
Ariane rocket suffers from rare launch anomaly - geertj
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42623297
======
jballanc
While not a _huge_ deal in that both satellites seem to have reached _an_
orbit (even if not exactly the desired orbit), it's worth noting that NASA
picked the Ariane 5 as the launch platform for the JWST at least partially
because of its extreme reliability. It would be a damn shame to lose an $8.8B
instrument in development for over 23 years due to a launcher malfunction.

~~~
51Cards
I've always felt that when building these incredibly valuable satellites one
should consider building 2. I know JWST is probably not a good example with
the work required to make the mirror but but in a lot of cases one could
probably replicate a rare satellite during production for much less than 2x
the cost. Then you have a flight backup, and alternatively you can later
double your science with another launch if everything goes smoothly on launch
one.

As said probably not a reality for JWST but these high risk launches always
concern me with no backup option. What a tragedy it would be.

~~~
kbutler
Satellite insurance is probably cheaper (though rates may rise?)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_insurance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_insurance)

[http://spacenews.com/space-insurers-warn-that-current-low-
ra...](http://spacenews.com/space-insurers-warn-that-current-low-rates-are-
not-sustainable/)

~~~
Someone
You can’t really insure a scientific career.

Let’s say you work on the design and implementation of a novel scientific
instrument for a satellite for over ten years. That’s a job that, relatively,
isn’t paid well, but if launched, the instrument will get you papers and
recognition.

If the rocket launching your toy blows up, all you can get from an insurance
is money, and that’s not something you value that much in life.

Some satellites also have fairly tight launch windows, for example if you want
to intercept a comet.

~~~
planteen
> Let’s say you work on the design and implementation of a novel scientific
> instrument for a satellite for over ten years. That’s a job that,
> relatively, isn’t paid well, but if launched, the instrument will get you
> papers and recognition.

That's true, but building two of everything causes other problems. For a
principal investigator (PI), they spend years drumming up support for a
concept then hope that it continues to get funded, built, launched, and
becomes operational. If we build 2 of everything, let's say it adds 2/3 to the
cost. That means less money for other missions overall. That would make many
scientists unhappy.

------
ufmace
You gotta appreciate the guys who have to solve issues like why this rocket's
second state lost communications. The actual hardware with the problem gets
dropped into the sea and lost forever. All they have to go on is whatever
telemetry they did receive from the second state, if they received any at all.
Good luck figuring out the root cause of that one. Maybe they have some pre-
flight test data or pictures taken of the hardware before launch they can look
at for anything funny?

~~~
maxxxxx
One advantage is that it's a relatively self contained system where you can
understand what each component does and under want conditions it operates.
Together with today's telemetry you have a lot of data to understand the
issue.

------
vermontdevil
Ironically SES-14 was originally slated for Falcon 9

[https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6wimhc/ses_switches...](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6wimhc/ses_switches_spacex_and_arianespace_launches_to/)

------
anovikov
After all, there doesn't appear to be much of an anomaly. Satellites are in
nominal or near nominal orbit.

~~~
Klathmon
Not quite, they are a ways off from a nominal orbit, and there is still
question if Yah-3 will be able to make it to it's correct orbit with fuel to
spare. (SES-14 has electric propulsion so it's not much of a worry for them
except for lost time).

At best, the Ariane 5 is causing these 2 sats a month of delays, and at worst
it could render one of them useless. Just because there weren't any explosions
or spectacular looking failures doesn't mean this isn't a big deal.

Edit: my apologies, it seems the article has been updated and Orbital ATK has
stated that they are confident that the sat will be able to reach the right
orbit. (it previously stated that Orbital ATK had not been able to say either
way yet).

Still, loss of comms and an incorrect orbit insertion could prove to be
disastrous for many payloads. With ArianeSpace's track record, I have no doubt
in my mind that many steps will be taken to prevent this exact failure from
ever happening again.

------
rsbartram
Try using recycled rockets like SpaceX. It seems to be working with a
reduction in cost. [https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-
bulgariasat-1-recycle...](https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-
bulgariasat-1-recycled-rocket/)

~~~
ceejayoz
Ariane currently has a better reliability record than SpaceX. Cost isn't
everything - saving $100M on a $10B satellite like the JWST (which will use an
Ariane) doesn't do you any good if the $10B evaporates in a launch failure.

~~~
cornholio
As of now, Ariane has 82 successful flights and a partial failure. If the
plans of SpaceX pan out, they will have about 60 successful flights by the end
of 2018, with no partial failures, so it becomes harder to compare. They could
even reach parity with Ariane by the time JWST launches.

JWST is a payload nobody wants to be responsible for blowing up, I don't think
SpaceX necessarily wants it on their roster. Even a 1% chance of failure could
be too much for what would be a public confidence disaster, likely to cut off
significant govt funding and hamper long term prospects.

~~~
ceejayoz
SpaceX has lost two payloads, CRS-7 and Amos-6. Ariane's record still looks
pretty good, even for SpaceX fans like myself.

~~~
owenversteeg
For those curious: CRS-7 was a resupply mission for the ISS, had a bunch of
miscellaneous cargo on it (a bunch of food, experiments, etc.) Nothing too
important as far as I can tell. 99% American/European/Japanese supplies. And a
single thing for the Russians: a wrench :)

Amos-6 was an Israeli communications satellite that would've provided
satellite internet over Europe and Africa.

~~~
Bjartr
So what you're saying is that the failed mission had a wrench thrown into it
by the Russians? :)

------
LunaSea
I'm a EU citizen but I'm not surprised by this at all.

The "country equality" policy implemented for contract attribution on the
Ariane 5 project by the EU is the culprit.

Once again prioritising feelings over efficiency or common sense.

~~~
Agathos
Is it also the "culprit" for the 82 consecutive problem-free launches?

~~~
LunaSea
Sorry, I got confused with Ariane 6.

~~~
ceejayoz
Ah, so the obvious "culprit" of this launch failure is... something you don't
like that hasn't happened yet? Who's prioritizing feelings over common sense,
again?

~~~
LunaSea
Yeah a rocket that is way, way over budget and late but hey looking at the
facts is difficult.

~~~
ceejayoz
You don't get to claim an Ariane 5 failed because of an Ariane _6_
contracting/funding provision and lecture someone on "looking at the facts".

Side note: there haven't been many rockets that weren't late and over budget.
It's hardly unique to the Ariane 6.

