4 ms·

Wikipedia: "Development began in 1998" 14 years to develop a 300-2000 kg rocket at an established player (Arianespace) sounds slow to me.

by sho_hn 15y ago

willvarfar 15y ago
Are you saying its behind schedule, or over budget, or under-delivering? Are you saying you think it should have been rushed?
- VMG 15y ago
  The Apollo program was announced in in 1961. The moon landing was in 1969.
  - rplnt 15y ago
    Apollo was driven by politics. It had almost no budget limits. You really can't compare these two.
  - yardie 15y ago
    During the Apollo program NASA's budget was 5% of the federal budget. Today it is less than .4%.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    And the cost was staggering and the technology was never truly debugged. (Fun fact, Apollo 13 nearly became famous for a completely different reason, as resonance caused the rocket to come within seconds of tearing itself to pieces during the launch, only prevented by sheer luck when the massive vibrations tripped a fuel sensor and shut off the offending engine.)
- sho_hn 15y ago
  No, neither. I'm saying that compared to my recollections of rocketry history as well as news about recent activity in the commercial space, a timespan of 14 years until the first validation launch seems long considering the challenges the deliverable would seem to pose. I can of course readily speculate about many reasons about why this is so: - They may be doing higher-quality work or proceeding more cautiously than other projects with similar goals. - The rocket may have unique traits or capabilities that justify the development time despite the payload capacity being nothing eyebrow-raising. - The definition of "start of development" used by the author of the Wikipedia statement may not match my expectation, i.e. there may have been a long market analysis and conception stage before engineers actually got to work. - The project may not have enjoyed a steady level of activity for all of those 14 years. - Funding may have been lower than for comparable projects. - There could have been political, legal or financial problems ailing the project. - I may simply be wrong and 14 years is not a long time at all for this kind of project. And so on. Basically, I'm hoping for someone who knows the actual answer to share their insight.
antr 15y ago
Unlike other "standard" space projects, the payload (consisting of two satellites, and seven picosatellites) was 100% designed and developed by students at various European universities. So even if the project began in 1998, do consider that both capital and technical resources are in no way comparable to those at NASA, ESA or JAXA; hence the timeframe of the project.
- maaku 15y ago
  He's talking about the rocket, not the payload.
  - antr 15y ago
    You are right that it refers to the rocket, but the length of the project is due to the purpose and goal of the payload, not the development of the rocket. If you look at the history of the VEGA programme, and why it was started, you will see that the development of the rocket has been designed for the sole purpose of putting into orbit a unique combination of (scientific) satellites and picosatellites. The development of the rocket has always gone hand in hand with that of the payload. The rocket technology used in VEGA already existed, as Avio was already a big contributor in the Ariane 5. The primary user of this rocket, and the those who promoted VEGA, were and still are, the scientific community at European universities.
Xixi 15y ago
As always with European things, it's quite complicated. I'm not even sure I fully understand myself. Arianespace operates expendable launch systems, but doesn't manufacture them (anymore). So though Vega and Ariane 5 are both operated by Arianespace, they are actually designed and built by different companies. - Ariane 5 is manufactured by EADS Astrium (French, German, British and Spanish). - Vega is manufactured by Avio (Italian). You can't really look at Astrium, and wonder why Avio took such a long time to develop the launcher. On the other hand there was definitely some cooperation going on, as for instance the first stage of Vega is derived from Ariane 5, and the improvements will most certainly make it back to Ariane...

Wikipedia: "Development began in 1998" 14 years to develop a 300-2000 kg rocket at an established player (Arianespace) sounds slow to me.

by sho_hn 15y ago

Wikipedia: "Development began in 1998" 14 years to develop a 300-2000 kg rocket at an established player (Arianespace) sounds slow to me.

willvarfar 15y ago

Are you saying its behind schedule, or over budget, or under-delivering? Are you saying you think it should have been rushed?

VMG 15y ago
The Apollo program was announced in in 1961. The moon landing was in 1969.
- rplnt 15y ago
  Apollo was driven by politics. It had almost no budget limits. You really can't compare these two.
- yardie 15y ago
  During the Apollo program NASA's budget was 5% of the federal budget. Today it is less than .4%.
- mikeash 15y ago
  And the cost was staggering and the technology was never truly debugged. (Fun fact, Apollo 13 nearly became famous for a completely different reason, as resonance caused the rocket to come within seconds of tearing itself to pieces during the launch, only prevented by sheer luck when the massive vibrations tripped a fuel sensor and shut off the offending engine.)
sho_hn 15y ago
No, neither. I'm saying that compared to my recollections of rocketry history as well as news about recent activity in the commercial space, a timespan of 14 years until the first validation launch seems long considering the challenges the deliverable would seem to pose. I can of course readily speculate about many reasons about why this is so: - They may be doing higher-quality work or proceeding more cautiously than other projects with similar goals. - The rocket may have unique traits or capabilities that justify the development time despite the payload capacity being nothing eyebrow-raising. - The definition of "start of development" used by the author of the Wikipedia statement may not match my expectation, i.e. there may have been a long market analysis and conception stage before engineers actually got to work. - The project may not have enjoyed a steady level of activity for all of those 14 years. - Funding may have been lower than for comparable projects. - There could have been political, legal or financial problems ailing the project. - I may simply be wrong and 14 years is not a long time at all for this kind of project. And so on. Basically, I'm hoping for someone who knows the actual answer to share their insight.

antr 15y ago

Unlike other "standard" space projects, the payload (consisting of two satellites, and seven picosatellites) was 100% designed and developed by students at various European universities. So even if the project began in 1998, do consider that both capital and technical resources are in no way comparable to those at NASA, ESA or JAXA; hence the timeframe of the project.

maaku 15y ago
He's talking about the rocket, not the payload.
- antr 15y ago
  You are right that it refers to the rocket, but the length of the project is due to the purpose and goal of the payload, not the development of the rocket. If you look at the history of the VEGA programme, and why it was started, you will see that the development of the rocket has been designed for the sole purpose of putting into orbit a unique combination of (scientific) satellites and picosatellites. The development of the rocket has always gone hand in hand with that of the payload. The rocket technology used in VEGA already existed, as Avio was already a big contributor in the Ariane 5. The primary user of this rocket, and the those who promoted VEGA, were and still are, the scientific community at European universities.

Xixi 15y ago

As always with European things, it's quite complicated. I'm not even sure I fully understand myself. Arianespace operates expendable launch systems, but doesn't manufacture them (anymore). So though Vega and Ariane 5 are both operated by Arianespace, they are actually designed and built by different companies. - Ariane 5 is manufactured by EADS Astrium (French, German, British and Spanish). - Vega is manufactured by Avio (Italian). You can't really look at Astrium, and wonder why Avio took such a long time to develop the launcher. On the other hand there was definitely some cooperation going on, as for instance the first stage of Vega is derived from Ariane 5, and the improvements will most certainly make it back to Ariane...