4 ms·
Importantly the precision means the orbit of JWST needed less fuel to correct, leaving more for future corrections and extending the lifetime. > The launch was
by progbits 3y ago
Importantly the precision means the orbit of JWST needed less fuel to correct, leaving more for future corrections and extending the lifetime.
> 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 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.
- varjag 3y agoI doubt achieving the same with SpaceX, especially given the amount of prep that went into this launch is somehow impossible. Perhaps has more to do that the launch vehicle was chosen before Falcon 9 has made its maiden flight.
- lgl 3y agoThis is the correct sentiment and although I absolutely love what SpaceX has acheived, whenever there is some news about a new (or old) rocket here on hn, here comes a bunch of folks stating that everybody should just stop everything they're doing and just hire SpaceX for everything forever. Very cultish imo.