BREAKING! Ariane 6 Sufferers Anomaly - Press Conference
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- LIVE! Ariane 6 Anomaly Press Conference
#Ariane6 #ESA #Ariane6Launch
Ariane 6 has suffered an Anomaly in orbit, and is currently stuck in orbit.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
OUR MISSION: Our mission is to inform and inspire the explorers of tomorrow; because we believe that space is better together.
SUPPORT OUR WORK: Consider becoming a TLP Member on Patreon or TH-cam!
/ thelaunchpad
/ thelaunchpad
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
CONNECT WITH US:
Discord - / discord
Twitter - / tlpn_official
Shop - www.thelaunchp...
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
GIVEAWAY RULES:
No Purchase Necessary. Purchase/donation does not enhance chance of winning. Void where prohibited or restricted by law. Valid only during the live broadcast.
Yes there was a discussion of an anomaly with an/the APU (at about 25:00). Overall, the first flight of a brand new rocket went well.
There seems to be confusion about this, so to clarify: All the orbital payload was succesfully launched, so all satellites were succesfully launched. The failed payload was 2 re-entry capsules that would have ridden with the final stage down to Earth.
There were 17 total payload missions: 13 satellites, 2 satellite deployers, and 2 re-entry capsules. One of the deployers deployed 4 satellites, the second 2 satellites. This is why ESA divided the payload into 11 steps, 9 of which were about the satellites and their deployment. That is what they refer to when talking about "9 satellites". 15 out of 17 missions, 9 out of 11 steps, were succesful.
Again, all the satellites were launched succesfully. The lost payload refers to only the 2 re-entry capsules that were supposed to come back to Earth with the spacecraft.
Any idea what happens to the spacecraft now - Is it to be an uncontrolled re-entry or space junk. There is little to no information on the rest of the mission now - Theres a big elephant in space.
@@GHOOGLEMALE it will burn up in the atmosphere sometime in the late 2030s or early 2040s.
Sus title. 24:30 for the explanation. Basically, as part of the testing, they shut down and then restarted the APU on the upper stage. It shut down correctly, restarted, but then shut down again for unknown reasons. As a result, the vehicle was not able to relight the engine and put itself in a safing state so as to reduce further issues which could cause debris. As it was safed, it prevented it from releasing the two payloads.
....does that not describe an anomaly?
@@OmnoWombo The launch was conducted to validate the launch system.
Thank you for the timestamp and explanation. This stuff happens. There are countless pieces of debris orbiting the planet just from the early US launches of the Saturn 5 missions. It's good that the ESA ha built in safeties to avoid adding further trash in orbit, and/or uncontrolled de-orbiting of debris. To be sure, we need to start cleaning up the trash that we've left flying around in space for the last 70 years, and avoid adding more.
@@OmnoWombo This was a launch to test the ability to get into orbit. Everything else would be a bonus. That's just how spaceflight works.
@@SA12Stringhe said their were 9 satellites? are they lost?
With the altitude that means the second stage will take 15 to 25 years to deorbit.
as in uncontrolled land anywhere or would it def burn up - or no-one really knows for certain?
@@GHOOGLEMALE Almost certainly burn up, considering orbital speed and lower mass, esp. compared to a first stage booster
That's a bummer, however for a first launch not terrible.
Yikes...as much as they are trying to downplay this...its actually a big problem for their customer base. In fact...during the broadcast the commentators specifically mentioned that the main difference between Ariene 5 and 6 is the Vinci's engines ability to restart.
In fact this is one of the biggest niche selling points of Ariane 6 in the first place. The ability to use it to put multiple satellites in GEO or to put multiple satellites in different orbits. The multiple relights of the second stage is KEY for their number 1 selling point. Any satellite needing multiple burns to get to its operational orbit will indeed be looking at flying on an Ariene 6 as real suspect now until they actually prove they can do this reliably.
And ironically the very thing they used in this press conference to excuse and downplay the anomaly is the very thing that makes it a bigger deal that they failed to do this on this test flight. The fact that you cannot test this component on the ground, and you can only fully test this capability in the micro-g environment of space.
For instance...it has zero chance competing against falcon class rockets for GEO...but throw in 2 companies splitting the cost on a launch for 2 GEO SATs being launched on one flight...then they at least have a bigger shot at negotiating that contract. Except now...even that will be in question until Vinci is proven to be reliable for a full mission duration.
When is the upgraded solid booster gonna be ready? They are called P160C right
I guess the second stage will be a satellite-like object we can observe from earth, hopefully with the naked eye?
💫🙏 0:37
Essentially the 2nd stage de-orbit burn failed. This would not impact a typical payload's mission.
I wonder if they had internal arcing or something when messing with the APU in near vacuum.
I never understand why they not program an override command in such software for such problems where the software just is stupid, then they could have restarted ( not much can get wrong on such a mission when the rocket is in orbit)
Yes, we call it Control Alt Delete... 🤣
If they can't master ancient technology, they have no chance at developing modern reusable rockets.
Last heavy launch vehicle inaugural flight was 30 years ago? I think you are forgetting SpaceX's Falcon Heavy 6 years ago.
Falcon Heavy 6 years ago ? How long were you in coma ?
@@beachworkout6979 The Falcon Heavy test flight was the first attempt by SpaceX to launch a Falcon Heavy rocket on February 6, 2018, at 20:45 UTC. Wikipedia. 24-18 carry the one. Yup just over 6 years ago.
What happens to Ariane 6? Does it reurn to earth, or burn up?
SShhhhh - you would only know if it was chinese or indian
@@GHOOGLEMALE Thatcis the truth! If they say fail, no more funding!
Of course theyre going to talk this failure up otherwise no more money. Failure to complete mission by not launching 9 satellites is a failure. Now just space debris,
it appears that way
It seems that misinformation is spreading very fast in these comments. There were no "9 failed satellites".
All the satellites were launched succesfully. The re-entry capsules, which are not satellites and whose missions was to crash into Earth together with the final stage, were the ones that failed, because the final stage failed to de-orbit.
(There were actually 13 satellites, by "9 satellites" they mean 9 steps, because in steps 1 and 8, they deployed 4 and 2 satellites.)
@@ShieldAre I'm assuming you have a commercial interest
@@shankedit65 I am interested in what is true and correcting people making false statements. What is your interest in making broad declarations and accusations of "talking up failure" without bothering to check basic facts of your statement?
INCORRECT: ALL satellites were deployed correctly. Let me repeat, ALL satellites were deployed correctly. You are spreading disinformation-information with your FALSE statement. Only two re-entry modules, that were intended to return WITH the second stage failed to deploy. These have NOTHING to do with the satellite payloads. It’s OK if you want to DELETE your completely incorrect comment. Nobody will know.
Good ol Ariane. Projected 12 flights a year. Falcon 9 & Heavy have already done 69 flights by early July 2024.. I am not impressed by ESA. At best Ariane is a reliable semi-=freighter. They will never have the balls to put a human capsule on it. Oh. Right. SpaceX.
If it can’t deliver a payload to orbit, who cares?
weird its almost like they didn't want to admit that ...
All the orbital payloads were deployed correctly. The lost payload was two re-entry payloads that were supposed to come back down to Earth together with the last stage. Re-entry payloads are unusual, so in a typical situation with a typical payload like a satellite or probe, this would have been a success. However, part of ESA's plan for Ariane 6 is environmental friendliness, so it was important that they de-orbit the last stage to keep it from cluttering space, and they failed at that.
@@ShieldArewhat were the 9 satellites he mentioned?
@@websitemartian You can find the details on the payload on ESA's website, search "Flying first on Ariane 6" to find the article.
There were 13 satellites, 2 satellite deployers, and 2 re-entry capsules, for a total of 17 payload missions.
ESA divided the payload into 11 separate steps, 9 of which were the satellites and their deployers, and 2 of which were the re-entry payloads, so I assume by "9 satellites" they mean "9 steps".
The reason for dividing the process into steps is that one of the steps was a deployer with 4 satellites (so 5 missions in total) and another was a deployer with 2 satellites (3 missions). The rest were single satellites without deployers, and the 2 re-entry capsules.
15 out of the 17 missions, or 9 out of 11 steps, were succesful.
Indeed - get Elon to do it for a tenth the real cost. And without the stuff crashing back to earth
So, is the mission a fail overall or not? Have they lost the vehicle and main payloads - assume yes. Lots of right hand left shoulder stuff going on, but really?
The launch and primary payload deploy were successful, but restarting the APU failed on restart, this cascaded to software cancelling re-ignition of the DaVinci motor, and deployment of the secondary payloads. So they need to determine why the APU failed and possibly reevaluate their software choices. Overall good mission, but they downplayed the APU restart failure even though it cost the payload. They also stated they "passivated" the stage, which may mean they depressurized the tanks... leaving it unable to try again.
This launch was a win. They got their payload into orbit. Anything else they would be able to do was purely a bonus.
from what im hearing there were 9 satellites that weren't deployed ... so they are lost ... unfortunately ... you have to decifer the euro-speak
@@websitemartian No, all orbital payloads (satellites) were deployed correctly. The failure was the re-entry payloads that were supposed to come down to Earth with the spacecraft. These were Arianegroup's own test SpaceCase SC-X01, which was meant to test a structural heat shield, and The Exploration Company's Nyx Bikini, which was supposed to gather some ballistic re-entry data.
Overall a success, but they did lose the Nyx Bikini. It cost less than 2 million euros, which is a fairly small loss when considerng how expensive payloads usually are, so not a huge loss.
Fake title.
no?
He's good at that. Anything for a *click*
~25:20 an APU reignition failure. Also listen at ~ 33:20 events that did not happen due to that failure.
They edited the title to get more kicks. It wasn't called this when the stream first started.
The ESA official stream itself said there was an anomaly before the press-con.