The Ariane 5 is one of the most beautiful rockets out there, love its powerful appearance, also is a great space vector. Top video as always, thank you very much ;)
I love your videos. It shows you do your research on these subjects, not like some documentaries that are wrong about half the things they cover in their documentaries.
A "fun" addition to the first ariane 5 launch failure is its one of the most expensive programming mistake, they tried to reuse the launch safety Programm from ariane 4 and it was suposed to run a few seconds in to launch, but since A5 was much bigger they had an overflow witch made the launch abort system believe its upside down so it tried to correct it vigorusly so another system sad self destruct it. If i remember correctly it was suposed to run for something like 40s and the abort happened something like 38 seconds in flight.
I am from India and love your videos very much keep up the good work and if you can make a video on ISRO many of your viewers will get to know our achievements too
When you voice over the weight of payload is a bit to fast for a non English native to caught, I think if you slow down a bit on the numbers part, it would help lots or better put subtitles or text.
I was there for the first static fire of the main stage, have a picture of me standing by the nozzle the day before the test fire. Also got to jump down the escape tube, really cool experience.
Very informative episode. Enjoyed the content. Is it possible to do a clip on the European contribution to the Orion program - as you mentioned, looks like they are doing the service module for the deep space capsule/vehicle ...
What a wonderful bit of kit. Though, I do prefer the Delta IV Heavy of the United Launch Alliance. Seeing those triple boosters at full song is amazing.
I also was struck with that thought. Example Vega launch, though it doesn't seem as swift as 1:20 on the video we're watching, where it really seems to be screaming: ua-cam.com/video/iRt8zQXKQp4/v-deo.html
The ariane designs stand on the shoulders of its predecessors.. if not for the space race ESA would not have the knowledge it has to today to launch large payloads... also having access to a launch site on the equator greatly improves payload capacity while lower fuel requirements.. think slingshot effect..
You make very good and informative videos, thank u. When i was jockeying planes for the UN in Africa i saw a strange plane and went to contact the crew - sat in the cockpit and got things explained about this creature - it was Russian and they where on a certification trip to Africa. Not seen or heard of this aircraft since. M-101T “Gzhel” it was called, why is the Cessna Caravan so successful and not the Gzhel? About the same performance i guess.. As a Norwegian i lived in Vladivostok for five years in the nineties flying Citations for rich Hong Kongers and got the opportunity to study Russian planes - they are smart designs. Can u please tell us where the Gzhel went. (Wish i was so rich that i could have a private TU 134 - the dog whistle).
According to Wikipedia, the reason you don't see many of that aircraft is that they're seen as too expensive in comparison to similarly capable aircraft. At least for the one that was toured around South Africa that is.
I think so too, as europeans we should have our vehicle. Should we use it continuously? Probably not, if Russia offered cheaper options, but having it there is a really good asset for europeans. Once the Shuttle retired the americans might have partnered with us had we had it working.
Very interesting rocket, interesting facts learned: 1. SRB produce as much as 92% of thrust where center 1st stage produces 8% of thrust and fire for 10 minutes. 2. Early version of 2nd stage is fairly interesting, considering the 1st stage is almost doing some work for the 2nd stage, the early 2nd stage could be considered as a 3rd stage (?). Then if we think the SRBs as just supporting boosters, the rocket it self is basically an SSTO ( just joking for fun) 3. Double fairings, interesting 4. Fun fact but not mentioned in the video: the first modern Ariane 5 test failure in 1997 was very toxic to the environment, especially to human.
If I was a rocket admin, I think I'd have retired after JWST. End career on a high note, and I think the stress of having that payload on board would have been more than enough. How many decades late, how many $billions later? Ugh, would have been the pariah of astronomy. Of course, the experts probably just take it in stride. I guess ALL payloads are stressful.
If it's from a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, the green flash is from TEA-TEB pyrophoric igniter fluid. Almost the same stuff they used to light the afterburners on the SR-71 (the size of the tank for the ignition fluid is what ended up limiting the range of the SR-71, because it means you can only start up the afterburners so many times, and since you need to turn off the afterburners to slow down enough to refuel, you run into that limiting factor).
@@phoenixrising4573 well, for LEO purposes falcon 9 can launch more into orbit (23 tonnes for F9 vs 21 tones for A5) but for anything else Ariane 5 can put more into orbit, even if the falcon 9 is expended (e.g. A5 can put 11 tonnes into GTO wheras F9 can only put 8.3 tonnes into GTO if it's expended or 5.5 tonnes if the booster lands)
Not a jobs program but an industrial capacity and technical program aimed at maintaining a European independent capability without spending on the US scale. In a way that *is* about paying the wages of scientists and engineers.
The Ariane V was a BAD design influenced by the even worse design called the Space Shuttle. The fact is that a LH2/LOX main stage that lights on the ground is a lousy idea. Whatever advantages having a higher specific impulse gets you is more than paid back in terms of the bulky and heavy tanks to hold the LH2 and the need for high thrust low specific impulse SRBs to get it off the ground. The Russians and the Saturn V got it right. Keep it simple, run Kerosene and LOX. That 16~20 ton payload of the Ariane V capacity can be achieved with a two stage, two engine, rocket. It'll have to be a big engine like the F1 or RD170 for the 1st stage, but it is very doable. The 2nd stage can be LH2/LOX or you can stick to kerosene and just build a 30% bigger rocket -- which is still SMALLER than that big fat Hydrogen fuel Ariane V.
And still, they used the Ariane V pretty successfully, i wonder why.... No really, what is so complicated about solid rocket boosters? Their only real disadvantage the incapability of reusing them. The thing is this, you can take a kerosin/LOX liquid fuel motor, however, this requires pump, plumbing and computing units as well as a save control loop. A solid rocket booster just needs the propallent and the tank. This decreased number of parts not only reduces cost but also complexity, wich automatically leads to an increased reliability. You can basically choose between a more complicated, more expensive but higher thrust liquid fuel booster or a much more reliable, lower cost but lower thrust solid fuel booster. I'm not going to say thaat you are dumb for not liking the solid booster approach, but let me tell you this: "It all depends on the situation". Just looking at the past, the solid boosters where probably the best option for what the Ariane V was build for.
With those giant boosters the first stage is more like a second stage. Its like having a inefficient but strong first stage, and the second stage ignites already on the ground. It has just a small effect during booster phase, but doesn't really burn much proppelant and you have a secure ignition. To be honest the shuttle was quite efficient, if you considder, that such a "small" vehicle could lift 20t plus crew of 7 and a big plane into orbit. You are quite right, with something like a delta 4.
The ariane v is absolutely tiny compared to comparable rockets! You obviously hint at the Falcon 9. (Which is fucking huge). I think the biggest advantage of SpaceX is, that most of their value chain is in house. At arianespace, there are lots of european companies involved, of which every one wants their sweet sweet revenue.
@@timmurphy5541 Yeah, it's called the M51 SLBM! No ICBM or SLBM will ever use multi-segment SRBs of the size which the Ariane V or Shuttle uses -- not even if you want to deliver city killer 5MT bombs which western countries do not have in their arsenal. -- It's really very simple. The 1st stage gets you only less than 30% of your Delta V but comprises 85% of your launch mass. Specific Impulse is NOT IMPORTANT; density of the propellant and hence the size of the stage is MORE IMPORTANT. Therefore, Hydrogen is a terrible fuel at lift off. If you are averaging Hydrogen and SRB Isp, you are better off lighting a hydrocarbon 1st stage. The Russians got it right, Apollo got it right, SpaceX got it right. Shuttle, Ariane and Delta IV are just plain dumb.
Everyone who’s there and have any form of participation in the program understands. “The countdown lady” is the range operations manager (DDO) and is employed by Cnes (not Arianespace nor ESA) which is the French national space administration.
The Ariane 5 is one of the most beautiful rockets out there, love its powerful appearance, also is a great space vector.
Top video as always, thank you very much ;)
Yes, the Ariane is beauty. Waiting for the 6
and space-x manned flight next month.
@@bishop51807 That will be awesome! But we're waiting for the Ariane 6 too
@@tomvarior5328 starship: oh hello there
Ariane 5 has the largest fairing (5.4 M). That is why it was chosen for JWST.
Really excited for the launch of the telescope!
@@BeKindToBirds I will be biting my nails. Been waiting for years.
Last time I was this early, the Saturn V was still in service.
"How much can it lift?"
"6900 kg."
"Nice."
"No, to GTO."
I love the way the Ariane looks. It is a testament to modern aerospace engineering. Excellent video as always Sky.
And well... The Ariane V is one of the most beautiful rocket ever made !
Aah yes, the infamous *Space Baguette*
Very good video, well done! Previously didn’t know much about the Ariane 5 so this helped!
I love your videos. It shows you do your research on these subjects, not like some documentaries that are wrong about half the things they cover in their documentaries.
Yeeeeees! More ESA on this channel, please!
Great job on this one! All your videos are outstanding. Don't change your approach!
Nice video! Would definitly watch more of these!
can’t wait for Ariane 6!
A "fun" addition to the first ariane 5 launch failure is its one of the most expensive programming mistake, they tried to reuse the launch safety Programm from ariane 4 and it was suposed to run a few seconds in to launch, but since A5 was much bigger they had an overflow witch made the launch abort system believe its upside down so it tried to correct it vigorusly so another system sad self destruct it. If i remember correctly it was suposed to run for something like 40s and the abort happened something like 38 seconds in flight.
Hope they learn their lesson and not let the same thing happen with the new A6 rocket.
When it was launched the first time, it was running on windows 95.
Great Video!
Now you will have to make a video about the Angara. I'll be waiting.
I am from India and love your videos very much keep up the good work and if you can make a video on ISRO many of your viewers will get to know our achievements too
When you voice over the weight of payload is a bit to fast for a non English native to caught, I think if you slow down a bit on the numbers part, it would help lots or better put subtitles or text.
I was there for the first static fire of the main stage, have a picture of me standing by the nozzle the day before the test fire. Also got to jump down the escape tube, really cool experience.
I would love to see Sky do a video on the Saturn V. Sure, it’s no longer in service but it was so historic that I know he’d do a great video!
Thank you.
The ECA upper stage HM7B can't restart. Thats why the Aestus is still used sometimes. This will change on Ariane6 with vinci.
Who's there because of the successfull launch of JWST ?
I am, although two years later.
Cool I had some memorable car video game races at that launch facility!
Ariane 5 is beauty)
Fantastic video
Very informative episode. Enjoyed the content. Is it possible to do a clip on the European contribution to the Orion program - as you mentioned, looks like they are doing the service module for the deep space capsule/vehicle ...
The SM is not bad, shame the Orion will be short lived.
Do the Atlas 5 next! Love your videos!
Well. I didn't expect that topic.
Clarification: It's "Geostationary Transter Orbit"
💖 your shows🕊😁👍
14:00 correction, the rocket's most famous cargo is now the JWST :)
Great!
All eyes on Europe to get this done. That cargo is more precious than gold, more precious than gold
Please make more videos about different rockets from different countries.
Very cool video!!!!!!👍👍👍👍👍
More spacey stuff please!
What a wonderful bit of kit. Though, I do prefer the Delta IV Heavy of the United Launch Alliance. Seeing those triple boosters at full song is amazing.
The corporate comfortable life had lasted way too long! Go Ariane 6.
0:53 boy did she accelerate quickly!
Dave Crupel you should see a Vega launch: those things are just immediately gone
*H E* ...
I also was struck with that thought.
Example Vega launch, though it doesn't seem as swift as 1:20 on the video we're watching, where it really seems to be screaming:
ua-cam.com/video/iRt8zQXKQp4/v-deo.html
The power of SRB 😁
Ariane 5 is pretty for sure, but Proton is still the beauty of the ball.
I change my mind... the award for Beauty of the ball was erroneously given to Proton. Ariane is is the winner.
The ariane designs stand on the shoulders of its predecessors.. if not for the space race ESA would not have the knowledge it has to today to launch large payloads... also having access to a launch site on the equator greatly improves payload capacity while lower fuel requirements.. think slingshot effect..
I will cry if it I blows up up on the launchpad taking the James Webb telescope with it
I keep thinking this same thing. If that were to happen I would likely cry.
You make very good and informative videos, thank u. When i was jockeying planes for the UN in Africa i saw a strange plane and went to contact the crew - sat in the cockpit and got things explained about this creature - it was Russian and they where on a certification trip to Africa. Not seen or heard of this aircraft since. M-101T “Gzhel” it was called, why is the Cessna Caravan so successful and not the Gzhel? About the same performance i guess..
As a Norwegian i lived in Vladivostok for five years in the nineties flying Citations for rich Hong Kongers and got the opportunity to study Russian planes - they are smart designs. Can u please tell us where the Gzhel went. (Wish i was so rich that i could have a private TU 134 - the dog whistle).
According to Wikipedia, the reason you don't see many of that aircraft is that they're seen as too expensive in comparison to similarly capable aircraft. At least for the one that was toured around South Africa that is.
Looking at images of the ariane 5 and the abandoned energia rocket family there are similarities visible
Despite the expense I think cancelling the Hermes spaceplane was a short-sighted mistake.
I think so too, as europeans we should have our vehicle. Should we use it continuously? Probably not, if Russia offered cheaper options, but having it there is a really good asset for europeans. Once the Shuttle retired the americans might have partnered with us had we had it working.
More Space, dude!
Awesome. I think I want to start collecting aerospace vehicles. Does a Tesla Roadster count?
Skyships: Where my 2 hobbies collide!
Oh...... and you forgot to include my Country, Great Britain, in the European Space programme...including Ariane.🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌
... not anymore, with your exit from the EU, right? (I still think that's a mistake)
Very interesting rocket, interesting facts learned:
1. SRB produce as much as 92% of thrust where center 1st stage produces 8% of thrust and fire for 10 minutes.
2. Early version of 2nd stage is fairly interesting, considering the 1st stage is almost doing some work for the 2nd stage, the early 2nd stage could be considered as a 3rd stage (?). Then if we think the SRBs as just supporting boosters, the rocket it self is basically an SSTO ( just joking for fun)
3. Double fairings, interesting
4. Fun fact but not mentioned in the video: the first modern Ariane 5 test failure in 1997 was very toxic to the environment, especially to human.
About #4, yeah that's almost certainly one of the more notable toxic incidents that year, hypergolic rocket fuels are not fun stuff to get exposed to.
If I was a rocket admin, I think I'd have retired after JWST. End career on a high note, and I think the stress of having that payload on board would have been more than enough. How many decades late, how many $billions later? Ugh, would have been the pariah of astronomy. Of course, the experts probably just take it in stride. I guess ALL payloads are stressful.
Running out of aircraft, Skyships Eng? :-))))
He needs to do more scfi star ships
Another spaceflight video from our favorite Russian AvGod!
Hitler: I like the sound of that name you gave it
WhAt 'BoUt SaTuRn V?
came here after MEASAT-3d and GSAT-24 launch
7:55 green flame either TEB or some other boron "ZIP Fuel"
If it's from a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, the green flash is from TEA-TEB pyrophoric igniter fluid. Almost the same stuff they used to light the afterburners on the SR-71 (the size of the tank for the ignition fluid is what ended up limiting the range of the SR-71, because it means you can only start up the afterburners so many times, and since you need to turn off the afterburners to slow down enough to refuel, you run into that limiting factor).
9:56 Estes engine...... I've got a few old Estes powered rockets and motors laying around lmao
It's spelled "Aestus" on the Ariane 5. I did get the joke tho.
You forgot Denmark. We are also partners in The ESA. 🇩🇰🙋🏻♂️🪐👩🏻🚀🇺🇸
1:25 No 😐
Мог бы после своего видео о ф 22 ещё что-то на русском выложить...
Hello Spaceation kkkkk
Lets see what ESA does now that Elon Musk has shaken the game board.
Operation Satanique II
weLT
who in right mind would want to go on a rocket build by Italians?
First
at being a twunt. Well done.
Way behind SpaceX’s Falcon 9.
And yet in some regards ariane 5 is more capable than falcon 9
Mark Swanson Falcon 9 is much newer vehicle 🙄
@@aaronjacobs3980 Please highlight the "regards"? Nothing it's capable of is not possible with falcon 9 or heavy.
@@phoenixrising4573 well, for LEO purposes falcon 9 can launch more into orbit (23 tonnes for F9 vs 21 tones for A5) but for anything else Ariane 5 can put more into orbit, even if the falcon 9 is expended (e.g. A5 can put 11 tonnes into GTO wheras F9 can only put 8.3 tonnes into GTO if it's expended or 5.5 tonnes if the booster lands)
A giant jobs program. To remain relevant, they have to develop a competitive, reusable launcher ala SpaceX.
Not a jobs program but an industrial capacity and technical program aimed at maintaining a European independent capability without spending on the US scale. In a way that *is* about paying the wages of scientists and engineers.
The countdown doesn't quite sound the same when done in French by a French chick, they should do it in English so it sounds better.
this system is a money pit. Cant compete with companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin!
Of course it can't, the rocket is 20 years old
It actually does surprisingly well, Ariane5 keeps getting the big majority of GTO contracts even with SpaceX around.
Ariane 6 is already obsolete
No, but your brain yes
The design for 6 is outdated before it flies. It's STILL going to be more expensive than it's biggest competition.
No, it isn’t.
Ariane 5 - Obsolete technology
Utter garbage, the Ariane 5 still holds GTO records and has a much higher reliability then Falcon 9.
@@techdefined9420 - You sound like a game ranger looking after the last Dodo.
And you write a bunch of garbage! If it was obsolete, it’s customers would’ve left long ago.
@@Tramseskumbanan They have, it's called SpaceX
@@kevindegenaar Sorry, but you are dead wrong. Maybe in the future, who knows?
But so far, No!
Pity that it's trashed immediately it's used. Bye bye one-offs, hello reusables. It's a dinosaur, already pre-fossilised.
The Ariane V was a BAD design influenced by the even worse design called the Space Shuttle. The fact is that a LH2/LOX main stage that lights on the ground is a lousy idea. Whatever advantages having a higher specific impulse gets you is more than paid back in terms of the bulky and heavy tanks to hold the LH2 and the need for high thrust low specific impulse SRBs to get it off the ground.
The Russians and the Saturn V got it right. Keep it simple, run Kerosene and LOX. That 16~20 ton payload of the Ariane V capacity can be achieved with a two stage, two engine, rocket. It'll have to be a big engine like the F1 or RD170 for the 1st stage, but it is very doable. The 2nd stage can be LH2/LOX or you can stick to kerosene and just build a 30% bigger rocket -- which is still SMALLER than that big fat Hydrogen fuel Ariane V.
And still, they used the Ariane V pretty successfully, i wonder why....
No really, what is so complicated about solid rocket boosters?
Their only real disadvantage the incapability of reusing them.
The thing is this, you can take a kerosin/LOX liquid fuel motor, however, this requires pump, plumbing and computing units as well as a save control loop.
A solid rocket booster just needs the propallent and the tank.
This decreased number of parts not only reduces cost but also complexity, wich automatically leads to an increased reliability.
You can basically choose between a more complicated, more expensive but higher thrust liquid fuel booster or a much more reliable, lower cost but lower thrust solid fuel booster.
I'm not going to say thaat you are dumb for not liking the solid booster approach, but let me tell you this: "It all depends on the situation".
Just looking at the past, the solid boosters where probably the best option for what the Ariane V was build for.
With those giant boosters the first stage is more like a second stage. Its like having a inefficient but strong first stage, and the second stage ignites already on the ground. It has just a small effect during booster phase, but doesn't really burn much proppelant and you have a secure ignition. To be honest the shuttle was quite efficient, if you considder, that such a "small" vehicle could lift 20t plus crew of 7 and a big plane into orbit. You are quite right, with something like a delta 4.
The ariane v is absolutely tiny compared to comparable rockets! You obviously hint at the Falcon 9. (Which is fucking huge). I think the biggest advantage of SpaceX is, that most of their value chain is in house. At arianespace, there are lots of european companies involved, of which every one wants their sweet sweet revenue.
If you keep the capacity to make solid rockets then you have the option to make quite big missiles should you suddenly decide that you needed to.
@@timmurphy5541 Yeah, it's called the M51 SLBM! No ICBM or SLBM will ever use multi-segment SRBs of the size which the Ariane V or Shuttle uses -- not even if you want to deliver city killer 5MT bombs which western countries do not have in their arsenal.
--
It's really very simple. The 1st stage gets you only less than 30% of your Delta V but comprises 85% of your launch mass. Specific Impulse is NOT IMPORTANT; density of the propellant and hence the size of the stage is MORE IMPORTANT. Therefore, Hydrogen is a terrible fuel at lift off. If you are averaging Hydrogen and SRB Isp, you are better off lighting a hydrocarbon 1st stage. The Russians got it right, Apollo got it right, SpaceX got it right. Shuttle, Ariane and Delta IV are just plain dumb.
Shouldn't that countdown lady be speaking English so everyone can understand her?
Its a French company, so they speak French
Everyone who’s there and have any form of participation in the program understands. “The countdown lady” is the range operations manager (DDO) and is employed by Cnes (not Arianespace nor ESA) which is the French national space administration.
lol?
Beautiful video!
came here after MEASAT-3d and GSAT-24 launch