Jump to content

Arianespace launch thread


insert_name

Recommended Posts

That number of satellite makes me want to hear the DDO saying the same stuff than ULA hosts with their infamous "Go XXX!"

Just imagine, "Go X1!, Go X2!, Go X3!... [five minutes later] Go X53!, and Go Vega!".

---

Arrg... This post opened a new page.

Sorry @tater, I'm sharing your link here in case others missed it.

 

 

-----

Edit 2

----

 

Weather is RED for tonight launch; Arianespace just cancelled it.

 

 

Edited by XB-70A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, tater said:

 

 

54618793.jpg

 

 

Note, I'm not really buying that "high-altitude wind" reason, as most data available are showing less than 30 km/h from surface to 13.5 km (FL450) and the cloud base is given at 9.9-10 km.

Edited by XB-70A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The EU will for the first time sign a 1 billion euro agreement with Arianespace with guaranteed orders to give it more visibility, in exchange for more innovation.

“SpaceX has redefined the standards for launchers, so Ariane 6 is a necessary step, but not the ultimate aim: we must start thinking now about Ariane 7”

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-space-idUSKBN23Z0JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Official video from Kourou, the Future Has... Begun.

 

 

 

I'm pretty much interested by "Space Rider" (a.k.a Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle), and confused by the aerodrome showed at the same time. The location appears to be West of the Chilean coast (which would be a weird geographical location for recovering, and no runways are available around), while the CGIs gave an idea of an island (looking close to Ascension Island and its RAF Station).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, XB-70A said:

I'm pretty much interested by "Space Rider" (a.k.a Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle), and confused by the aerodrome showed at the same time. The location appears to be West of the Chilean coast (which would be a weird geographical location for recovering, and no runways are available around), while the CGIs gave an idea of an island (looking close to Ascension Island and its RAF Station).

What's the point of it, exactly? Seems like they throw away the important bit (the propulsion and solar array), so they can launch a cubesat, then land a grossly overbuilt... fairing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tater said:

What's the point of it, exactly? Seems like they throw away the important bit (the propulsion and solar array), so they can launch a cubesat, then land a grossly overbuilt... fairing.


What I thought too; pretty disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I see it as roughly x37b equivalent but smaller.

How much info do we have on themis and Callisto?

X-37b has engines, though. Why go to the trouble of a reusable upper stage, then chuck the expensive parts?

I assume Arianespace has a budget independent of ESA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tater said:

What's the point of it, exactly? Seems like they throw away the important bit (the propulsion and solar array), so they can launch a cubesat, then land a grossly overbuilt... fairing.

Yeah, it kinda looks like a more disappointing Dream Chaser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2020 at 10:23 PM, Danielle said:

Yeah, it kinda looks like a more disappointing Dream Chaser.

I guess the same is true of Dream Chaser (cargo) to be fair, since the orbital element gets dumped.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tater said:

I guess the same is true of Dream Chaser (cargo) to be fair, since the orbital element gets dumped.

 

I'm surprised they didn't go with the designs like the Dinasoar where it's an exposed spaceplane, but they instead went with the X-37B style. Maybe Arianespace just wants an X-37B. They are independent from ESA right? Since they're a commercial space provider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Danielle said:

I'm surprised they didn't go with the designs like the Dinasoar where it's an exposed spaceplane, but they instead went with the X-37B style. Maybe Arianespace just wants an X-37B. They are independent from ESA right? Since they're a commercial space provider.

Easier to deal with under a fairing, and minus crew abort modalities don't matter.

As a crew vehicle both the Space Rider and Dream Chaser would actually be pretty cool, as the important bit—the crew—gets a ride down (if the former was planned to ever become a crew vehicle). Minus crew as a sat delivery vehicle neither makes sense, but Dream Chaser to ISS provides downmass to many landing sites, and I think less g loading than a capsule.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...