Helpful Lady 5 - explained with ten hundred most commonly used words

[Temstar]

Because US Space Team need all the publicity it can get. Plus why should SpaceX and Reaction Engines Limited get all the glory anyway?

[Starwhip]

I like this one better.

[mrfox]

Air that makes stars burn

That is beautiful.

[basic.syntax]

Apparently, the word "thousand" is not one of the ten hundred most common words.

Gazing at this gives rise to a terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side.

[RainDreamer]

Helpful lady? Why Helpful lady?

[Pipcard]

Helpful lady? Why Helpful lady?

I was wondering about this, too, but then I remembered that the Ariane rocket is named after a French spelling for the mythological Ariadne.

I looked at the page for Ariadne, and it said "She is mostly associated with mazes and labyrinths, due to her involvement in the myths of the Minotaur and Theseus. Her father put her in charge of the labyrinth where sacrifices were made as part of reparations (either to Poseidon or to Athena, depending on the version of the myth); however, she would later help Theseus in overcoming the Minotaur and saving the would-be sacrificial victims" (emphasis added)

edit:

Because US Space Team need all the publicity it can get.

But only the payload is from US Space Team. The rocket is European/French, but that's not in the 1000 words list. In fact, I don't think "us" being in the list means that it's referring to the "U.S."

edit 2: "help" is in the list but not "helpful."

edit 3: then again, so isn't "goer" in "Up Goer Five"

Edited June 18, 2015 by Pipcard

[NovaSilisko]

I never tire of these... need to preorder the book of them at some point.

I like this one better.

For the record, posting nothing but "this other thing is better" in response to something someone made can generally be seen as really rude.

[Kryten]

But only the payload is from US Space Team. The rocket is European/French, but that's not in the 1000 words list. In fact, I don't think "us" being in the list means that it's referring to the "U.S."

There's also a European and a Canadian instrument on it (out of four total).

[pincushionman]

I like the failure statements.

"When this starts burning you are either going to space right now or you are going to have a bad day"

"...If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and will not go to space today"

[Temstar]

I like the failure statements.

"When this starts burning you are either going to space right now or you are going to have a bad day"

Huh, I had to say something humorous about the solids since there's really not much to explain when you dissect one. Good thing JWST is not launching on top of Helpful Lady 6 - that diagram wouldn't be nearly as interesting to explain.

[Dedjal]

I would have preferred more technical babbel than this toddler talk.

But I guess I should just count myself lucky that it is not meant fo me, hehe.

[Camacha]

I would have preferred more technical babbel than this toddler talk.

But I guess I should just count myself lucky that it is not meant fo me, hehe.

If you take this for toddler talk you are seriously misinterpreting the intention of this work.

[vger]

Good thing JWST is not launching on top of Helpful Lady 6 - that diagram wouldn't be nearly as interesting to explain.

Your description alone, suggests a more interesting diagram.

Why is JWST on top of the Helpful Lady?

[Hcube]

Why is JWST on top of the Helpful Lady?

Because the Helpful Lady is very reliable and heavy lift to GTO-Lagrange points. It's actually the most reliable heavy-lift-to-GTO vehicle in the world AFAIK.

But seriously though, the MAIN reason is because it gets to be launched from the awesome Kourou spaceport and Ariane 5 is dope (yes my sig shows my love for this launcher)

[Kryten]

Because the Helpful Lady is very reliable and heavy lift to GTO-Lagrange points. It's actually the most reliable heavy-lift-to-GTO vehicle in the world AFAIK.

Also it has a large enough fairing for it, having been built for dual-launch to GTO of large comsats. Delta IVH could carry it terms of mass, but as it was designed to put somewhat smaller payloads directly into GSO there isn't enough volume available.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Kryten

[Temstar]

Your description alone, suggests a more interesting diagram.

Actually after doing some reading on it it turns out to be not all that different from Ariane 5 any more (aside from bigger size and option for 2 or 4 SRBs for first stage).

Originally there's an Ariane 6 design called the Ariane 6 PPH that subscribes to Jebediah Kerman school of rocket design with solid boosters stacked on top of more solid boosters:

>having been built for dual-large to GTO of large comsats

It's originally designed to be the launch vehicle for the ESA Hermes mini space shuttle isn't it? Being designed from the ground up as man-rated probably has a lot to do with its exemplar reliability record. The heavy left dual sat thing came about later after Hermes fall through.

Actually speaking of heavy lift launch vehicles originally designed to be man-rated, could JWST be launched on top of a Proton?

Edited June 18, 2015 by Temstar

[Nibb31]

It's originally designed to be the launch vehicle for the ESA Hermes mini space shuttle isn't it? Being designed from the ground up as man-rated probably has a lot to do with its exemplar reliability record. The heavy left dual sat thing came about later after Hermes fall through.

Hermes was cancelled well before the actual design work started on Ariane 5. It isn't man-rated.

Actually speaking of heavy lift launch vehicles originally designed to be man-rated, could JWST be launched on top of a Proton?

Considering the cost of JWST and Proton's reliability these days, that would be a bad idea. The Ariane launch is provided by ESA as part of a barter arrangement. Basically, it's free for NASA.

[Hcube]

Hermes was cancelled well before the actual design work started on Ariane 5. It isn't man-rated.

^This. Ariane 5 is far from man-rated, and not only because Hermes was cancelled, the Kourou spaceport is not man-rated either. There are no structures that allow for any astronauts to get up in a rocket, and i'm not sure a LES could make it to the sea from the launchpad since IIRC they are farther from the sea than Cape canaveral pads are.

[Dedjal]

If you take this for toddler talk you are seriously misinterpreting the intention of this work.

Is not the intention of this work to portray a "guide for dummies" explanation?

[shynung]

More of a joke, actually.

[Kryten]

Actually speaking of heavy lift launch vehicles originally designed to be man-rated, could JWST be launched on top of a Proton?

Nope . Fairing volume and payload capability both much too low.

[Temstar]

Is not the intention of this work to portray a "guide for dummies" explanation?

I've always thought the point behind these "Thing Explainer" diagram is that although lots of people for whatever reason feel that maths and science and engineering are hardcore egghead stuff beyond them, the core concept of something as complex as a rocket with several million moving parts could in fact be distilled down so that anyone can understand it

Thus you don't need to be a genius or rocket scientist to understand such "techie" stuff - the minds of people who came up with this stuff is not all that different from anyone else, you just have to apply yourself and you could be as 'smart' as them.

Hermes was cancelled well before the actual design work started on Ariane 5. It isn't man-rated.

What is that true? Ariane 5 development was under way by 1988 and Hermes was cancelled sometime around 1990. I was sure that at least for a very brief period ESA had all three big projects Ariane 5 + Hermes + Columbus all fully funded and going ahead.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Temstar

[Hcube]

Hum, pretry sure that the development of the rocket in the first 2 years (and the initial developmebt phase for ariane 5 was not very fast-moving iirc) was probably not very much affected by hermes... So it being cancelled after 2 years probably didn't change much. ESA had the three projects going strong......for a very brief period of time indeed

[Nibb31]

What is that true? Ariane 5 development was under way by 1988 and Hermes was cancelled sometime around 1990. I was sure that at least for a very brief period ESA had all three big projects Ariane 5 + Hermes + Columbus all fully funded and going ahead.

Hermes was cancelled officially in 1992, but by 1990 it was dead in the water. The design was overweight and after the Challenger disaster they added an ejection capsule which made it completely unmanageable. It could only carry 3 astronauts, no payload, and most of its systems were jettisoned in an expendable equipment module. In the end, the design was so compromised that it was clear that it wasn't going anywhere.

Ariane 5 was initiated in 1987, but the early stages were high-level concepts with vague target goals. As noted, by the time the pad complex at Kourou was being built or the systems were being designed, any requirement for manned launches had been thrown out the window.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Nibb31