3 ms·

Ariane 4 and preceding versions? There was also the Tsyklon series (mix between Soviet and European tech). > should have been more specific Why? When someone

Ariane 4 and preceding versions? There was also the Tsyklon series (mix between Soviet and European tech). > 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.

weinzierl 3y ago
I worked on the Ariane 5 during the transition from Ariane 4 to 5. Back then many did not like the Ariane 5 design. The Ariane 5 was originally meant as a carrier for the European Space Shuttle competitor Hermes and repurposing it for commercial payload launches involved many compromises. When the last remaining Ariane 4 had launched I asked one of my senior colleagues why we wouldn't just build a couple more of them. I was told that this was not realistic because for one, parts were built in batches and you could not just produce a few and for another many of the companies that were involved did not even exist anymore. Regardless if that is true, the last Ariane 4 launched 20 years ago so it is certainly a rocket of a long gone past.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  In my opinion Ariane 5 was way overbuilt. This forced it into a niche and lead to it being not at all dominant. It speaks volumes how much ESA was reliant on Soyuz. Europe should have built an Ariane 4 replacement, using Kerolox as the base fuel.
- slater 3y ago
  I always wonder what happened to that launch commander (?) of the initial A5 launch that blew up, anyone know?
  - linschn 3y ago
    The "Directeur des opérations" was Pierre RIBARDIERE, the launch failure had nothing to do with him, it was due to a software bug (overflow) in a component that was reused from Ariane 4, but bugged out in Ariane 5 due to the much greater accélération IIRC.
    - slater 3y ago
      Oh I know, I just remember his look of utter despondence, and wondered if he'd get the old scapegoat treatment or something.

weinzierl 3y ago

I worked on the Ariane 5 during the transition from Ariane 4 to 5. Back then many did not like the Ariane 5 design. The Ariane 5 was originally meant as a carrier for the European Space Shuttle competitor Hermes and repurposing it for commercial payload launches involved many compromises. When the last remaining Ariane 4 had launched I asked one of my senior colleagues why we wouldn't just build a couple more of them. I was told that this was not realistic because for one, parts were built in batches and you could not just produce a few and for another many of the companies that were involved did not even exist anymore. Regardless if that is true, the last Ariane 4 launched 20 years ago so it is certainly a rocket of a long gone past.

panick21_ 3y ago
In my opinion Ariane 5 was way overbuilt. This forced it into a niche and lead to it being not at all dominant. It speaks volumes how much ESA was reliant on Soyuz. Europe should have built an Ariane 4 replacement, using Kerolox as the base fuel.
slater 3y ago
I always wonder what happened to that launch commander (?) of the initial A5 launch that blew up, anyone know?
- linschn 3y ago
  The "Directeur des opérations" was Pierre RIBARDIERE, the launch failure had nothing to do with him, it was due to a software bug (overflow) in a component that was reused from Ariane 4, but bugged out in Ariane 5 due to the much greater accélération IIRC.
  - slater 3y ago
    Oh I know, I just remember his look of utter despondence, and wondered if he'd get the old scapegoat treatment or something.