> which made Ariane 5 Europe's most successful launch system to date
Not for a holywar but to enhance my educatedness: in what sense Ariane 5 is the most succesful? Low failure rate?
Not for a holywar but to enhance my educatedness: in what sense Ariane 5 is the most succesful? Low failure rate?
> The Ariane 5 program also selected the best components for Webb based upon pre-flight testing. For example, for the Webb-designated rocket, the program used a main engine that had been especially precise during testing. "It was one of the best Vulcain engines that we've ever built," Albat said. "It has very precise performance. It would have been criminal not to do it."
From https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/all-hail-the-ariane-...
> The launch was described by NASA as "flawless" and "perfect".[4] A NASA systems engineer said “the efficiency or the accuracy with which Ariane put us on orbit and our accuracy and effectiveness in implementing our mid-course corrections” meant that there is “quite a bit of fuel margin ... roughly speaking, it’s around 20 years of propellant.”[16][17]
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_VA256
When you have many satellites and want it cheap, go with SpaceX. If you have one priceless irreplaceable satellite hundreds of people spent decades building, go with Ariane. There is market for both.
Had NASA paid for the launch, both the Delta 4 (Heavy) and the Atlas 5 has the necessary NASA certification.
The US 'chose' Ariane 5 because guess what, ESA paid for the launch. Yes ESA contribution to the James Webb project was partly the launch. And if you pay for it you get to select the rocket. And because its ESA, they selected Ariane 5.
Had ESA not paid for it, an Atlas or a Delta vehicle had all the necessary NASA certifications to launch a payload of that class.
"We chose Ariane in the early 2000's for a combination of reliability (it was the only launch vehicle that met NASA's requirements for launching a mission like Webb) and for the value it brought via our international partnership."
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faq.html#whyAriane5
The key word is “was”. Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon Heavy would all have been suitable for the job. They just didn’t exist or just debut at the time NASA went with Ariane 5. Keep in mind JWST was supposed to launch early in 2010s, not a decade later.
A big selling point for Ariane 5 is in the part that you left out:
European Space Agency provided us a launch vehicle and associated services on a no exchange of funds basis. In exchange, NASA guaranteed European scientists a fraction of observing time on Webb (roughly 15%). Since architectural realities of Webb and international technology restrictions (plus industrial capabilities and strategic technology interests) meant we couldn't have a spacecraft bus or a sunshield or telescope parts from Europe, we asked for the launch vehicle, launch services and science instruments instead.
Basically NASA got a launch vehicle without any money exchanged (as opposed to paying probably a billion dollar to ULA). This was crucial given the cost overrun of the program. Also NASA couldn’t use Europe’s technologies on the telescope itself for non-technical reasons, so a launch vehicle it was.
Ariane 5 is an extremely reliable and capable vehicle, nobody can refute that.
> But Europe doesn't have the ambition for its own space station
Are you aware that the ISS is not a purely American project? Many other countries and organisations are involved, including ESA.
It's just not true that it's cheap at launching stuff into space, it's not true that it's the most successful, etc.
It's WAY cheaper than the SLS, so clearly Europe isn't as bad off as America is when it comes to a national/govt launch system.
I'm not trying to put Ariane 5/6 down, I'm merely saying, Ariane 5 is not the most successful program in the world to send stuff to space. Space X currently has that crown, but I'm sure eventually someone else will figure out how to do it better. Maybe not in my lifetime. NASA used to be the leader here, then ULA, now SpaceX. Maybe China or India will be next? I have no idea.
Yeah, 112 successful launches (including a couple for Nasa), but it is a complete failure
Sounds like the most optimistic Eastern European opinion
That's not remotely true, see Falcon 9 for example. 282 successful missions so far and they are now running about 100 launches a year.
I'm not trying to put Ariane 5 down, it's great for what it's supposed to accomplish, much like SLS is good for what it is supposed to accomplish. A govt jobs program that occasionally launches stuff into space. If your goal is launch stuff into space as cheaply as possible, they are total failures.
If your goal is to create a jobs program and keep the local population capable of launching stuff to space, then they are obviously successful.
Just like Ariane 6.
> should have been more specific
Why? When someone says “America” without specifying anything it’s usually perfectly obvious they are talking about the US. Same applies to Europe and the EU(+associates) these days.
Regardless if that is true, the last Ariane 4 launched 20 years ago so it is certainly a rocket of a long gone past.
Europe should have built an Ariane 4 replacement, using Kerolox as the base fuel.