Modern Spacecraft Engineering: How Europe Is Trying To Catch Up | Ariane 6 | FD Engineering
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 апр 2023
- Modern Spacecraft Engineering: How Europe Is Trying To Catch Up | Ariane 6 | Aerospace Engineering | Space Race | FD Engineering
Aerospace Manufacturing - The Most Powerful Machines in the World: • Aerospace Manufacturin...
A new generation of launch vehicles, Ariane 6, comes into use for making easier, more competitive and frequent launches of spacecrafts. This is the greatest technological challenge for an international team of European engineers in a race against a new generation of competitors - private companies, not only countries - within the framework of a space program that started 50 years ago.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Subscribe Free Documentary - Engineering Channel for free: bit.ly/FDEngineering
Instagram: / free.documentary
Facebook: bit.ly/2QfRxbG
Twitter: bit.ly/2QlwRiI
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#FreeDocumentary #Documentary #spacecraft
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
“Engineering: the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building and use of engines, machines and structures.” So says the Webster definition. Our newest Free Documentary family member Free Documentary - Engineering is all about engineering - and bringing our community the best documentaries on engineering. 
Наука
To Arian 5’s credit, the team behind it and the hardware did such a good job launching the JWST that the mission’s life span grew by ten years ( from extra fuel ). Amazingly good job.
It's not about be competitive; The ESA want to have her own launcher vehicle to not depend on foreign enterprises, even north-americans ones: today, they are allied, tomorrow things may change.
@@phillipbanes5484 Because that country are in the north part of America, not in the entire continent; and, its space agency is the one of significance now but, as I said before, things may change...😁
@@joseeduardobolisfortesNorth America and South America are separate continents.
@@alphafox3515 I agree with you, my comment was for some people that insist in say "America", as if it was a single thing and that single thing was only one country.
@@joseeduardobolisfortes it is a single thing. No-one from north or South America would say they’re from America. They’d say their own country. Would a German say they’re from Europe instead of Germany?
Agreed, unfortunately their slice of the space market will keep shrinking if they can't keep up with innovation.
so basically everybody is reacting to SpaceX, and trying to catch up. Nobody will survive by doing this, you have to be proactive and be designing the rocket that will come after Starship, not trying to catch Falcon 9
Seriously, you’ve figured out what Europe, China, and other commercial entities haven’t. Not sarcasm, I work in the industry and the people leading us are 🤡
Totally correct!
Exactly
Wishing Ariane all the best. Would love to see an international company (non-ITAR) to succeed! Hopefully they can eventually match the level of reliability (100% reliability on the block 5, >99.5% on all F9 launches over 200+ launches) and the low cost.
If Ariane can't compete with SpaceX and especially its Starship. Europe will be pushed out of space business again. But this time it will be up to private firms in Europe to get back in. As European governments will abandons Ariane aspect of ESA, since it will be seen as pointless.
Nothing points to the Ariane 6 being able to have a similar cost per kg as Falcon 9, let alone Starship. It's a big, inefficient government project that has already cost the EU 5B Euro.
By the time Ariane 6 starts flying, starship and its raptor engines will be dominant and Ariane will not be able to compete. Sad but true.
I wish them the best too - but sadly Ariane6 is little more than an expensive upgrade to Ariane5. ESA was too scared to fail... so they played it safe - and failed.
Indian science engineers team were in collab with French in making of Viking engines
Arre Bhai vikas engine European Viking engine ka ek derivative hain hum ne European se madad liya na hum unko mada ki 😂
Great doc, it’s good for every nation that ESA’s serious about their space program. It creates a large number of jobs requiring strong aerospace and rocket engine engineering and manufacturing skills. Europe needs their space program, lest they lose that engineering expertise similar to how Britain forfeited their own space launch and aerospace industries.
For competition’s sake, having as many heavy lift rocket companies, the better for every country with space programs. This is a great example of Europe unifying to accomplish an otherwise too expensive endeavor.
This is so funny, they claim their engines are better than the RS 25, which is a multi use hydrogen, oxygen system, the only one.. their's is a single use... totally delusional 🤣
4:11 interesting that they dedicate so much time saying how ariane 5 has become the worlds most reliable rocket, because in the time between this video being made and then being published falcon 9 has snatched that title away from them. Either way ariane 5 has definitely been a huge success and hopefully they also can enter the reusable space soon as well.
I bet Atlas 5 holds the title of the most reliable rocket: 97 launches, all successful, so 100%. Of course this title can be shared with others at 100% like Saturn 5 etc
@@squidwardfromua Atlas 5 has had 100% but atlas has gone through many different versions going back to atlas 1. Comparing atlas 5 to every version of falcon 9 just because they didnt decide to change the name isnt fair. According to what Im seeing online the falcon 9 full thrust version has flown 208 missions with a success rate of 100%.
complacency kills innovation!
That precludes reusability, and even trying to understand why they are loosing prospective customers.
@@user-mm1nt1it5v By specifying Falcon 9 FT, you're doing the same thing. Earlier versions of Falcon 9 had failures, earlier versions of Atlas had failures. However, both Atlas V and Falcon 9 FT have a perfect record.
Saturn I, IB, and V also had perfect records (no malfunctions in any Saturn series caused a mission to fail), however, they had far fewer total launches than Atlas V and Falcon 9 FT.
@@JohnWilliamNowak No I’m not I was saying the exact same thing as you.
It takes ten years to deliver a new launcher, which I remind you is the actual development time for both Falcon 9 and Starship, then you are going to fail if you do not design for the requirements of ten years ahead. Arianspace and ULA are only thinking two or three years ahead, so their vehicles are already obsolete before the first test flight. This is at least better than RosKosmos which is still using the R7 that first delivered a payload to orbit in 1957! The SpaceX Starship is undergoing some obvious teething pains, but we must also acknowledge that there is not a single space application at the moment, 2023, that actually requires the capacity of Starship. Nobody is currently considering launching 150 ton payloads to space with a 9 metre fairing.
Reusability itself is not absolutely essential. SpaceX would still be profitable at its current launch rate if Falcon 9 was not reusable because SpaceX focused relentlessly on reducing manufacturing cost, just as their sister company Tesla did with EVs. Tesla makes over 50% profit on every car it sells which means that it is pointless for any of its competitors to try cutting prices to increase sales. SpaceX makes over 60% profit on every reused launcher and would still make a 30% profit without reuse. The big advantage of reusability is reduction of the number of separate assembly lines. SpaceX does not need to build 100 brand new Falcon 9s in 2023 in order to deliver 100 launches, whereas Arianspace, RosKosmos, ISRO, JAXA, and even CNSA must build a new launcher every time.
A specific real-world example right now is that the cosmonauts on the ISS who were delivered on Soyuz MS-22 were left stranded when a coolant leak required returning the capsule to Earth without them. Soyuz MS-23 is now on station, but these cosmonauts must wait for six months before they can board the Soyuz to return to Earth because the Soyuz, unlike Crew Dragon or Starliner or Dreamchaser (which will join the rotation in 2024), is not reusable. The cosmonauts (and one astronaut) must wait until Soyuz MS-24 delivers their relief. But RosKosmos can only build two Soyuz capsules a year and MS-24 is still being constructed and will not arrive until late 2023. By contrast SpaceX can send a Crew Dragon to the ISS on as little as 3 weeks notice because both the Crew Dragon and the booster can be reused. The biggest delay for SpaceX would be having to move whatever launch they are displacing off-site.
so amazing what these guys and gals accomplished back in the days with slide rulers
Great inspiring documentary , Good Luck Europe and ESA , all the best. From India.
India's Chandrayaan-2 was designed and developed by NASA. The Indians only assembled Chandrayaan-2 and launched it into space. NASA took over monitoring and control of Chandrayaan-2 after launch. It took India many years to properly assemble Chandrayaan-2, which was designed and developed by the United States. The Americans have been using the Indians to test their lunar landing gear. By the way, India's Mars rover is also designed, developed, monitored and controlled by NASA. China has built its own space station. What can Indians do now? The Americans have plans to build their own space station soon. Americans may not be able to build a space station for India.
@@wildfire8126 Chal be Paki bheek maang
God bless you sir keep it coming 🙏 India will soar sky high with ISRO 🇮🇳🇮🇳
@@wildfire8126 least delusional westoid
@@wildfire8126 India has its own plan for space station by 2030...its not a big deal for India anymore man..Chandrayaan 2 was designed and developed INSIDE India...dont spread falsehood and rumours
Supposed to fly in 2020 and now looking more like 2024 or beyond.
Amazing documentary about the European Space Program.
At this pace Ariane will start to build something to compete with starship in 2050, while struggling to comprehend the cosmic horror the guys over SpaceX is trying to build.
SpaceX can’t do anything lol
@@ryanhasmanners9997 what
Well Space is has just started a new version of the N1 with similar result.
great video
very interesting thanks
Love the legendary Ariane rockets! The Mars missions, the James Webb telescope - the list can be made long on important missions that made history carried by the Ariane.
Ariane was the leading space rocket of the 1990’s and 2000’s. Only in the last few years have they been passed by the amazing Space X.
It’s sad to see so much tribalism in the comments however. I will never understand that type of negativity. Ariane was fantastic in its time. Now someone else have passed them, just as Ariane once passed American space technology. That’s the way of the world. Somewhere down the line someone will pass Space X, but you know, that does nothing to lessen todays accomplishments of Space X, just as Space X does nothing to lessen the accomplishments of Ariane. I suppose it’s a lot young people that haven’t understood the nature of progress. Something better always comes, and that’s a great thing, but it doesn’t mean one should disrespect the innovations of the past.
@@phillipbanes5484 Since the introduction of the space shuttle and its first incidents Arianne 4 and then Arianne 5 has been way ahead of US launched in terms of bringing cargo into space, simply because it was way, way cheaper and far more reliable than what the US where capable of doing, even compared to the Altas.
In 2014, when the space shuttle was finally decommissioned, only the ESA had any reliable heavy cargo capabilities, and Russia for space missions. US only recently catches up and took the lead with the falcon nine bringing back both price, and reliability as well as more recently crewed missions to spacew
And it took 400,000 humans from all area's of the world to make it a success
Spot on.
@@phillipbanes5484calm down murican kid.
Price and reliability are the most important things whith space travel. The ISS or hubble are just details compared to the majority of the satellites. And both could have been done with conventionnal rockets, just like we do since the end of the shuttle and like the Chinese are doing with their stations. Having an overpriced gadget build for political purpose and who killed 14 astronauts bacause of pure stupidity and negligence is not something to be proud of.
Ariane managed to create the most efficient rocket of its time, to the point NASA itself choosed an Ariane 5 rocket to launch James Webb, their most costly and important project since years.
The USA never does things right, they do it costly and hope throwing billions at a project will make it work. Sometime it does, most if the time it don't. No US rocket could compete with the ariane 5 in its category before the falcon 9.
Price is important in the commercial launch business, but almost as important is availability and scheduling flexibility. Having a couple of warehouses full of used boosters and fairings and the second stages quick to build, you don't have to schedule your particular launch vehicle years in advance. When Starlink competitor OneWeb got russia-ed in Feb 22 they went to SpaceX for 4 launches and they said, "Yeah, whatever, no big deal."
Was this docu funded by Arianespace?
The English language narrator sounds like she's talking to school children.
Thats how we french peoples are being talked down to, 😓 and thats from as far as i can remember.
I agree this is heavily biased in favor of Arianespace, but I only noticed one line that could be considered deceptive: invoking American "pride" when the US declined to launch European communications satellites. Presumably, the US committed to launching European military and scientific payloads.
Why should the US taxpayer pay to launch European commercial payloads designed to compete with US commercial payloads?
This is, however, an excellent example of why Europe needed and needs an indiginous launch capability.
Well, for SpaceX launching a F9 and FH is just a routine and nominal activity.
But launch costs and turnaround times got nowhere near predictions
@@MyKharli the problem with Europe is the constant focus on Spacex. When Bezos finally gets New Glenn on the launch pad with competition from Relatively space as well, this means multiple VTVL products on the market engage in a price war Europe can’t compete with.
This is the calm before the Ariane 6 storm.
@@MyKharli yet. and they are still many many times better actually infinty times better than any other rocket.
In 2023 as of April SpaceX has launched 28 Falcon 9's, One Falcon Heavy, and the most powerful rocket ever built has begun its final iteration phases, they'll have it purring like a kitten in no time. You just cannot beat that turnaround time with the old expendable rocket model. Even if you expend the Falcon heavy to push a lot of mass to geostationary orbit. Reusability is the future and if you're not working towards it, your behind, even the Chinese understand this.
Europe is working on reusability. It will just be Ariane 7, not Ariane 6. EU is working in parallel. Ariane 6 is being brought to service to lower costs compared to Ariane 5. At the same time development work on re-usability demonstrators are going on. However Ariane 6 can't just be abandoned, since sovereign access to space must be guaranteed at all times. If Ariane 6 would be dropped, it would lead to decade without space access. That is unacceptable to governments. They will just pay the bills at higher level until in say early 2030's re-usable European launcher is available. Focus is now on getting Ariane 6 running, since it *must* be running for geopolitical reasons.
Since governments work on longer term. SpaceX will have decade of advantage, but it still same competitive race again in 2030's once everyone else catches up. Can't cheat physics. They don't have magic physics, that others couldn't replicate or develop countering offerings.
Europe had in 1980's, 1990's and early 2000's their happy years with Ariane. Now SpaceX will have their happy years for sometime until others catch up.
Satellites don't last forever, constellations need to be replenished. Meaning you are only as good as your few last launches. Meaning as the documentary said, the race newer ends. You newer "win" since there is no finish line. You just might hold the lead at the moment. Maybe you lead for long time, maybe for short time. Still doesn't mean one is crowned forever winner.
"and the most powerful rocket ever built has begun its final iteration phases"
LOL, nice euphemism for "it only blew up after 4 minutes and not immediately"
I am not sure reusable rockets are inherently cheaper. Starting more rockets is what makes it cheaper.
ESA with Ariane was good 25 years number 1 in satellite launching. how many people blamed NASA or any other space organisation how bad that they are? the mistake was when NASA changed there concept with the privatization to optimize the rocket development that ESA didn't optimized there process. the current development at ESA looks solid and the subprojects can change things but not today.
@@RobertLutece909 "How could reusing rockets not be cheaper?"
1. The components need to be much sturdier and are, therefore, more expensive and heavy.
2. Before restarting a rocket you usually need to check all components and at least partly disassemble the setup. This costs probably 30%-70% of a single use rocket.
3. The system needed to landing the parts will add weight to the rocket reducing the payload. A 5-10% increase in the weight of the first stage reduces the weight of the second stage by about 50%.
4. Adding 5%-10% of weight to the second stage for recovery reduces payload by a factor of 2.
5. This means reusability may reduce payload by a factor of 4 if cost is not reduced by a factor of 4 the cost per kg into orbit will be higher.
"Do you think your flight tickets might be cheaper if they threw away the airplane after you landed?"
Rockets are not airplanes.
As an American I've never seen a docu like this like I've seen them about all our top rockets but never a real in depth docu like this from another country. This is awesome.
FD please do one of these on SpaceX pleaseeeee
When u dont have competition, u dont innovate. Thats why u guys were left behind from Falcon engines for SpaceX.
It's also partly because of the bureaucracy of the EU. SpaceX doesn't have to deal with politicians from 2 dozen + countries putting their opinions in, and, unlike SpaceX, any time an ESA program has a problem 50% of the EU call for blood and the other 50% demand a stop of all development until a detailed investigation is performed.
Historically, the EU is also behind the hardball because 90% of current USA and Soviet knowledge is thanks to their production of ICBMs so that they could kill everyone on earth 100 times over. The EU didn't go through that.
I have to laugh, NASA main goal was never being to be profitable...and is still there NO????....and you don't understand Space industry is part of National Defense ...In US,China, Russia and elsewhere...and of course in Europe....they don't need to be totally succesful, like DoD in US, just launch rockets.and Ariane has been good at that ...don't remember?? James webb, Juice, etc and with a consistent success... and at the end you want to point a winner, wait 10 years....Ford was the number 1 car company...today is not even among the first 5, Panagra was the airline winner in the 1930s and today it doesn't even exist ...don't point a winner or losers yet
Tho SpaceX is really surviving as a company because of NASA since it’s kind of their main customer and one of the agency that funds them.
What competition does SpaceX have it's just seeping off of NASA contracts. It's chance that SpaceX was the one to actually have the money to innovate and reach that point and the richest man being it's benefactor
Falcon can't Go deep space
Fun fact "Whole world is not only Europe and America" ... 🤣🤣
@@phillipbanes5484both are continents ?
Someone give this man a trophy, he looked at a globe!
@@phillipbanes5484come on ! You gotta understand the meaning..what he is saying is north America continent and Europe....
AMAZING 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
Good documentary.. Too bad for ESA A6 is nowhere near as cheap as F9. And once Starship is flying, A6 will be quickly forgotten.
> A6 will be quickly forgotten
Well Ariane 6 probably will be pretty quickly forgotten since at least my hunch is it will be in pretty quick succession followed by re-usable Ariane 7. Nothing spurs innovation like necessity and it will be geopolitical necessity for Europe to develop reusable launcher. It just will not be Ariane 6. Ariane 6 is what is in pipeline, so it will be completed. After all it might not be as cheap as F9, but it is heck of a lot cheaper than Ariane 5 and thus will lead to concrete savings for Europe. As soon as Ariane 6 is running, it just won't be the two decade development hiatus like after Ariane 5. As soon as Ariane 6 is up in production running, teams will be tasked immediately to start develop Ariane 7. Geopolitic necessities demand that.
Governments and companies will continue to pay a premium for Ariane's reliability. I'm not sure why you guys think everything is about cost, do you not see examples of this with ground transport industries? It's like any cargo service, you have low cost and then you have more expensive options that you'd rather go with if you launch a billion dollar deep space probe like JUICE. As venturing into space becomes more and more common, there will be a lucrative market for BOTH spaceX and Ariance. Ariane's cryogenic engines are probably the best, most efficient and hardest to engineer rocket engines in the world and they only output water vapor as well, and being concerned about sustainability that's one thing which is pretty amazing they achieve
@@diverman1023 except A6 is a brand new vehicle with zero track record vs F9 which has a really damn good one.
I think it's important to look at capabilities. The A6 has other capabilities than the F9 and Heavy.
@@diverman1023 The fact Ariane 6 is expendable makes it unsustainable. The future of launch vehicles is reusability, even NASA was aware of this 50 years ago when they were developing the Space Shuttle. Also, Falcon 9 probably has the best record of any rocket to date, if not one of the best. Just because a rocket is reusable does not make it unreliable. Though what Ariane is doing is impressive, I fear they are setting themselves up for failure still developing expendable rockets. When the space shuttle came out, there was still a market for expendable rockets however, times are changing and that market is going to quickly diminish.
We need to scale up the European industrial complex in space-related matters. Europe has an excellent car industry. Why don't we use it to scale faster?
Go Ariane 6!,
hearing a british accent in space would tear the space time continuum
I COULD NOT HELP BUT NOTICE STARSHIP WAS EXCLUDED BUT I WISH ESA ALL THE BEST OF LUCK
this is rather old documentary.. watched this few years ago
i was thinking blast chamber=oxidizer and fuel injectors =secondary fuel tank=main fuel source. for a disposable rocket.. so the main tanks pumps fuel into the secondary tanks . the secondary tanks pump fuel into the oxidizer and injectors that explodes into the blast chamber. maybe i can send my own satellite
The US has Ariana, we have Ariane!
That's great
कोलांबिया के दुर्घणा से सभी को बहुत दुख हुआ था उनमे सवर सभी यात्री को अपनी जान से हाथ धोना पाडा । धन्यवाद ।
I just admire the confidence of Musk!!!
That gentleman was created to achieve...
Yes but he burns rockets ...trial and error process...fortunately he has a lot of money, part from his buisness and part from NASA ( I mean taxpayers money) ....to burn money
And I thought confidence man stood for something else. Well, I guess most people measure success in money, so you are probably correct -- until he goes the way of Holmes.
@@javierderivero9299 Cannot be more wrong. He was almost broke before he succeeded. He is not dependent on NASA but nasa is dependent on spacex.
@@Delhi_Guy Where do you live???..NASA has funded Musk since day 1...today thanks to Tesla and the success with SpaceX he is billionaire//and he is smart nobody can deny that...but he has to thanks NASA they funded SpaceX....you don't seem to undestand ...NASA is part of the American government...you are NOT going to tell me that NASA depends from Musk...HAHAHA!!
@@javierderivero9299 That’s called R&D.
I wonder why the rockets arent just flown up like a jet flies (for the first portion of the trip that is in the earth's atmosphere), using lift like the jet that carried the space shuttle or the first jet plane test was carried up by a plane.
Any reason why the rocket has to go straight up?
Yes you have to spend the minimum amount of time fighting the atmosphere and straight up is the way at least for the thickest air. Getting into orbit is only possible when about 90% of the take off weight is fuel. The Falcon 9 carries a million pounds of fuel. Taking off of a runway is just not a thing for something that is 90% fuel. The new Starship rocket carries 5,000 tons of fuel. Just the fuel pumps requires 2,500,000 shaft horsepower. It's twice as powerful as the Saturn V and should fly in the next month or 2. These things are just too heavy to have wings.
I think what you mean is why they don't carry a smaller rocket on top of an airliner. Virgin orbit tried this and has gone bankrupt. The main reason behind this is that you don't only need to go up and reach space. The objective is to stay in space which essentially means reaching orbit. And reaching orbit requires immense speed. If i had magical powers and could spawn an object in space, it would fall back down to earth because it is just in space and not in orbit. The reason rockets have so much fuel and a second stage because they need to reach orbital speeds. Thats why you would see falcon 9 second stage keep firing without going up and it just keeps on firing. Reason is because it is trying to increase speed instead of altitude.
Sometimes during the Falcon 9 second stage burn it even comes back down a couple of kilometers as it adjusts it's trajectory which is cool. You did a much better job explaining the horizontal velocity part. I kind of skipped that part. :)@@Sneakoz
Speed and atmosphere dont go well together.
Comertial jets fly at 1.200km/h, concorde flew at 2.300km/h.
For LOW earth orbit you need 28.000km/h
Dont know imperial units but you see the ratios..
Its like, using a pedal bike to get a big bike up to speed.... Also, every part is a potential fail point, less is better.
For India - Lets make documentaries about poverty and slums.
For Europe - Oh, space power.
I don't think Arian 6 will be as cheap as Falcon heavy.
So they are almost late even before starting.
Exactly, wasting time and money.
@@surf2257 I think the Europeans still want it because it will make them feel less dependent on the Americans.
Yes maybe...but you have to know....space is part of National Defense...in the US, Russia, China, etc and of course Europe...Ariane 6 doesn't need to be a TOTAL success....or even economic success for the european community to support the program....I need to laugh how many NASA endeveaours have been an economic failure, but a technical a scientific success and NASA is still there and have added knowledge to the defense industry...recent examples SLS, Boeing...
@@momohnyaley7069 Too true. Even if the EU has to subsidize Ariane to make it cost competitive, they will.
For reusable Falcon Heavy, yes. However, the expendable Falcon Heavy costs almost similar to Ariane 5 but with increased payload capacity.
When you stop progressing, you lose the space race. Be humble and work hard to lead. Never look back. Greetings from Europe
If Ariane 6 lives up to every expectation and design point it will never compete one on one with Falcon 9.
They are buried in bureaucracy, and the associated cost and lack of innovation, a result of narrow mindedness and suppression of innovation by daring few lateral thinkers.
@@Arturo-lapaz It's a jobs program. The delay and high cost are the intended product.
Probably not. However, Europe needs the ability to launch its own payloads into space, in case a proposed payload, like the Galileo constellation, doesn't align with US policy.
NEEDS REUSABILITY
Indeed, it's already a fossil and it's not even flying yet.
44 minutes before the video finally starts addressing the very title: _"how EU is trying to catch up - Ariane 6"_ 🤦♀
And no mention of the massive schedule delays, what the costs and overruns are, when A6 is now supposed to fly, how competitive it'll be w others, the cost target per launch, etc. What in tarnation ?
This video should be titled "EU space history, and a glimpse into A6 plans" !
Wasted 1 hour of my life.
I agree. And the funny thing is, Ariane 6 is already outdated. Why would anyone develop and use rockets that are not reusable? It's a huge waste of resources and money.
@@m.3257 hopefully there’s some life left in European space. The removal of several officials who starred in this video is a great first step.
@@bennie1138000you guys are funny making fun of a documentary that is not up to date when it’s actually not up to date because it’s several years old.
Quite funny
Tldr so would it be reusable?
Nope, not one bit.
yes but only partially: the boosters are meant to be replaced by reusable ones at some point (that is ESA's official roadmap).
Space X innovative reusable launch vehicles and boosters are revolutionary game changers. Silicon Valley mantra: "You've got to keep running or other people will pass you." Ariane's problems are similar to those encounter by United Launch Alliance (ULA)--aka, Boeing and friends -former space global leaders who provided contracted services and products for NASA over the years. Like NASA and ESA, ULA takes very slow, conservative approaches to space--averse to risks. In contrast, Elon and Space X take the "moves fast and breaks things" Silicon Valley paradigm, quickly churning out one rocket after another and, like the Starship explosion a week ago that many Space X employees and space experts puzzlingly rejoice, pushed the space envelope toward ever dizzying height and improved reliability and safety with each new iterations of Falcon 9s and Starship iterations. In the past, each explosion take at least a year or more for NASA or ESA/Ariane to recover after recriminations and fingers-pointing from government officials and business executives. After just 10 years and having ironed out all the kinks, Falcon 9 launches--sometime two at the same time--have become routine and hardly newsworthy (boring). It's no coincidence that Space X originates from Silicon Valley. The decision to pivot to private enterprises for space exploration was a historical decision that opens the gate for rapid space innovations. In addition to Space X and ULA, there are also Blue Origin (Amazon space pizza delivery), Sierra Nevada (mini space shuttle!), Astra Space, Virgin Galactic and the other traditional defense and aerospace contractors like Lockheed and Raytheon. For a child of ULA whose parents and siblings are American aerospace contractors and engineers, it's an exciting time!
I'm puzzled that you found the cheering during the first Starship launch puzzling. It lost control and they blew it up... they cheered. Why? Because, like even you point out, the test was a sucess. They learned a great deal. So ofcourse they cheered.
looking forward to Ariane 6
thumbs up for not forcing or shoehorning china in this,
just for effects, like others would've done.
that's getting really annoying.
I only scanned this video. Unfortunately there's seems to be no news here about actual Ariane rocket development which could be capable of competing with the current SpaceX rockets or even with rockets which ULA may or may not be about to launch in the near future. The EU really needs to invest more in aerospace if we are to keep up with the US and Asia. Even Russia which is losing a war (of its own making) with Ukraine seems to be ahead of the EU in space tech!
EU is ahead of them. Ariane 6 could launch this year.
EU got 2 major space missions (outside earth) that are on-going: Bepicolombo, JUICE.
Russia has 0. Russia is planning to launch luna 25 in july. Once a year they will launch a mission to the moon.
It seems like russia cant go beyond earth-moon as of 1990's. Maybe they could with phobos-grunt but it failed in orbit.
Anyways i believe that europe is simply more advanced in space tech than russia at this point.
@@polishkerbal6920 lol space is more than how far you can go
eu has a faster development rate than russia but still they are way behind russia
and eu cant even compare to other big asian names like japan china india and comparing it with russia? russia sure is slow right now but that is just in rocket launches, russia still has better tech than eu
@@aryanaman7 honestly i forgot about their iss resupply program, so sorry.
Id still consider ESA more advanced than current russia. Sure, we dont have any crewed vechicles, but we have better and cheaper rockets (soyuz is still better than ariane for LEO).
ESA is more expanded into outer space, india and russia are more known for earth explored and stuff.
Japan is the king at minimalism, i cant judge this.
China is pretty much copying everything like it is in their nature (i mean its not nice but it works.
If we were to rank these agencies then esa would be the best in probes, japan in cost, russia in crew launches and china in having fast progress (copying always works)
Yeah they very carefully left out the biggest competitor in the world lmao. Europeans are funny.
Unless Ariane can make a starship payload class rocket that can launch, land and refuel… stick a fork in them, they’re probably done. But if they do, well iron sharpens iron.
there is no market for starship-sized rockets unless you have a gigantic government purse behind it to justify it.... like DoD or NASA.
Esa will crush both SpaceX & Roscosmos, and Chinese, India and Japanese space program.
E. S. A.! E. S. A.! E. S. A.!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
In your dreams, first reach to mars
😂lmao you western whytes are so delusional. 😂FROM INDIA
ESA now is listed as 2nd tier of all the space agencies.
Ariane 6 being expendable will mean its already obsolete and DOA. There is no competition unless the rocket is reusable
"failed first flight can mean the collapse of the whole program"
Only if there is nothing learned from the failure and no changes/ upgrades are made.
And, well... If nothing never broke/ everything was possible to predict, there would be no need for test flights.
Starship development has eclipsed everything else in the US space world. Why wasn't it mentioned in this otherwise excellent video?
European anti American biase
@@batmansummer9236 bla bla bla!
@@batmansummer9236because that documentary is probably older than SpaceX starship development. I remember seing it a few years ago on TV
Cus Europeans ignore reality.
Europe doesn't want their new rocket to look like a dinosaur fossil when compared to falcon or starship 🤣🤣🤣
Pas de sous-titres en français ou dans d’autres langues européennes ? Vraiment dommage.
Si il y en a . Il faut régler.
Why do people keep saying SLS will have anything to do with Mars? lol
I havent heard of any missions for SLS except to take astronauts to Lunar orbit so they can be taken down to the surface by a separate launchers vehicle.
This has a good chance of being cancelled once that same landing vehicle is trusted enough to just let the people come along for the launch in the first place saving billions per trip and there being no reason for SLS at all.
Im just glad that didnt happen before she flew because what an incredible rocket even if its a massive waist.
Sebanyak mungkin satelit Jarkasi also tahun 2023 satelit penyiaran televisi satelit tahun 2023
I wonder how much longer SpaceX will remain in business...
Yeah it was very Swift. Like the software that disappear from my house. It was a European but I already had that taken care of.
The Web telescope was launched with an ESA rocket. Where is Europe trying to catch up ?
if europe want to catch up to the US, they need to do alot more. the US spends about 43 billion dollars on their space industry...europe only spend a combine of ~ 8 billion dollars. plus the US have 5582 space-focus companies, the next biggest is the UK and they only have 615 space-focus companies. in 2021 company regional distribution the US have 52.1% the next biggest one is the UK at only 5.7%, germany at 3.8%, china at 2.7%, india at 3.4%. so they US holds the most. so if europe wish to catch up. they better push nearly a trillion of dollars into their space sector, and have more start-ups.
@Phillip Banes thats why i put european countries with their own % and budget on their, and europe also work together as its called the EU and they have their own space agency called ESA...they work together too as they also make their own. learn how to read. duh
@Phillip Banes wow you don't even know what the EU is, and why they have ESA. Ok if you know that little, please stop talking go do some research and than come back smh.
@Phillip Banes do you even know what you are talking about? I feel like you don't even know what you are talking about, so now you're just making stuff up. Have you ever heard of the UK competing against France? Or France competing against Germany? No! You always hear about Europe competing against the US. While provided evidence and stats...while you have shown nothing but complain, ESA, European space agency. No one ever heard Germany vs. the US. You never heard France vs. the US?. Answer me that, have you ever heard of France vs the US? No! You only hear esa vs the US.
I think it's interesting that NASA chose the Ariane to launch the JWST. It must still be considered the most reliable launch vehicle available.
ESA gave them the launch vehicle for free, that's why.
@@muzero2642 I don't think that's the reason. The JWST was twelve billion worth of kit wasn't it. Must be the most expensive item ever launched into space.
It was a joint agreement between NASA and ESA. JWST was specifically designed for the A5, and at the time when JWST was under development, the A5 was the only rocket capable of carrying that amount of weight, reliably.
It's funny that the A5 did such a good job, it saved a lot of fuel for JWST, basically expanding its operational life.
@@carl8790 Oh yes of course. It was all done a decade in advance.
Ariane 5 was considered the best choice at the time the decision was made, which was some time ago. It wasn't a bad decision, but shouldn't be taken as vindicating Ariane 5 against launch vehicles which did not exist when it was decided.
It should have been good to launch and deliver to orbit satellites. But what is ESA if they will not launch a manned rocket?? Spacex is better, for delivering manned missions to the ISS. Come on ESA. Will you up the ante and send a man with the Aryan rocket??!!
Esa is in the first place a scientific organization with a scientific program wich is going perfectly fine.
Its quite irony to c that once the European were the father of rockets. Now all they try to do is catching up 😀😀
Too much incomeptence at ESA. It's a badly run government agency that produces very little except a few nice pictures every now and then. Ariane 6 is already outdated.
Ouch, Ariane 6 will get 384 million a year in subsidies now. That's 38.4 million per launch if 10 rockets a year is achieved. Ariane 6 is like the Vulcan centaur, outdated before released. Starship will outdate the falcon 9/heavy which already outdated the Ariane 5 and 6. Sad days ahead of Ariane 6.
Europes main problem is bureaucracy and a lot of litigation hence the slow pace
ESA is too late and will never be as nimble as SpaceX or have as much funding as NASA
Esa is a scientific organization. Space X does not do science. Space exploration is more then shiny rockets
Rofl. How eu is killing the competition. No expoding test rockets here.
I'm sure that if an ESA engineer had proposed to his hierarchy to make a reusable rocket that returns to its launch pad on its own,they would have rejected his proposal directly because it was too extraordinary and too risky.
There are too many intermediate levels to make a decision.ESA is a bureaucratic organization unlike SpaceX where Elon Musk can decide quickly and on his own
they would have told him "are you trying to make us cut jobs? we only launch 2 or 3 times a year. If we reuse, we would not need those people making expendable rockets"
It’s already in the plans to have the Arianne 7 reusable rocket.
Arianne 6 is simply here to keep ESA and European in the market.
The ANNUAL Esa & NASA budgets each dwarf the total SpaceX expenditures for Falcon & Starship development. This is free enterprise innovation, efficiency, spirit vs Government bloat, waste, sloth, pork, incompetence.
A country that acts ignorant about it being the best approach to anything in that certain area of ability, while most certainly become the arrogant ignoramus of the group! I am a wonderful patriotic USA American and I know this! As long and as Americans continue to contribute in advancement of the same thinking the American government and people, if otherwise it will sadly and rightfully so become an afterthought! Historically, history repeats itself everytime humanity has been alive! Let us not revist this thinking over and over! Use it to come together!
With two SRBS and a single liquid propellant engine, it's relatively a simple rocket
Its just sad. Event the Ariane 6 is no match for Falcon 9. And When the Ariane 6 starts flying the Starship will become operational and no other vehicle will make sense. Only exception being the Stoke Space vehicle...
Amazing documentary about an overregulated and inefficient agency that fits into a museum but not into modern spacecraft engineering. Reusability is key. When SpaceX manages it, why is ESA so lazy and incompetent?
The esa is in the first place a scientific organization that has launched, is launching and has in operation many scientific probes. Besides that they have their own rockets to be independent from other entities for launches. But the accent has always been on the science.
We still wait the "new falcon9 with lower price"
who is 'we'? why lower your price when you are already the cheapest on the market and all your schedule are fully booked?
@@pindot787 we=the market and others. listen musk at 43:20 in this video. Shotwell talking years ago about launch rates like planes. Why? because the lower prices were supposed to make the market bigger, to bring more clients.
Musk and shotwell never said the price would be 3 millionw only if others get lower price too.
They did not lower the price but they even get it higher recently because of inflation. Proving they cant get lower price at all.
Their schedule is not fully booked. With all their falcon9 they should be able to launch much more.
But instead they still produce several new falcon9s....
It also prove their model do not work.
@@sebpatu Those 3 millions if for Starship, which isnt available yet, today falcon 9 are the chapest rocket laucher per kgs .
They get the price higher because every launcher also increase their price, so why wouldnt they? more profit that can be used into Starship.
Space X schedule is pretty much fully booked till May 2024 with Turksat-6A.
They must produce new falcon because today, falcon can 'only' be reused up to 15 times (they had 2 booster who already fly this much), also some government lanuch require them into deep space that used all the fuel, thus making the booster unrecoverable. or NASA manadting space X always using new booster to send their Astronaut to ISS.
@@pindot787 no no the 3 millions were announced several years ago by shotwell for falcon9. Musk talked about next versio with lower price years ago too.
There are 20 falcon9 alreday ready to fly.
Only 2 flight 15 times.
And they were supposed to fly more no? Anyway it gives theorically 18 possible flights almost each month (high refurbish time?)
But they schedules max 40 a year today are very specific years where ariane5 is not available and 6 not yet either. They can have the full commercial market those years but as expected it is not enough for the fly rate they wanted to get prices lower. (And that is with all those starlink launches out of market)
The non reused falcons because of fuel needs are not that much: 1 in 2019 and 2020 2 in 2022 none in 2023 yet.
Interesting fact the 3 falcon in 2023/2022 not landes were also new rockets... strange to not destroy old ones first.
Why lower the prices anyway: already answered: because they told so. To make bigger market and access to space affordable and like planes flights. They never mentioned the competitors catch up for this to happen since years.
@@sebpatu Nope, Falcon was NEVER going to cost 3 millions. it is Starship, you might be misremembered.
Kemey ke selam do asmelash
Ariane is not first french rocket...(Diamant,Vega...)
Vega is ITALIAN !!!
Durrr….
How is SLS supposedly the biggest in history (already been launched btw) when Starship is already being built?
It depends on when this was recorded.
What's more, the SLS is already operational, while the Starship is still in development.
@@Tony-. And hasn’t blown up 🕺
You said being built...not operational...we still don't know when this will happen?
That’s a pretty old documentary actually, spaceship was not even in development when it came out
Reusable rockets make sense if and only if you can send a lot of rockets into orbit. SpaceX manages to keep its number of annual launches high with its own star link constellation. The problem is that Star Link did not break even. There is no certainty this business will work. On the other hand competition among low orbit launchers is so high that Space X will most likely lose market share. Ariane 6 on the other hand has a minimum of yearly launches guaranteed by European members (research and defense) It will also launch part of the Kuiper constellation, one web and Galileo. One of the lessons of this documentary is that space is a constant challenge, and those who are first can rapidly lose their lead. If I were a SpaceX fanboy I would be less arrogant. Things can change pretty quickly.
I wish Ariane 6 all the best, but you just dropped your Copium inhaler. *Handing you the said Copium inhaler*, here, take care.
Till 2011 EU and USA GDP was equal, then something broke and currently EU is 65% of the USA. Huge change in just a decade. And even when they were equals, in space ESA chose to be subcontractor of Nasa, only have their launch capability for own satellites, but has no capacity bring up humans or even an own space station. ESA will stay subservient to US policies, hard to imagine they can compete in any meaningful way. Will be embarrassing for ESA, when India or other nations will develop human rated systems earlier and bring up their own astronauts.
RITA YULIANA S.I.K M.M
And I've always pronounced it Ariane-space not Arian-espace hehehe
Not gonna happen. Ariane is dead!
Ariane 6 is still an expendable rocket... in what world, in what reality you think it can compete with reusable ones, like Falcon and future Starship?!
This is a complete waste of money and resources! Absolute incompetence in ESA all around!
Wow, really fumbled at the end there. Ariane 6 will not compete will falcon 9. It will compete with Starship which will be already a generation ahead. Ariane 6 is dead already. They took too long. Full and rapid resuabillity is the future
Fact. SpaceX is decades ahead of other companies. Without SpaceX, rocket launches would look boring af... And btw, I wouldn't be surprised if Ariane would bankrupt.
Ariane is state and EU financed. They can't go bankrupt the same way NASA can't go bankrupt. Even if Ariane 6 is not interesting enought for civilians, european militaries will never send their military satellites to the US to be send with american rockets. Plus some state owned entreprises or CEOs willing to deal with european governements will gladly pay a bit more to have their satellites sent by europeans. Ariane 6 will surely cost more than the concurrence, but it will still be a really good and likely very reliable rocket.
BTW, Space X is doing great right now, as the Chinese have been doing great lately and as the British Navy was doing great in the 1700's. In 10 year SpaceX can be completely bankrupt too, if the starchip end up a failure.
SpaceX rules
ESA should cut a deal with the USA and SpaceX to launch Falcon 9 from French Guiana!
It would improve the performance of the Falcon 9 and give Europe a reusable booster to launch their own upper stages and payloads with.
Win/win situation, SpaceX get a launch site with extra Delta-V and ESA gets much cheaper launches on reuseable launchers.
:)
Just like Ariane 6 this documentary is dead on arrival. EU all but admitted that Ariane 6 will not be able to compete with Space X and are questioning further financing of a futureless project.
I started laughing hysterically @1:40. The narrator asks "Who is going to win the space battle?". It's already been won Space X done spanked you before you even came to life. It's already over. Hilarious that they make it seem like anything else.
They gotta stop exploding all those rockets. Starship is the most retarded program i've ever witnessed. All that Space-X is doing nowadays (except for Falcon9) is to hurt, burn and divert funds from NASA (which could be almost 10 years ahead if the government gave them those funds). The current Space-X administration should be criminaly investigated for fraud and corruption because it is clear that all they're doing is to brainlessly burn money without any clear and/or objective purpose other than launch Starlink satellites.
Arian need a more conscious marketing and PR. I can buy all kind of dresses with NASA logo, but nothing on Arien side...
There are so many mistakes in this documentary. It doesn't even get the engine on Ariane 6 right.
This is so funny, they claim their engines are better than the RS 25, which is a multi use hydrogen, oxygen system, the only one.. their's is a single use... totally delusional 🤣
Europeans can't make re-usable rockets 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
They can and they will and every space faring nation will do it, maybe late but it will happen.
I'm sure in a few decades or centuries they will catch up.
Its time to upgrade the arian rocket to its final form... The ARYAN rocket
Europe's space port in a south american colony... wow...
Yes like Hawai is a US colony???
Well, technically a French department - whatever that means. It’s only 4deg N, making it an almost perfect launch site.
@@ronjon7942 Well Hawaii...a state of the US whatever that means
Mate, the whole US of A is a friggin’ colony.
Just like the US
Is it ironic that their rockets burn essential water. Hydrogen and oxygen in about the same proportion
The issue is hydrogen is notoriously hard to contain leading to a lot of safety issues and launch scrubs. It's also highly corrosive to metals meaning long term reusability is not guaranteed , something the engineers had to deal with the Space Shuttles RS-26 main engines. Hydrogen burning engines are particularly complex and expensive to manufacture compared to kerosine RP-LOX and methane Meth-LOX. SpaceX dismissed hydroLOX because then engines are particularly complicated with regards to extreme tolerances. Meth-LOX takes the half way point between manufacturing tolerances, and thrust qualities between RP-LOX and Hydro-Lox. Meth-LOX does produce CO2 but significantly less than RP-LOX. Meth-LOX yields 2% CO2 and 98% water vapor, a good compromise.
They burn hydrogen and oxygen to make water.
Colonial French Guiana to be precise
No longer a colony; it’s considered a French department, whatever that means.
oh Yeah like Hawai US colony
@@ronjon7942it’s a department the same way Hawaï is a state « whatever that means ».
ESA isn’t alone desperately chasing SpacEx after laughing them out of the room years ago….now they’re all facing twice the development costs and have half the time to do it.
Loads of nonsense history everyone knows, no real info on Ariane 6... :( Clickbait
🇷🇺🚀🌏💪👊✌️
You guys live in the past, this "documentary" is pathetic at least.
ULA will be the leader.. So you better get your ticket now...
Negative SpaceX will always be!
@@Tucker8087 You Short Bus Rider.. ULA builds the Rockets for Space X..
I would ask the Schools for a refund. Then punch my Teachers in the Stomach..They failed to educate you. Why America is 29th in Education to start with..
Six is a dead rocket before it’s first flight. I can think of at least 5 western rockets and 3 or 4 Chinese rockets that destroy 6’s mission. Europe will need to invest several billion Euros to come up with an answer - but be a decade behind once again. Once again proving the difficulty of government sponsored organizations competing in capitalist markets.
@@Tucker8087 Oh Please!!! there are over 100 airline companies...from 4-5 during the 1930s..in the future you will have the chance to choose where you buy your ticket ...like in today airline industry
A space program is the best response to the question: "How can you spend an incredibly large amount of money without any real benefits for mankind?"
@@RobertLutece909 You emphasize some of the benefits to cover-up all the billions spent on things with no real value.
@@RobertLutece909 You are talking about satellites and GPS like it's something new, that it's going to revolutionize the world. Those things are the practical, commercial side of specific space programs, private or government founded, which are not only beneficial to mankind but are essential to our modern way of living. I'm talking about $10 billion spent for a space telescope. Now, I agree that knowing if a planet that is 50 light years away from Earth has or has not an atmosphere is an interesting discovery for some people, but I don't agree we should pay 10 billion to find out.
@@cristiandemirel1918you could spend 147M$ to feed every Africans 1 meal or you could spend 147M$ to send a satellite that can cartograph the entire continent regularly to study and give hints on where and how to make efficient agriculture and feed the continent for decades.
You speak of the billions spent, but not the billions saved by space programs
@@vizender The children in Africa are just fine. It's you that I'm worried about.
GPS changed the world... Space research all ways pays dividends
In 2019, the United States launched an unmanned lunar lander to the moon on behalf of Israel. Even with 2019 science and technology, an unmanned US lunar lander crashed on the moon instead of landing on the moon properly. In 1969, computers were built using vacuum tubes, and they were the size of a medium-sized warehouse. Those vacuum tube based computers required very cold air conditioning to operate. There is no nano-semiconductor technology. This means there are no very small advanced computers on board the Apollo lunar landers. Without the support of advanced supercomputers, without the support of advanced satellite technology, without the support of advanced communication technology, without the support of advanced material science, and without the support of advanced remote control technology. How was America's Apollo manned lunar lander able to land on the moon and return a man to Earth in 1969? It is shameful to deceive the world by confusing the public and the public.
funny thing is the moon landing was done manually and not by computer. There's a reason tho that the moon landing are humanity's greatest achievement. it is still increadible what we did. and its going to be even more increidble when we reach the moon and mars again.
Looks like this guy forgot that lunar landers such as Surveyor, Luna/Lunokhod, and Chang'e/Yutu successfuly landed on the Moon, and more especially the Surveyor and Luna/Lunokhod ones since a lot of those were launched before Apollo 11. Yes, more that tried landing on the moon as planned failed to do so, but that (and also by explicitly mentioning Apollo 11) ain't a convincing argument on the validity of the moon landing.
The Israeli lander was an Israeli lander, not US. The US has not tried to land on the Moon since Apollo.