Talk:Ariane 5: Difference between revisions
SamRushing (talk | contribs) |
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
||
(129 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
how much did the laucnhes cost? |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
{{User:GW Simulations/ICBM}} |
|||
|action1=GAN|action1date=28 July 2018|action1link=Talk:Ariane 5/GA1|action1result=not listed |
|||
These kind of computer bugs can be listed. I remember one from the [[Apollo 11]] programme, when [[Hewlett Packard|HP]]'s landing computer went off or something like that, so skilful [[Neil Armstrong]] had to land by hand. --[[User:XJamRastafire|XJamRastafire]] 21:32 Sep 18, 2002 (UTC) |
|||
|currentstatus=FGAN|topic=engtech |
|||
|otd1date=2010-06-04|otd1oldid=365996895 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Spaceflight|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Rocketry|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Europe|ESA=yes|ESA-importance=top|importance=mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archive box|auto=long}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|algo = old(90d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Ariane 5/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
== Payload figures and mass of launch adapters etc == |
|||
:From memory, that was not a computer bug. Armstrong and/or Aldrin had forgotten to turn off the docking radar when they had un-docked the lander from the command/service module. When they came down to land, the computer system was overloaded with the extra data and gave an error code. They were afraid they would have to abort the landing, but quick thinking computer geeks on the ground told them it was ok to ignore the error and proceed. See [[Real-time]]. [[User:Imroy|Imroy]] 08:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Most all the numbers in the payload mass column have no sources and looking at eg [[Ariane_flight_VA253|VA-253]] the three payloads don't seem to add up to the total in this article. The difference of 1297 kg seems too high for a SYLDA dual manifest cylinder (about 500 kg, 800 kg in the early days ?) Where do the figures in this article come from ? Can we say if the payload column includes payload adapters & any SYLDA ? - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 20:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
: I've added a ref that has different masses for Galaxy-30 and MEV-2 and says the 10468 kg includes 765 kg of support structures (and includes a SYLDA) . - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 00:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
A lot of launch dates up to April 2008, eg for '''V-182''', reference [http://www.astronautix.com/a/ariane5.html ] which itself has no refs. For that date astronautica says vinasat-1:6740 kg & star one=c2=4100 kg (which add up to 10840) but this article says payload=7762 kg ! Do we trust the numbers in astronautica or the unsourced ones here ? [[vinasat-1]] says 2637 kg, [[Star One C2]] says 4100 kg (which add up to 6737) - so it looks like astronautica has wrong figure for vinasat-1. Could the 7762 here (unsourced) include 1025 kg of payload adapters/SYLDA ? |
|||
With regard to [[User:Matthew Woodcraft|Matthew Woodcraft]]'s change "revert misleading addition: what was reused was not code, but a complete hardware unit.", I quote from the [http://ravel.esrin.esa.it/docs/esa-x-1819eng.pdf ESA Flight 501 Failure, Report of the Enquiry Board], section 2.2, page 6, which refers repeatedly to "software" and "ADA code": |
|||
Ideally we'd have an ArianeGroup source for details of each launch. - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The same requirement [in code written for Ariane 4] does not apply to Ariane 5, which has a different preparation sequence and it was maintained for commonality reasons, presumably based on the view that, unless proven necessary, it was not wise to make changes in software which worked well on Ariane 4. |
|||
== Mass of boosters - tons ? == |
|||
IMO this counts as code reuse, even if it the method the code got on board the spacecraft was via a "hardware unit". |
|||
:By the way, the mass of the boosters is stated as "270 t (300 tons)" - what in the world does this mean? Are there non-metric tons at work here? If so, which, and can we remove it? It's currently impossible to ascertain the true value. [[User:Oz1sej|Oz1sej]] ([[User talk:Oz1sej|talk]]) 15:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Fixed, the infobox template was assuming the value (which was a metric tonnes value) was in US Imperial tonnes as Wikipedia templates use t for both. [[User:WatcherZero|WatcherZero]] ([[User talk:WatcherZero|talk]]) 18:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
-- [[User:Hotlorp|Hotlorp]]- |
|||
== Is ES (used for ATV) the only version with restartable 2nd stage == |
|||
You can think of it as code reuse if you like, but it's not what people usually mean by the phrase. So if you use 'code reuse' in the article without further explanation, you will mislead people. That is, your addition made it sound as if someone copied bits of an old program into a new one, and the resulting program was incorrect. But this did not happen; the program in Ariane 5 was identical to the program in Ariane 4. [[User:Matthew Woodcraft|Matthew Woodcraft]] |
|||
Is the Ariane 5ES (or 5ES-ATV?) the only version with a restartable upper stage. In particular can the ECA LH2/LOX upper stage restart ? - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 10:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== The dry mass figures are not correct == |
||
The dry mass figures for the cryogenic upper stage are not correct. Text from the article itself says that the dry mass of the upper stage is 2100 kg's. Unless we're including launch adapters in there, but even then I can't find ANY source suggesting that the launch adapters weigh over 2 tonnes. That would be absurd. Why do we include the launch adapter mass for the Ariane 5 but not for the Atlas 5 or Falcon 9? If this was accurate that would give the upper stage a mass ratio of around 3.5, which is hilariously bad for any modern rocket. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382034main_018%20-%2020090706.05.Analysis_of_Propellant_Tank_Masses.pdf tells us that the upper stages dry mass is only 2100 kg's, NOT over 4 tonnes. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.87.104.15|24.87.104.15]] ([[User talk:24.87.104.15#top|talk]]) 05:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Hello |
|||
:I corrected the figure from the manual (someone had put it in pounds rather than kg). Yes the difference appears to be Arianespace in its manual includes the figure as all the components of the second stage combined mass, whereas on the Atlas 5 for example its manual lists the 952kg 1st to 2nd stage connector and 181kg payload adapter separately. [[User:WatcherZero|WatcherZero]] ([[User talk:WatcherZero|talk]]) 14:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Dry mass figures not correct - update === |
|||
I think we should put a bit more information on tabel with al the Araine 5 mission. More precise; when there is a failure we should ad little bit (not much, maybe 1 ore 2 sentences) information about what was the cause of the failure and when it occured. |
|||
:Someone could translate it from the german article [[:de:Ariane 5]] table. |
|||
I already made a topic about this, but I did some more research and believe I've found the issue here. The issue is that Arianespace considers the a.) Interstage structure and b.) LVA 3996 adapter to be part of the ESC upper stage. This can be seen on 1-7 (chapter 1, page 7) of https://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf their payload users guide. There's an image, and they've drawn a box around ALL of the components they consider to be "part of the ESC-A". The interstage adapter is SPECIFICALLY enclosed in the box; it's labelled as "InterStage Structure (Part of ESC-A)". |
|||
---- |
|||
They do NOT consider the SYLDA5 carrying structure, upper LVA, upper PAS, and lower PAS to be part of the ESC-A stage, according to the picture on 2-2 (chapter 2 page 2), which states that everything inside the blue box is considered part of the payload mass. Inside the blue box you have the SYLDA, the upper PAS/adapter, and the lower PAS. |
|||
I think we should keep the "Launch history" section for special launches, we already have a table at the end which lists all launches. |
|||
: I think that Launch history and the table are redundant, one of them should be deleted. [[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: : I agree, I think the table is more than enough, not every launch as important, I think we should keep the Launch History section for special launches only [[User:BastiaanNaber| Bastiaan Naber]] 23 Dec |
|||
: : : I agree, but what defines a "special launch"? Record-breaking payloads like iPStar and failures? [[User:Nick L.|Nick L.]] 17:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::: You can create an additional article for the launch record table (like the [[:de:Liste der Ariane-5-Starts|german one]]) and link it from the main article. I think it might be interesting for some readers to be able to track all Ariane 5 launches. --[[User:Bricktop|Bricktop]] 05:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
So I guess the question would be; should we really be including the mass of the interstage adapter in the dry mass of the upper stage? That's not consistent with pretty much every other rocket on the wiki, and doesn't make much sense. |
|||
I've made the table much smaller now. Feedback? // [[User:Duccio|Duccio]] 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Doing some quick math, I've found that the total "dry" mass of the upper stage should be about 4300 kg's if this is how they're calculating it, using 725kg's for the interstage adapter (which is the value I had read somewhere, trying to find a source on that is hard), 1300 kg's for the VEB, and 1945 kg's for the tank dry mass (which is based on https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382034main_018%20-%2020090706.05.Analysis_of_Propellant_Tank_Masses.pdf, which lists the ESC-A stage's tank dry mass as 1945 kg's), and 200 kg's for the lower LVA adapter. This is pretty close to what the quoted figure is, so I'm very confident that I'm right. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chuckstablers|contribs]]) 23:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Better Picture? == |
|||
== No history section == |
|||
I saw this picture [[Image:1Ariane5LaunchArianespace.jpg|100px]] on the [[European Space Agency|ESA]] page and it appears to be allot better than the current image here. Should it be added to the page and perhaps replace the current top pic? --[[User:Hibernian|Hibernian]] 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Would be helpful to have a History section that covers when the development was first proposed, how it got support and funding, when the design started etc. Did the requirements (payload, operational costs...) change during development ... ? - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 20:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== YouTube links == |
|||
[[Image:Information_icon.svg|left|30px]] This article is one of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.youtube.com&limit=500&offset=10000 thousands] on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the [[WP:EL|External links]] policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. '''99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a [[WP:V|source]]'''. 2. '''[[WP:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works|We must not link to material that violates someones copyright]]'''. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on [[User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist|this page]]. Thanks,<!--Subst::User:J.smith/YT--> ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] ([[User_talk:J.smith|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|c]]) 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== SRB == |
|||
Are the Ariane 5 SRBs reusable like the [[Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters|Space Shuttle SRBs]] or not? [[User:Bigtop|<font color="blue">Big</font>]][[User talk:Bigtop|'''<font color="gray">top</font>''']] 22:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*They are not. Sometimes they were recovered on early flights, but they are not reused. Now most of them are left to sink in the ocean. Sincerely, [[User:Nick L.|Nick L.]] 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== computer bug in intro paragraph == |
|||
I think the computer bug related crash deserves a mention in the intro paragraph. While it is probably not notable in the aeronautical field, it is considerably notable in the programming field, and I think it would be useful for people interested in that aspect to have a quick notice that bug-related information is on another page. Since my addition of a sentence to that effect at the end of the intro was reverted, I wanted to bring a discussion here for a consensus rather than start a revert-war. Another alternative I can see is a see-also along the lines of: ''this article is about the launch system, for information on the computer bug, see [[Ariane 5 Flight 501]]''. (phrasing suggestions gladly welcome, I don't have much knowledge of accepted terms in the astro/aero area)-[[User:Spyforthemoon|Spyforthemoon]] 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the introduction is long enough, the bug and the appropriate article are already mentioned in launch history, see [[Wikipedia:Lead section]]. // [[User:Duccio|Duccio]] 15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Point taken. Are you also against the disambiguation link? I see this as being very similar to the Chornobyl example given at [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment|Guide to wriging better articles ]]-[[User:Spyforthemoon|Spyforthemoon]] 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well I don't know, the Chernobyl example seems to me completely different, in that case the town is famous because of the disaster and nothing else while the Ariane 5 is not famous because of the first flight failure but for holding 50% of the worldwide GTO launchers market and for being the rocket that will deliver important payloads to space such as the [[James Webb Space Telescope]]. It also launched missions such as [[SMART-1]] so I think most people who type "Ariane 5" in the search box are actually looking for this article and not for the 501 flight one. So yes, to me a disambiguation link on top would seem redundant too. // [[User:Duccio|Duccio]] 10:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== ECA? == |
|||
The abbreviation ECA is used throughout this article with no explanation. Can someone explain it? |
Latest revision as of 17:41, 17 July 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ariane 5 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Ariane 5 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 4, 2010. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Payload figures and mass of launch adapters etc
[edit]Most all the numbers in the payload mass column have no sources and looking at eg VA-253 the three payloads don't seem to add up to the total in this article. The difference of 1297 kg seems too high for a SYLDA dual manifest cylinder (about 500 kg, 800 kg in the early days ?) Where do the figures in this article come from ? Can we say if the payload column includes payload adapters & any SYLDA ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've added a ref that has different masses for Galaxy-30 and MEV-2 and says the 10468 kg includes 765 kg of support structures (and includes a SYLDA) . - Rod57 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
A lot of launch dates up to April 2008, eg for V-182, reference [1] which itself has no refs. For that date astronautica says vinasat-1:6740 kg & star one=c2=4100 kg (which add up to 10840) but this article says payload=7762 kg ! Do we trust the numbers in astronautica or the unsourced ones here ? vinasat-1 says 2637 kg, Star One C2 says 4100 kg (which add up to 6737) - so it looks like astronautica has wrong figure for vinasat-1. Could the 7762 here (unsourced) include 1025 kg of payload adapters/SYLDA ?
Ideally we'd have an ArianeGroup source for details of each launch. - Rod57 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Mass of boosters - tons ?
[edit]- By the way, the mass of the boosters is stated as "270 t (300 tons)" - what in the world does this mean? Are there non-metric tons at work here? If so, which, and can we remove it? It's currently impossible to ascertain the true value. Oz1sej (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed, the infobox template was assuming the value (which was a metric tonnes value) was in US Imperial tonnes as Wikipedia templates use t for both. WatcherZero (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Is ES (used for ATV) the only version with restartable 2nd stage
[edit]Is the Ariane 5ES (or 5ES-ATV?) the only version with a restartable upper stage. In particular can the ECA LH2/LOX upper stage restart ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The dry mass figures are not correct
[edit]The dry mass figures for the cryogenic upper stage are not correct. Text from the article itself says that the dry mass of the upper stage is 2100 kg's. Unless we're including launch adapters in there, but even then I can't find ANY source suggesting that the launch adapters weigh over 2 tonnes. That would be absurd. Why do we include the launch adapter mass for the Ariane 5 but not for the Atlas 5 or Falcon 9? If this was accurate that would give the upper stage a mass ratio of around 3.5, which is hilariously bad for any modern rocket. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382034main_018%20-%2020090706.05.Analysis_of_Propellant_Tank_Masses.pdf tells us that the upper stages dry mass is only 2100 kg's, NOT over 4 tonnes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.104.15 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I corrected the figure from the manual (someone had put it in pounds rather than kg). Yes the difference appears to be Arianespace in its manual includes the figure as all the components of the second stage combined mass, whereas on the Atlas 5 for example its manual lists the 952kg 1st to 2nd stage connector and 181kg payload adapter separately. WatcherZero (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Dry mass figures not correct - update
[edit]I already made a topic about this, but I did some more research and believe I've found the issue here. The issue is that Arianespace considers the a.) Interstage structure and b.) LVA 3996 adapter to be part of the ESC upper stage. This can be seen on 1-7 (chapter 1, page 7) of https://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf their payload users guide. There's an image, and they've drawn a box around ALL of the components they consider to be "part of the ESC-A". The interstage adapter is SPECIFICALLY enclosed in the box; it's labelled as "InterStage Structure (Part of ESC-A)".
They do NOT consider the SYLDA5 carrying structure, upper LVA, upper PAS, and lower PAS to be part of the ESC-A stage, according to the picture on 2-2 (chapter 2 page 2), which states that everything inside the blue box is considered part of the payload mass. Inside the blue box you have the SYLDA, the upper PAS/adapter, and the lower PAS.
So I guess the question would be; should we really be including the mass of the interstage adapter in the dry mass of the upper stage? That's not consistent with pretty much every other rocket on the wiki, and doesn't make much sense.
Doing some quick math, I've found that the total "dry" mass of the upper stage should be about 4300 kg's if this is how they're calculating it, using 725kg's for the interstage adapter (which is the value I had read somewhere, trying to find a source on that is hard), 1300 kg's for the VEB, and 1945 kg's for the tank dry mass (which is based on https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382034main_018%20-%2020090706.05.Analysis_of_Propellant_Tank_Masses.pdf, which lists the ESC-A stage's tank dry mass as 1945 kg's), and 200 kg's for the lower LVA adapter. This is pretty close to what the quoted figure is, so I'm very confident that I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckstablers (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
No history section
[edit]Would be helpful to have a History section that covers when the development was first proposed, how it got support and funding, when the design started etc. Did the requirements (payload, operational costs...) change during development ... ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class spaceflight articles
- High-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- C-Class Rocketry articles
- High-importance Rocketry articles
- WikiProject Rocketry articles
- C-Class Europe articles
- Mid-importance Europe articles
- C-Class ESA articles
- Top-importance ESA articles
- ESA task force articles
- WikiProject Europe articles