to add cameras as a second thought on the A6. But let's pray that they do it anyway!
They said it'll have shipped cameras on the Ariane 6, that'll improve the live coverage, but they don't want to put them on A5 as it's already too reliable to mess-up even with small changes.
Na. Leave the propaganda victories to the super powers! Just keep the Ariane programm in a good competitive position. Adding a more experimental and corrageous(high risk, high reward) programm would be cool, though! Greatings from Germany
As a European (French) I worry. I worry that Musk's ambitions are already paving the way to a market for which the future Ariane is simply not ready. I worry that as it stands, this rocket will not be competitive for long. It is a deep worry which I hope will be addressed soon. We're not serious enough about this, have never been leaders in the domain with ambitious projects (such as China's, US' and soon India) and surely still won't be for long. Serious rethinking seems to be required.☹️
@@ChaineYTXF The problem is I believe partially the structure of many seperate nations working together instead of one entity (like for example the EU). Also for some reason there just isn't much talked about this in Europe. I think if you'd tell most Europeans about the Ariane, most will be surprisedthere is a European rocket and such a high quality space entity.
There's an Ariane 4 mockup here in Seville, it was put there for the 1992 Expo, and it's still standing. It still amazes me when I go past it, it's huge!
@Portwave Weird. Because it is developed by Airbus Defense & Space, of which the headquarters is in Germany. The list of countries that parttake in the development? 20 ESA members. Its not mostly French. The only thing "mostly French" is the launch site.
@Portwave Dishonest? Those are facts. Yours is a good read, yet one of those comments that makes you say: you contradict your own argument. Your own comment states other nations contribute. Thus its not 'just French'. ESA is a multinational organisation. Started by France? Sure. Still just French? No.
@Portwave you keep contradicting yourself. First its all French, then other nations work on it too. I know youre not talking about ESA, and you admit other nations manufacture parts. What are you arguing for? France owning ESA... Have a happy new year btw.
Some anecdotes on the Ariane program: - The Americans attempted to detonate the first Ariane 1. Two Navy ships were under the rocket during the launch, and were interfering with communications with the launcher, trying to activate its self-destruction. Fortunately, they didn't succeed. - The first stage of Ariane 1 was recovered at sea once on flight V-06 using parachutes. Another attempt failed during flight V-14 (when Giotto was sent), and it was never again tempted to recover a first stage of Ariane, the recovery barge was sold. - The names of European/French engines all start with the letter V with reference to the city of Vernon in Normandy (in France) where they were developed: Valois, Vexin, Viking, Vulcain, VINCI, Vikas, etc... - Ariane 3 and 4 powder boosters were recovered during all their flights, they didn't have parachutes and crashed in the jungle. Today they are still stored in the former Diamant launch area. - Ariane's Viking engines were so efficient that after twenty flights, the Viking engines weren't even tested before being launched! India has also asked France to develop an engine for its GSLV, derived from the Viking, the Vikas. On the GSLV Mark III, the first stage is powered by a Vikas, where the powder boosters are derived from those of Ariane 5, a real French rocket in India! - Ariane 5 boosters were recovered many times in flight, using parachutes supplied by the Russians located in the cones of the boosters. It gave us dozens of beautiful images of Ariane's half-submerged boosters, with people "surfing" on it. - The parachute system used in the Ariane 5 boosters comes from the Soviet super-heavy launcher Energiya, which launched the Buran shuttle. Energiya should have had its boosters reused, come back under parachutes with landing gears. It isn't known whether this recovery was attempted or not. - Today only one full-size model of the Hermès shuttle is still complete. It was abandoned in a hangar at the Bourget museum, north of Paris. During the 1989 Paris Air Show, there were Hermès, Buran and MAKS, three shuttles in the same place! - Hermès ejection seats were the same as Buran's, and the shuttle was like Buran capable of flying automatically.
Closer to Space That first “fact” is very dubious. Why would the Americans attempt to sabotage a European space program? Why risk alienating France and Britain, their most powerful (and nuclear armed) allies at the height of the Cold War? How would the Americans know enough about Ariane’s design and hardware to send the self-destruct command, and if so, how did they fail? A good conspiracy theory should at least make a modicum of sense.
I'm not really a rockethead, but I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I live in Europe, yet know less about our rockets than about the American rockets and the Soyuzes.
It's unsurprising. ESA has a much smaller PR budget than NASA, and Roscosmos gets fairly regular coverage of Soyuz due to ISS crew/resupply which ensures a constant cadence of missions. ESA is also concentrating more on medium-lift "ride share" launches, as befits a cooperative multinational organisation, these are less glamorous and the coverage not as widespread.
@@sixstringedthing having been to a talk by NASA's social media head last year, I can tell you that their (online) PR budget doesn't really exist (due to public funding). It actually all started with her tweeting a little personally... ESA is slowly getting better, but the ownership of the message seems even worse... :)
@@sixstringedthing Have you ever watched an ESA launch live? Whether it is a Soyuz or an Ariane, it's like they throw a party for VIPs every time. Every launch, the crowd gets taken out to the balconies 2 minutes before to watch the launch with their own eyes, and then shuttled back inside the control center to watch the staging on the big screen. After payload deploy, there's about an hour's worth of various politicians and CEOs giving speeches congratulating their teams.
@@jeffvader811 Yep bad in typical propellant tanks. Like the LOX on Apollo 13. Fine in combined tank/combustion chambers like on solids, hybrids and any designs that use the combustion as a non-propellant energy source.
Great overview of the european rocket! Little extra information. All Ariane rockets launched from French Guiana in South America at the Guiana Space Centre.
When I did my practice as a automation engineer, in the mid 1990's, I was in the workshop in Sweden that welded the bell, probably for the prototype Ariane 5 Vulcain engine. I still think this is quite cool.
Worth mentioning that Europe just started work on reusable rocket. In 2022 we gonna see small reusabillity demonstrator called Callisto which is european equivalent of SpaceX Grasshopper. The plan is to have reusable rocket in use before end of 2020's. Once they finally manage to achieve that, who knows what's gonna happen next.
I just finished chemistry in Highschool and when he mentioned Stoicheometric ratios at 3:30, I was like “ ooh so that stupid annoying hard stuff I had to learn a month ago actually is used in rockets and stuff. Neat!”
Reliability is the key. However, I cannot see how Ariane 6 will be able to compete in the late 2020s against the Falcons, when SpaceX *really* starts cutting prices. However Ariane NEXT, which will be reusable, is on its way, so there's a silver lining
@@Arkaid11 SpaceX has been promising to 'really' lower the cost of access to space since they got started. Seeing as how they're still throwing away their upper stages and only getting a handful of flights out of their first stages, I kind of doubt they're going to be able to cut costs enough to drive Ariane out of business.
@@andrewreynolds9371 Another point is, they don't really share markets. SpaceX seem to mostly focus on cheap access to LEO (which is why they use a Kerolox upper stage), while Arianespace mainly focuses on reliable (and reasonably cheap) GTO launches.
@@ShadowFalcon from what I understand, SpaceX limits itself to the LEO market because the Falcon, in all its variants, is optimized for that. Their performance is limited by their reuse philosophy, so the payload they can deliver to orbits beyond that is lower than their competitors.
@@andrewreynolds9371 Exactly. It's a similar story with Arianespace, only it was the European governments who wanted access to the Geostationary Orbits, and therefore all Ariane rockets are basically optimised for GTO, dual satellite delivery. So, comparing SpaceX to Arianespace is unfair to both, given they're in completely different markets.
The 2nd Ariane 1 was carrying an amateur communication satellite AMSAT Phase 3A as a secondary payload. The rocket failed due to thrust instability and ended up the Atlantic ocean. The cause of the instability was attributed to a lost ID badge that ended up in the fuel system plumbing. The problem was duplicated on the ground in a test set up. So, great record keeping on the part of Ariane to track missing items during the assembly process. Who the badge belong to was never disclosed although I hope it wasn't a visitor's badge from the AMSAT crew.
Thank you Scott for all the news and information you give us. It's really useful for me and all the rest of the people. Especially for me who is studying space engineering. Also ESA FTW!
I didn't know that the original Ariane series were made from steel! I love the Viking engine, such a simple looking design compared to US engines of the time. Sadly, it's difficult to find good info on these rockets, as it seems most good documentation is in french.
JWST will be _ready_ for launch 2 weeks after fusion becomes viable, whereupon Congress will order NASA to scrap the entire project and redesign it from scratch.
The aluminum 2nd stage must explain the cover that falls off at liftoff. Aluminum absorbs water vapor so it needs to be covered and kept dry. The Space Shuttle OMS pods had covers built into the Rotating Services Structure that pumped warm dry nitrogen over the the pods.
I used to own a metal model of the Ariane IV when I was a child, along a model of the Space shuttle and the Saturn V. That thing was one of the reasons of how I got interested in spaceflight in the first place. Also, incidentally, in KSP I originally designed my cargo rockets off the Ariane
This is the video I would have needed when I was smaller and liked to watch rocket launches or download pictures from rockets and planes from the internet. I was so small. OK, correction: I would have needed that video in German.
. . . it is most applaudable how strictly you stick to only technical and historical facts without emphasising any nationalistic or politically competitive aspects - thank you !!!
@@Gabriel-ow7wy I thought the same thing, but if you look at it frame by frame, the venting started before the tile reached that point on the rocket, but not by much. So it must have been a planned vent.
Kewl. That was one of the platforms that put the Echostar/Dishnetwork space fleet into orbit when I worked there (it was interesting to work for a company that had it's own space-fleet).
1:10 There is 1/5 Diamant rocket model as decoration in a roundabout at Saint Aubin de Médoc near were i live. Coordinates : 44°54'47"N 0°44'18"W 44.91306 -0.73833 44°54.783 N 0°44.300 W
Yay, more rocket launches. Yayness. I need to watch your videos more often. I hope you enjoyed your Xmas, because I enjoyed my Xmas. I like your videos. You're awesome. Have a nice day/night.
At 1.25 a piece falls off the French rocket, hits it again and seems to puncture it ?. Really nice walk through of European rocket history, i had never even heard of half of them...nice one, peace.
I would like to know your thoughts on *Space X* building the *starship* tank dome outdoors? On my projects with something even semi important I try to keep all contaminants out of my welds and do my work in a clean workspace.
Thank you for the excellent video covering the Ariane Rocket. I think it would have been interesting to go into more detail about how the Ariane's launch location, right on the equator. Make it easier for the rocket to place payloads into space than launches further off the equator. This favorable location allows the Ariane-5 to launch payloads into GTO-1500 versus GTO-1800 which is the standard for providers launching from KSC.
Regarding the Black Arrow, is there any other country that has abandoned so many major projects once they're are either working, or very nearly working? Black Arrow, TSR2, APT. What else?
It would be good to start a go fund me campaign to add a decent large aircraft landing strip to the spaceport. The US seabees used to be able to clear and pave runways on remote pacific islands in under a month. With minimal equipment and poor working conditions. With modern equipment and manpower it should only take 2 or 3 times longer.
I was in ~fifth grade, living near Darmstadt, Germany at the time. Our German teacher (required course for American schools) took us on a field trip to the ESA headquarters and we each got a cardboard model of the Ariane rocket to cut out and assemble. Great memories! Side note, same teacher took us to one chocolate factory three times in two years lol. Also a couple of concentration camps... heavy stuff for a kid, but I'm very thankful for the experiences.
The launch at 1:22 was probably a failure due to the foam cover closest to the camera on the right. It looks like it struck a line and cryogenic fuel was spewing out.
Interesting that the (mostly French) Ariane program superceded the (mostly British) Europa program, which had failed to gather momentum. And we're talking year 1969, not 2019.
It's even more interesting because the one reliable part of Europa had been the British Blue Streak, by breaking off to make the Black Arrow they ultimately got to orbit but killed Britain's space launch capabilitye.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there was "outside" influence to stop the Brits from stealing someone else's thunder. Perhaps why the UK is using reactors and missiles from another country instead of developing their own, as France did.
probably some insulation to keep the tanks cool on ground. I had to watch the 1:25 sequence several times because at first I thought one of the pieces actually pierced the fairing and ruptured a line. But this appears to be a vent that blew something right at the time the insulation material passed the exhaust
I suspect they are thermal blankets used to keep the cryo tanks cold on the pad, but yeah - in that one it looks like it punctured the tank at 1:28 or so.
they need all that ice to replace the ice caps Greta Thunberg has convinced them are melting. What else to chill their cocktails with at EU parties in Strassbourg?
I had a münar lander that used that style of steering, just four of the little one axis gimbal engines. I think it was to deliver more batteries to a münar lab.
To bad it succumbed to the same bad meme that the shuttle did, ergo sea level hydrolox engines. It would have been so much more capable if it had used kerolox instead.
@@andreabindolini7452 Wrong. The reason it even needs the SRBs is precisely because it is using a hydrolox engine at sea level. Because hydrolox has great specific impulse but garbage thrust and can't lift a large rocket of the pad. The saturn 5 was much larger and didn't need side boosters because it used kerolox engines to get of the pad (fantastic thrust/energy density) and had the hydrolox engines on the upper stages that fired once it was in the vacuum, where specific impulse is the be-all end-all. Ergo, the Saturn 5 used the perfect fuel for each job. The shuttle and Ariane 5 did not. Even the use of SRBs is a terrible idea in general because you can't control them once they are lit (hence the Challenger accident). It would have been a much, much better idea to use kerolox or hypergalic strapon boosters if you absolutely had to have them (the russian Energia used kerolox starpons and was FAR more capable than an Ariane 5).
@@carljohan9265 Wrong. The reason it even needs the SRBs is precisely because it is using a hydrolox engine at sea level. Because hydrolox has great specific impulse but garbage thrust and can't lift a large rocket of the pad. *Delta IV Heavy.* The saturn 5 was much larger and didn't need side boosters because it used kerolox engines to get of the pad (fantastic thrust/energy density) and had the hydrolox engines on the upper stages that fired once it was in the vacuum, where specific impulse is the be-all end-all. *Tandem staging and parallel staging works on the same principles, and thus you tipically need to couple a big thrust first engine with a high efficiency second engine. Tandem staging is slightly more effective on paper, but parallel staging has the big advantage to be simpler, because you don't need a powerful air-startable engine. Especially back then, this was a decisive factor in rocket design.* Ergo, the Saturn 5 used the perfect fuel for each job. The shuttle and Ariane 5 did not. *Any well designed rocket use the right fuel for each job. SRB are pretty good for the initial kick and the core stage is perfect as a sustainer for the remaining of the ascent. And, as said, you save an air-startable engine. I'm sure you are aware of the problems the designers would have to face to make the RS-25 engines air-startable, as required in the initial iterations of the ill-fated Ares-I rocket.* Even the use of SRBs is a terrible idea in general because you can't control them once they are lit (hence the Challenger accident). It would have been a much, much better idea to use kerolox or hypergalic strapon boosters if you absolutely had to have them (the russian Energia used kerolox starpons and was FAR more capable than an Ariane 5). *I'm pretty sure that, statistics wise, the majority of disastrous mishaps in rocketry comes from liquid-fueled engines (and NO, the Challenger disaster does not count because it was originated by horrible management, launcing the mission well outside the safety parameters). Well, let me be clear: I'm not a supporter of solid rockets. But they have their purpose. They are terribly inefficient, but also can easily provide much more thrust than any liquid fueled engine, so they are absolutely adequate for their job.*
@@andreabindolini7452 The Delta 4 heavy is massively underperforming for a rocket of it's size and is the peak of "optimizing something that should not exist", in this case sea level hydrolox. A falcon heavy, despite being smaller, can lift more than twice as much, potentially up to four times as much if fully expended. More accidents do tend to happen with the thing that is used far more, and liquid fueled engines have been used a LOT more in space going rockets compared to SRBs. Heck, the soviet union basically didn't use SRBs ever, and they made a shitload of different engines. Besides, small, single piece SRBs are generally pretty stable but large, segmented ones have a lot of unique problems and is a completely different category. No matter how you slice it, a hydrolox/SRB combo is inferior to just using something that is better suited for sea level, and no amount of optimization will change that. Saturn 5 could lift 140 tonnes, the shuttle could lift 27.5 tonnes. That is WOEFULLY inferior. The Ariane 5, despite it's size, just barely outperforms a falcon 9 in terms of payload capacity and costs 3 to 4 times as much to launch (and I'm not even mentioning the extreme difference in launch cadence).
One thing about rockets is that once you get a design that works, you don't want to change it. If they do change it is incremental. This is the case with the small ones, too, i.e., the Sidewinder basic design was figured out in 1956! The Russian designs are old, too.
As a youth in the 1st half of the 1980s, I once touched the 2nd stage of an Ariane rocket with my own hands during a factory visit at "ERNO" in the city of Bremen. Back then I believed touching a rocket meant something. Today in this country of technoclasm I've lost all my belief in the future.
I think Ariane 5 is in my top 3 coolest looking launch vehicles ever! Any idea why NASA chose it over the Delta IV for JWST? Is Delta IV not capable of delivering it where it needs to go?
IMHO the JWST will be launched by one of the last (if not the the last) Ariane 5 if it is ready at the time of Ariane 5 decommission, and if not by a Falcon9/Heavy
Well, the Ariane 5 seems to be a proven launch vehicle by now. But granted, shit happens, and it would be devastating if it would happen with the JWST …
@@c.augustin hopefully they built another one in secret. I doubt that happened but you'd think the could have with the amount they have spent. I think it will be ok honestly
It has a bigger thrust, but the Isp is a bit lower. Which is one of the reasons that while Vinci was considered for SLS's EUS, a upgraded RL-10 engine got the role.
@1.29 looks like a piece of shielding what's supposed to separate rips a chunk out of the rocker body?? Edit: I've just noticed it happens several times!
Things Kerbal Doesn't Teach You request: What are the panels that fall off the Ariane 1 and most Long March rockets at launch? Does it have something to do with the hypergolic propellant or is it acoustic shielding? The Long March rockets look like they are chucking off a whole deck of cards. Looks like you'll get to put a gold play button up on the wall in 2020.
Scott Manley is the gift that keeps on giving all year long
Zack Farrer ☆ "Wonderful Person" Anton is not far behind, tho.
Like a toothache lol no no i watch u bro
As a European (Swede) I'd like to have ESA and Ariane Space to have better live coverage ‐ie SpaceX‐ so today I wrote Ariane Space to ask for MORE CAMERAS!!! The Ariane V is an awesome rocket and we Europeans should be more proud of is. Wat will A VI be like?
EVERYONE is asking them to put better cams on A6, and the PR team know there is a big demand. However, the said PR team is really small compared to other agencies and may not have the leverage to convince lead engineers to do so. Plus ArianeGroup had a really bad experience with a sensor added at the last minute causing the loss of an M51 nuclear missile a few years ago, so they may be reluctant to add cameras as a second thought on the A6. But let's pray that they do it anyway!
They said it'll have shipped cameras on the Ariane 6, that'll improve the live coverage, but they don't want to put them on A5 as it's already too reliable to mess-up even with small changes.
Na. Leave the propaganda victories to the super powers!
Just keep the Ariane programm in a good competitive position.
Adding a more experimental and corrageous(high risk, high reward) programm would be cool, though!
Greatings from Germany
As a European (French) I worry. I worry that Musk's ambitions are already paving the way to a market for which the future Ariane is simply not ready. I worry that as it stands, this rocket will not be competitive for long. It is a deep worry which I hope will be addressed soon. We're not serious enough about this, have never been leaders in the domain with ambitious projects (such as China's, US' and soon India) and surely still won't be for long. Serious rethinking seems to be required.☹️
@@ChaineYTXF The problem is I believe partially the structure of many seperate nations working together instead of one entity (like for example the EU). Also for some reason there just isn't much talked about this in Europe. I think if you'd tell most Europeans about the Ariane, most will be surprisedthere is a European rocket and such a high quality space entity.
I like how a lot of these designs are exactly how my ksp evolutions are..."Ok now bigger, ok now side boosters, ok now bigger both, OK BIGGER AGAIN"
Ahahaha.. i know that feel too. Every KSP player know that feel too
Sadly I can’t build a good Delta IV Heavy.
And then moving from circular "onion" design to "flat" design.
. . . it is just the other way around: your ksp 'evolutions' follow (more or less) exactly the real design variations . . .
@@cashuma5010 a coevolution as it were as neither were causally linked. I wasn't studying them and emulating them nor them, I.
There's an Ariane 4 mockup here in Seville, it was put there for the 1992 Expo, and it's still standing. It still amazes me when I go past it, it's huge!
I ran past it the other day.
thats what she said
I remember it when I went to expo 92. Next to the rocket there was a pavilion presenting Spain’s first indigenous satellite, hispasat.
Almost 41 years after the launch of the first Ariane and exactly a year after the making of this video an Ariane V just successfully launched the JWST
Happy to see some French and European rocket history on your channel !
French and European? France is not European? ;)
Agreed!
It would be really cool to see an anglo-french private spaceflight ops company!
@Portwave Weird. Because it is developed by Airbus Defense & Space, of which the headquarters is in Germany. The list of countries that parttake in the development?
20 ESA members. Its not mostly French. The only thing "mostly French" is the launch site.
@Portwave Dishonest? Those are facts. Yours is a good read, yet one of those comments that makes you say: you contradict your own argument. Your own comment states other nations contribute. Thus its not 'just French'. ESA is a multinational organisation.
Started by France? Sure. Still just French? No.
@Portwave you keep contradicting yourself. First its all French, then other nations work on it too.
I know youre not talking about ESA, and you admit other nations manufacture parts. What are you arguing for?
France owning ESA...
Have a happy new year btw.
Oh finally a good video about ESA.
Some anecdotes on the Ariane program:
- The Americans attempted to detonate the first Ariane 1. Two Navy ships were under the rocket during the launch, and were interfering with communications with the launcher, trying to activate its self-destruction. Fortunately, they didn't succeed.
- The first stage of Ariane 1 was recovered at sea once on flight V-06 using parachutes. Another attempt failed during flight V-14 (when Giotto was sent), and it was never again tempted to recover a first stage of Ariane, the recovery barge was sold.
- The names of European/French engines all start with the letter V with reference to the city of Vernon in Normandy (in France) where they were developed: Valois, Vexin, Viking, Vulcain, VINCI, Vikas, etc...
- Ariane 3 and 4 powder boosters were recovered during all their flights, they didn't have parachutes and crashed in the jungle. Today they are still stored in the former Diamant launch area.
- Ariane's Viking engines were so efficient that after twenty flights, the Viking engines weren't even tested before being launched! India has also asked France to develop an engine for its GSLV, derived from the Viking, the Vikas. On the GSLV Mark III, the first stage is powered by a Vikas, where the powder boosters are derived from those of Ariane 5, a real French rocket in India!
- Ariane 5 boosters were recovered many times in flight, using parachutes supplied by the Russians located in the cones of the boosters. It gave us dozens of beautiful images of Ariane's half-submerged boosters, with people "surfing" on it.
- The parachute system used in the Ariane 5 boosters comes from the Soviet super-heavy launcher Energiya, which launched the Buran shuttle. Energiya should have had its boosters reused, come back under parachutes with landing gears. It isn't known whether this recovery was attempted or not.
- Today only one full-size model of the Hermès shuttle is still complete. It was abandoned in a hangar at the Bourget museum, north of Paris. During the 1989 Paris Air Show, there were Hermès, Buran and MAKS, three shuttles in the same place!
- Hermès ejection seats were the same as Buran's, and the shuttle was like Buran capable of flying automatically.
Do you have a source for that first anecdote? I'm super intrigued by this. Can't find it anywhere and am wondering if it's true
@@lenmrt I second this.
Closer to Space bullshit
Closer to Space That first “fact” is very dubious. Why would the Americans attempt to sabotage a European space program? Why risk alienating France and Britain, their most powerful (and nuclear armed) allies at the height of the Cold War? How would the Americans know enough about Ariane’s design and hardware to send the self-destruct command, and if so, how did they fail? A good conspiracy theory should at least make a modicum of sense.
@@Cailus3542 back in the day it was way easier and less competition meant more money.
I'm not really a rockethead, but I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I live in Europe, yet know less about our rockets than about the American rockets and the Soyuzes.
Yeah, cause the Arianne only launches like twice a year
It's unsurprising. ESA has a much smaller PR budget than NASA, and Roscosmos gets fairly regular coverage of Soyuz due to ISS crew/resupply which ensures a constant cadence of missions. ESA is also concentrating more on medium-lift "ride share" launches, as befits a cooperative multinational organisation, these are less glamorous and the coverage not as widespread.
@@JohnsontheFly More like 5 times a year, plus their smaller Vega and Soyuz launches
@@sixstringedthing having been to a talk by NASA's social media head last year, I can tell you that their (online) PR budget doesn't really exist (due to public funding). It actually all started with her tweeting a little personally... ESA is slowly getting better, but the ownership of the message seems even worse... :)
@@sixstringedthing Have you ever watched an ESA launch live? Whether it is a Soyuz or an Ariane, it's like they throw a party for VIPs every time. Every launch, the crowd gets taken out to the balconies 2 minutes before to watch the launch with their own eyes, and then shuttled back inside the control center to watch the staging on the big screen. After payload deploy, there's about an hour's worth of various politicians and CEOs giving speeches congratulating their teams.
Just love it when you post videos about what's going on in the aerospace industry OUTSIDE the U.S.
watch the views not breaking the 100k though :P
@@5Andysalive I wonder for how long... It was posted today and it's 28k already!
@@5Andysalive There you have it... 105k views. Took about one day... Not very long.
How dare you not believing in us europeans?! NOT REACHING 100K?! Get out and watch us europeans take over the world once again!
@@rednex1989 Vive la France... bordel !
Combustion inside tank... bad idea... got it.. Thanks.
a VERY bad idea
@@konfunable All solid rockets do it.
@@johncrowerdoe5527
It's fine if you've got an opening on one end, liquid fuel tanks don't, so it's just a recipe for an explosion.
Apollo 13 tried it and indeed it didn't go very well.
@@jeffvader811 Yep bad in typical propellant tanks. Like the LOX on Apollo 13. Fine in combined tank/combustion chambers like on solids, hybrids and any designs that use the combustion as a non-propellant energy source.
Merry Christmas Scott. Thanks for covering the evolution of Ariane.
guys we have 4 more days to put Scott over 1 mil subs. common push it!)
Sorry, I can only subscribe once.
@@kineticinstallationspecial5775 You don't even want to try do ya?
@@kineticinstallationspecial5775 Share on the socials. Spread the gospel of Fly Safe. :)
What's the rush?
Only sub’d once?! Those are rookie numbers! Come on people!
Great overview of the european rocket! Little extra information. All Ariane rockets launched from French Guiana in South America at the Guiana Space Centre.
Les vieux souvenirs, merci Scott ! ;)
Ariane 5 is in my opinion the prettiest rocket of our time. And one of the most reliable, along with Soyouz!
Space X🇺🇸💪 more Baddas
When I did my practice as a automation engineer, in the mid 1990's, I was in the workshop in Sweden that welded the bell, probably for the prototype Ariane 5 Vulcain engine. I still think this is quite cool.
Did it look like a mess of spaghetti getting welded together?
Worth mentioning that Europe just started work on reusable rocket. In 2022 we gonna see small reusabillity demonstrator called Callisto which is european equivalent of SpaceX Grasshopper. The plan is to have reusable rocket in use before end of 2020's. Once they finally manage to achieve that, who knows what's gonna happen next.
It's really cool European space launch industry doesn't give up and follows new trend.
I just finished chemistry in Highschool and when he mentioned Stoicheometric ratios at 3:30, I was like “ ooh so that stupid annoying hard stuff I had to learn a month ago actually is used in rockets and stuff. Neat!”
Just quietly going on doing it's business with so many eyes on other places. Got to have a lot of respect for this family of rockets.
Yes!!! I'd love more European oriented vids about space.
Ariane is doing a good job of holding onto their market share, despite constant predictions that they will fold. Good for them.
Reliability is the key. However, I cannot see how Ariane 6 will be able to compete in the late 2020s against the Falcons, when SpaceX *really* starts cutting prices. However Ariane NEXT, which will be reusable, is on its way, so there's a silver lining
@@Arkaid11 SpaceX has been promising to 'really' lower the cost of access to space since they got started. Seeing as how they're still throwing away their upper stages and only getting a handful of flights out of their first stages, I kind of doubt they're going to be able to cut costs enough to drive Ariane out of business.
@@andrewreynolds9371
Another point is, they don't really share markets.
SpaceX seem to mostly focus on cheap access to LEO (which is why they use a Kerolox upper stage), while Arianespace mainly focuses on reliable (and reasonably cheap) GTO launches.
@@ShadowFalcon from what I understand, SpaceX limits itself to the LEO market because the Falcon, in all its variants, is optimized for that. Their performance is limited by their reuse philosophy, so the payload they can deliver to orbits beyond that is lower than their competitors.
@@andrewreynolds9371
Exactly.
It's a similar story with Arianespace, only it was the European governments who wanted access to the Geostationary Orbits, and therefore all Ariane rockets are basically optimised for GTO, dual satellite delivery.
So, comparing SpaceX to Arianespace is unfair to both, given they're in completely different markets.
The 2nd Ariane 1 was carrying an amateur communication satellite AMSAT Phase 3A as a secondary payload. The rocket failed due to thrust instability and ended up the Atlantic ocean. The cause of the instability was attributed to a lost ID badge that ended up in the fuel system plumbing. The problem was duplicated on the ground in a test set up. So, great record keeping on the part of Ariane to track missing items during the assembly process. Who the badge belong to was never disclosed although I hope it wasn't a visitor's badge from the AMSAT crew.
I came for Kerbal Space Program. I stayed for the science.
Thank you Scott for all the news and information you give us. It's really useful for me and all the rest of the people. Especially for me who is studying space engineering. Also ESA FTW!
I didn't know that the original Ariane series were made from steel! I love the Viking engine, such a simple looking design compared to US engines of the time. Sadly, it's difficult to find good info on these rockets, as it seems most good documentation is in french.
Ariane 4 is one of my favorit Rockets
Okay boomer
Sheng Loong Tan Okay loser !
@@tomf3150 okay winner
*favorite
@@DragonsAndDragons777 Sory i am from german and i am not so good in englisch grama and spelling
Jwst will launch 2 weeks after fusion energy becomes viable.
Sooooo, 30 years from now. 😃
Which is coincidentally 1 month after singularity.
JWST will be _ready_ for launch 2 weeks after fusion becomes viable, whereupon Congress will order NASA to scrap the entire project and redesign it from scratch.
@@giovannifoulmouth7205 by that time humanity will either be completely eradicated by Super A.I. or completely integrated into virtual universe. 😅
@@roku_nine a.k.a. Skynet.
It’s so fun to think that the Ariane, Delta, and Atlas-Centaur have been in the same market area together for so long.
1:26 looks like a peace of cover knocked a hole in the side....was waiting for it to splod....
Yeah, I noticed that too!
Was just going to say the same. Surely not :D
Yeah it looks like something that would kill a Spaceshuttle.. but I think it’s intentional because it happens in every clip
I was just about to say the same. Didnt look like it was supposed to happen.
Over pressure valve?
Thank you for the video. Ariane 5 is my true love ❤️ Happy seasons greetings
The aluminum 2nd stage must explain the cover that falls off at liftoff. Aluminum absorbs water vapor so it needs to be covered and kept dry. The Space Shuttle OMS pods had covers built into the Rotating Services Structure that pumped warm dry nitrogen over the the pods.
I used to own a metal model of the Ariane IV when I was a child, along a model of the Space shuttle and the Saturn V. That thing was one of the reasons of how I got interested in spaceflight in the first place.
Also, incidentally, in KSP I originally designed my cargo rockets off the Ariane
This is the video I would have needed when I was smaller and liked to watch rocket launches or download pictures from rockets and planes from the internet. I was so small. OK, correction: I would have needed that video in German.
Thin information about the Ariane 6. Please make an extra video about it one day.
. . . it is most applaudable how strictly you stick to only technical and historical facts without emphasising any nationalistic or politically competitive aspects - thank you !!!
Very fitting to find this in my feed today 😢
See ya Ariane 5
Is anyone one else extremely uncomfortable with a rocket that hits itself on launch?
Kaos Wylie -?
Yeah, pretty sure one of those tiles did some damage in one of the shots
@@Enemji @1:24 the shielding hits the side of the rocket and it begins to vent a gas
Well, at least it doesn't set itself on fire.
@@Gabriel-ow7wy I thought the same thing, but if you look at it frame by frame, the venting started before the tile reached that point on the rocket, but not by much. So it must have been a planned vent.
Thanks from France for this video!
Kewl. That was one of the platforms that put the Echostar/Dishnetwork space fleet into orbit when I worked there (it was interesting to work for a company that had it's own space-fleet).
1:10 There is 1/5 Diamant rocket model as decoration in a roundabout at Saint Aubin de Médoc near were i live.
Coordinates : 44°54'47"N 0°44'18"W 44.91306 -0.73833 44°54.783 N 0°44.300 W
ESA just did a vid on the Ariane history and I figured you'd be putting out a vid too. Love the channel Scott.
I did not know that the Ariane launched on dec 24, its kind of nice that i hit 1000 hours on ksp at the same time!
I did an Ariane 5 video on my channel. One of my favorite launch vehicles. Thanks for the great vid!
Ariane 6 better be awesome. As well as the Hermes shuttle to rival the Dreamchaser,
I liked the home-made intro more
Same. Best intro of them all
Fr though, it’s kinda cringy
This comment is getting tedious to read on every video.
Yay, more rocket launches. Yayness. I need to watch your videos more often. I hope you enjoyed your Xmas, because I enjoyed my Xmas. I like your videos. You're awesome.
Have a nice day/night.
Arianne is the only rocket that looks like it's falling apart as it takes off.
Those are some kind of foam tiles they absorb vibrations produced. You can see it in Chinese and Indian rockets (especially PSLV and GSLV MK2)
My goodness, the Lipstick rocket is still viable!!!
At 1.25 a piece falls off the French rocket, hits it again and seems to puncture it ?. Really nice walk through of European rocket history, i had never even heard of half of them...nice one, peace.
I would like to know your thoughts on *Space X* building the *starship* tank dome outdoors? On my projects with something even semi important I try to keep all contaminants out of my welds and do my work in a clean workspace.
Yeah, it's not like he commented on it gazillion of times already, maybe just watch his starship movies?
@@randomnickify did he ? I must have missed that...every time.
Thank you for the excellent video covering the Ariane Rocket. I think it would have been interesting to go into more detail about how the Ariane's launch location, right on the equator. Make it easier for the rocket to place payloads into space than launches further off the equator. This favorable location allows the Ariane-5 to launch payloads into GTO-1500 versus GTO-1800 which is the standard for providers launching from KSC.
Regarding the Black Arrow, is there any other country that has abandoned so many major projects once they're are either working, or very nearly working? Black Arrow, TSR2, APT. What else?
Maybe the Italian sea-launched Alfa ICBM, but it wasn’t a commercial rocket in that developed phase
The VIKAS engine used on the GSLV/LVM rocket is a variant of the Viking- and it happens to use the same UH-25 fuel.
It would be good to start a go fund me campaign to add a decent large aircraft landing strip to the spaceport. The US seabees used to be able to clear and pave runways on remote pacific islands in under a month. With minimal equipment and poor working conditions. With modern equipment and manpower it should only take 2 or 3 times longer.
I had heard that they used turbine exhaust to pressurize the tanks but that just seemed bonkers to me, now I understand :-)
Oh God I was five back then... Hey forty years of european space, yay !
I was in ~fifth grade, living near Darmstadt, Germany at the time. Our German teacher (required course for American schools) took us on a field trip to the ESA headquarters and we each got a cardboard model of the Ariane rocket to cut out and assemble. Great memories!
Side note, same teacher took us to one chocolate factory three times in two years lol. Also a couple of concentration camps... heavy stuff for a kid, but I'm very thankful for the experiences.
Britain, leaving europe since 1968
The launch at 1:22 was probably a failure due to the foam cover closest to the camera on the right. It looks like it struck a line and cryogenic fuel was spewing out.
Interesting that the (mostly French) Ariane program superceded the (mostly British) Europa program, which had failed to gather momentum. And we're talking year 1969, not 2019.
It's even more interesting because the one reliable part of Europa had been the British Blue Streak, by breaking off to make the Black Arrow they ultimately got to orbit but killed Britain's space launch capabilitye.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there was "outside" influence to stop the Brits from stealing someone else's thunder. Perhaps why the UK is using reactors and missiles from another country instead of developing their own, as France did.
what's with the bits falling off around the 1:30 mark to about 2:00, inter-stage fairing? looks like it near punctured one of the tanks.
probably some insulation to keep the tanks cool on ground. I had to watch the 1:25 sequence several times because at first I thought one of the pieces actually pierced the fairing and ruptured a line. But this appears to be a vent that blew something right at the time the insulation material passed the exhaust
foam insulation panels.
I suspect they are thermal blankets used to keep the cryo tanks cold on the pad, but yeah - in that one it looks like it punctured the tank at 1:28 or so.
Just a little thing about @1:10
France's and UK's space programs are much older than the Europa project
12:20
Why want those pesky Eueopeans to blow up Jupiters moons with the Icy Moon Exploder?
Because there can be only one Europa!
Lets hope the software is not german. It may blow up the wrong "Europa".
they need all that ice to replace the ice caps Greta Thunberg has convinced them are melting. What else to chill their cocktails with at EU parties in Strassbourg?
@@5Andysalive Hey that only happened once or twice decades ago. No need to be worried. We can handle this.
Inners wreck Ganymede. Only Belter life matter now.
noticed by others is a released panel puncturing the skin of the rocket causing a gas release. at 1:18 and again at 1:26
I had a münar lander that used that style of steering, just four of the little one axis gimbal engines. I think it was to deliver more batteries to a münar lab.
Cute little rocket. 1st place at the local science fair for sure.
Love the overview of 40 years! Keep it up
All the best for Xmas and new year Mr Manley !
And thanks for sharing your rocket wisdom with us ;) .
Hullo! It's Scott Manley here...
Ariane V looks just magnificent when it flies, what a beauty
To bad it succumbed to the same bad meme that the shuttle did, ergo sea level hydrolox engines.
It would have been so much more capable if it had used kerolox instead.
@@carljohan9265 Wait, why? The central hydrolox engine is a sustainer. The tandem with the solid boosters is perfectly balanced, as in the Shuttle.
@@andreabindolini7452 Wrong. The reason it even needs the SRBs is precisely because it is using a hydrolox engine at sea level.
Because hydrolox has great specific impulse but garbage thrust and can't lift a large rocket of the pad.
The saturn 5 was much larger and didn't need side boosters because it used kerolox engines to get of the pad (fantastic thrust/energy density) and had the hydrolox engines on the upper stages that fired once it was in the vacuum, where specific impulse is the be-all end-all.
Ergo, the Saturn 5 used the perfect fuel for each job. The shuttle and Ariane 5 did not.
Even the use of SRBs is a terrible idea in general because you can't control them once they are lit (hence the Challenger accident).
It would have been a much, much better idea to use kerolox or hypergalic strapon boosters if you absolutely had to have them (the russian Energia used kerolox starpons and was FAR more capable than an Ariane 5).
@@carljohan9265 Wrong. The reason it even needs the SRBs is precisely because it is using a hydrolox engine at sea level.
Because hydrolox has great specific impulse but garbage thrust and can't lift a large rocket of the pad.
*Delta IV Heavy.*
The saturn 5 was much larger and didn't need side boosters because it used kerolox engines to get of the pad (fantastic thrust/energy density) and had the hydrolox engines on the upper stages that fired once it was in the vacuum, where specific impulse is the be-all end-all.
*Tandem staging and parallel staging works on the same principles, and thus you tipically need to couple a big thrust first engine with a high efficiency second engine. Tandem staging is slightly more effective on paper, but parallel staging has the big advantage to be simpler, because you don't need a powerful air-startable engine. Especially back then, this was a decisive factor in rocket design.*
Ergo, the Saturn 5 used the perfect fuel for each job. The shuttle and Ariane 5 did not.
*Any well designed rocket use the right fuel for each job. SRB are pretty good for the initial kick and the core stage is perfect as a sustainer for the remaining of the ascent. And, as said, you save an air-startable engine. I'm sure you are aware of the problems the designers would have to face to make the RS-25 engines air-startable, as required in the initial iterations of the ill-fated Ares-I rocket.*
Even the use of SRBs is a terrible idea in general because you can't control them once they are lit (hence the Challenger accident).
It would have been a much, much better idea to use kerolox or hypergalic strapon boosters if you absolutely had to have them (the russian Energia used kerolox starpons and was FAR more capable than an Ariane 5).
*I'm pretty sure that, statistics wise, the majority of disastrous mishaps in rocketry comes from liquid-fueled engines (and NO, the Challenger disaster does not count because it was originated by horrible management, launcing the mission well outside the safety parameters). Well, let me be clear: I'm not a supporter of solid rockets. But they have their purpose. They are terribly inefficient, but also can easily provide much more thrust than any liquid fueled engine, so they are absolutely adequate for their job.*
@@andreabindolini7452 The Delta 4 heavy is massively underperforming for a rocket of it's size and is the peak of "optimizing something that should not exist", in this case sea level hydrolox.
A falcon heavy, despite being smaller, can lift more than twice as much, potentially up to four times as much if fully expended.
More accidents do tend to happen with the thing that is used far more, and liquid fueled engines have been used a LOT more in space going rockets compared to SRBs.
Heck, the soviet union basically didn't use SRBs ever, and they made a shitload of different engines.
Besides, small, single piece SRBs are generally pretty stable but large, segmented ones have a lot of unique problems and is a completely different category.
No matter how you slice it, a hydrolox/SRB combo is inferior to just using something that is better suited for sea level, and no amount of optimization will change that.
Saturn 5 could lift 140 tonnes, the shuttle could lift 27.5 tonnes.
That is WOEFULLY inferior.
The Ariane 5, despite it's size, just barely outperforms a falcon 9 in terms of payload capacity and costs 3 to 4 times as much to launch (and I'm not even mentioning the extreme difference in launch cadence).
ohh first! Happy birthday rocket friend! All that debris that sheers off at launch (insulation?) gives me the fear.
One thing about rockets is that once you get a design that works, you don't want to change it. If they do change it is incremental. This is the case with the small ones, too, i.e., the Sidewinder basic design was figured out in 1956! The Russian designs are old, too.
Your videos always remind me of every project that have existed and other organizations to celebrate their birthday such as Ariana!
Oh boy ya boy Mr Manley is on 999k subs, so close to 1m.
As a youth in the 1st half of the 1980s, I once touched the 2nd stage of an Ariane rocket with my own hands during a factory visit at "ERNO" in the city of Bremen.
Back then I believed touching a rocket meant something.
Today in this country of technoclasm I've lost all my belief in the future.
I think Ariane 5 is in my top 3 coolest looking launch vehicles ever! Any idea why NASA chose it over the Delta IV for JWST? Is Delta IV not capable of delivering it where it needs to go?
International collaboration and A5 has a large enough fairing with enough grunt to get it into space.
Delta IV has a bit smaller fairing, plus it mainly a DoD launcher. Plus, international cooperation.
12:30 All SRBs + cryogenic upper stages... my KSP rocket design philosophy in a nutshell 😅
"It's going to launch the James Webb telescope..."
Hah! I'll believe it when I see it!
IMHO the JWST will be launched by one of the last (if not the the last) Ariane 5 if it is ready at the time of Ariane 5 decommission, and if not by a Falcon9/Heavy
And fusion energy will be here in 30 years
@@TheFalseShepphard James web will be capable of playing half life at 144hz.
I assume it'll be cheaper just to teleport the JWST out past the ruins of all the old space elevators, once it's ready to go...
@@aaronmcculloch8326 😂
Dear god fingers crossed when it launches jwst
Well, the Ariane 5 seems to be a proven launch vehicle by now. But granted, shit happens, and it would be devastating if it would happen with the JWST …
@@c.augustin hopefully they built another one in secret. I doubt that happened but you'd think the could have with the amount they have spent. I think it will be ok honestly
"It's gonna launch!" - Fraser Cain
Fun fact : Ariane 5 and 6 (also ESA's soyuz) have a self destruction mechanism, which is mandatory by French law.
Most uncrewed rockets have a flight termination system.
Saturn V had a self-destruct system.
@@274727 indeed. the nasa pao never failed to mention, when he explained it, that it would of course only used once the crew has safely escaped.
Vinci engine is incredible, look at stats for it, they're unbelievable. Better than RL-10, no contest.
It has a bigger thrust, but the Isp is a bit lower. Which is one of the reasons that while Vinci was considered for SLS's EUS, a upgraded RL-10 engine got the role.
@1.29 looks like a piece of shielding what's supposed to separate rips a chunk out of the rocker body??
Edit: I've just noticed it happens several times!
Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse
You have to talk about this star and recent activities.
Was watching for this on Dr. Becky's channel...
@@tncorgi92
thank you for the hint
Except there isn't anything about it on Dr Becky's channel.
After the Sofia video Scott googled "Germany" :P
Hullo it's SCOTT MANLEY here!
WoW... 996K subs,... are you going to hit The 1M in 2019 or in the sharp year 20-20! Thx, keep up the good work!
3:47 combustion in the tanks *would* pressurize them though 😉😅
Damn they should have launched the first Ariane on new years eve. It would have been the biggest rocket in the sky (or the biggest explosion)
One thing I’m wondering, is what happens to the last stage of the launch vehicle when the payload is put in GTO? It just floats there indefinitely?
@Scott Manley, do you watch Isaac Arthur? If yes would you do a video with him?
Merry Christmas Happy New Year! Information educational videos. Harder to find on UA-cam. One of my favorite rocket names.
Damn this vid made me realize how much i miss KSP, Bring on KSP2.
Things Kerbal Doesn't Teach You request: What are the panels that fall off the Ariane 1 and most Long March rockets at launch? Does it have something to do with the hypergolic propellant or is it acoustic shielding? The Long March rockets look like they are chucking off a whole deck of cards.
Looks like you'll get to put a gold play button up on the wall in 2020.
There is something about srb that just make me smile
Can you make a video about the return to flight of the Chinese Long March 5 please...
Hey Scott, what's with the Kerbal style confetti on liftoff with Ariane 1-3?
Seems to rupture a tank at 1:26
At 1:24 did that panel puncture the booster?
Well adding fuel rich exhaust to the oxidizer tank would pressurize it, just maybe a little too much. 😁
And not for very long 😆
And now the Ariane 6 has launched successfully - with a couple years of delay however
Happy 2020 to Scott.