Is it more software image stabilization or more physical dampers and isolators?

​@@jakeroper1096 Physical. It was an easier solution to implement. As far as I know, Ariane used rubber damper plates under the cameras.

video and images like these make it difficult for the flatters and their silly conspiracy.

You and Réaltra did a fantastic job on these. It's class to see Irish space having such a visible impact, and it's a sign of all the good things happening in the Irish space industry at the moment.

Name checks out :-)

Big congrats! I think I'd distinguish rocket science from engineering. SpaceX has changed perceptions of how space is done, so it's nice to see such a success.

It's a beautiful engine, I was lucky enough to see a cut view of the combustion chamber at the factory. Fantastic work

​@@AndrewBlucherRocket engineering then. We know what's meant. The big difference is that you're dealing with regimes where normal engineering margins just aren't viable... Constantly running on the edge of materials failure. Respect

Why wasn't A6 reusable?

@@Yuhyuhmuhmuh - because at the time the A5 follow-on was being considered, no-one other than SpaceX thought it was possible. Note that Vulcan isn't reusable either.

Ah yes, the classic 'okay, now let's slowly start our gravity turn, oh wait, no so quickly, oh-oh pitch up, pitch up, we're burning up here!' maneuver.

Maybe they wanted to have a worse effecient accent, bc it is overkill for the cubesats and they still want to test the full burn time

​@@Robert-uh9vf I've heard many good things about "Juno: New Origins", it's even made for mobile in mind, but it's also got a bit more complicated construction due to things being mostly procedural.

Time to apoapsis just creeping closer and closer, trying to nose up enough to not sink into the thick atmosphere... Yep, been there.

They also left their 2nd stage in orbit which is very KSP.

Yeah, KSP is comparatively very forgiving. I'm currently playing a mod pack called RP-1 (realistic progression 1) where among other things, it replaces the Kerbol system with the real solar system to scale and also adds parts failures, very limited to no thrust adjustment ability and limited to no relights to it's various engines; certainly gives perspective to the challenges spaceflight brings.

Using RSS and all the Real (fuel, engines, etc) mods gave me a new appreciation for space engineering.

And the upper stage is made in Bremen, Germany. My Town.😊

Vulcain is from Ottobrunn❤

Better than Rocket is here Easy lift off Easy land on with antigravity Spaceship No Fire No Explosion No Flame Just Spin and Lift off Powered by Baterry Work base on Gravity just spinning by using Battery can fly in bad weather, plunge in the ocean even in outer space Can lift more than 100 Ton Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity? It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums: A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time. The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof. . . In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like. People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:

YAY tribal alegences! So moral!

@@hiha2108 mope, the Vulcain is made in Vernon, in Normandy. That's the manufacturing of the Vinci which was unfortunately transferred to Germany.

There were 5 experiments and 8 cubesats along with a 1.3 ton payload simulator all successfully delivered, the 2 re-entry capsules were not delivered.

I agree, this launch was a success. However, I don't see this rocket making commercial sense to anyone but European governments that subsidise the launches and in extension part of their economy. As someone from Europe I just hope that companies like Rocket Factory Augsburg or Isar Space succeed in developing (partially) reusable launch systems

Well, SpaceX get away with saying a failure is also a successful test.

​@@niklas6576You might want to have a read about Amazon buying 16 Ariane 6 launches for Project Kuiper a couple years back. Also, RFA and Isar Space rockets have nowhere near the power needed to lift geostationary payloads. When 2 companies each manifest a geostationary payload at the same time, it makes Ariane 6 very competitive in the Geostationary market; which is what it is designed to do. Ariane 6's new payload adapter will also allow for more ride-share payloads to LEO and MEO. Plus having a rocket with the capabilities and decreased cost of Ariane 6 will allow European companies and Govt agencies to launch on their schedule and not ship sensitive technologies to the US for launch. Sure, there isn't any reusability baked into the system but the only company that is doing reuse is SpaceX, with a side note on Rocket Lab. There maybe others in development, but none of them are flying. All said, I think that Ariane 6 will do just fine.

@@niklas6576for these private companies to succeed, Ariane has to die. It is sucking too much resources and wasting a lot of them, just like Nasa did with the shuttle. ESA could have chosen to follow NASA‘s model, instead they doubled down. €4 billion spent on a new rocket that is supposedly 20-30% cheaper, so it will barely pay off in its lifetime compared to just continuing to use Ariane 5 for one or two strategic launches per year and contracting private companies for the rest.

Weren’t the remaining satellites suborbital vehicles? Why would they need an even higher orbit?

@@osirisapex7483 I think they were going for a steeper reentry trajectory.

Can they just deploy the remaining payloads where they are?

@@paulblase3955 No, they have to slow them to a speed that will cause them to fall out of orbit. They are reentry experiments. To do that, they need an engine to slow them down, and without the APU, they can't fire that engine. It's a serious disappointment for those experiments, but still a great day for the Ariane 6 booster, which worked flawlessly. 🙂

@@beenaplumber8379 Ah, ok. Thanks.

Short correction here about date of Vinci motor design time : It was from a blank sheet since the begining and dates from the early 2000, as I saw one prototyp in final assembly in Vernon, the french design and manufacturing site, in 2005.

Thank you, I edited the comment.

Interesting, do you know how they start the Apu? Because if the Apu is needed to pressurize the tank to start the Vinci, how does the APu get Fuel to start without Tank pressure, or is it always running idle?

@@julianholstein3840 The APU architecture is a well guarded secret, and is possibly the most inovative part of this new rocket. As far as I know, this is a pretty recent development (maybe the first Idea was in 2005, as during my training a "low power H2 O2 motor" was envisioned for R&D. It strongly relies on 3D printing. If I would guess, from my fluid mechanics and combustion background, I'd say it's only driven by gaseous H2 and O2. As natural boiling ensure some pressure in the tanks, opening a valve is enough to feed this small gas generator. I don't expect there is much moving parts in here. Once the valve open, the reaction might be activated using a reliable way (either a calytic element or some sort of spark plug). Overall, it seems a highly advanced piece of fluid mechanics.

@@julianholstein3840 Subscribing to this thread because I want to know the answer to that too.

Thanks for sharing! There have also been reports of sightings from other parts of Germany and from Poland. This encourages us to look for them next time. Best regards from Berlin!

At first I didn't believe it, because the screen shows their apoapsis at 604 km and speed at 7.32 km/s, and I typed that into my orbit calculator and it gave a periapsis at 25km... but they must be showing ground speed, since they really did circularize, so they are going more like 7.56 km/s wrt a non-rotating Earth, implying they got almost 250 m/s extra from the equator launch. Really shows what a big difference a small bit of delta v can make.

So, before Starliner then?

Hope nobody gets hit.

@@PhantomHarlock78more chance to get hit by a starlink

​@@vannoo67 LMAOOO

It failed.

R U havin' a larf? If you are serious, then you have fuck all idea.

@@elitnoctua tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me.

@@grahamcook9289 It even created space junk and possible future impact on populated areas.

Better than Rocket is here Easy lift off Easy land on with antigravity Spaceship No Fire No Explosion No Flame Just Spin and Lift off Powered by Baterry Work base on Gravity just spinning by using Battery can fly in bad weather, plunge in the ocean even in outer space Can lift more than 100 Ton Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity? It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums: A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time. The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof. . . In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like. People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:

Ok so they were relying on landing in a safe place

@@scottmanley No, they were not supposed to land safely.

To land in a safe place, not to land safely.​ Different things.@@Dakta96

@@scottmanley No, they were supposed to transfer data on free fall and crash land.

​@@Dakta96 he said in a safe place. Meaning they were planned not to crash into some ones house

It was not Nyx fitted on top of the rocket but the very small Bikini demonstrator. They explained that Nyx schedule is not affected by this

Same here. I'm really interested in the Exploration Company.

@@williamyamm8803 Why couldn’t they keep using the A5 if that is its main purpose?

​@@elitnoctuaRussian engines

@@elitnoctua Because the goal was to reduce the cost. The Ariane 6 is less expensive than Ariane 5. And also to be able to replace 2 rockets, Ariane 5 and Soyouz. The Soyouz is replaced by Ariane 6 with the 2 boosters version. The Ariane 5 is replaced by Ariane 6 with the 4 boosters version.

@@williamyamm8803spending 4 billion € to reduce cost by maybe 50mil per launch isn’t going to pay off anytime soon.

@@mx2000 you pass from 250M$ of A5 to 120/150M$ of A62/64. Plus can rise up launch rate, produce more A6 at the same time, etc.

9:31 "A?ores"... yeah I think I wouldn't necessarily trust ESA's digital systems at all if I were a customer.

Perhaps it was not actually the mission clock? How would we know? Does it matter? Do we really care?

I don't see that as a bad thing. It means their public presentation was less important than the mission at hand. Contrast that to the constant parade of hyper-enthusiastic teenage team-player cheerleaders you have to listen to during a SpaceX launch. I'm an observer, not a target demographic. I want information, not motivation. This was more like the old NASA launches, and it was refreshing.

@@geraldhenrickson7472 I care a lot

and the english/french mix ... unnecessary.

absolutely 👍

The difference: There were payloads aboard Ariane 6 that couldn't be deployed due to a failure in the launch vehicle. SpaceX did do this with some of the earliest Falcon 9s, but hasn't with Starship. The goal of testing the capabilities of the launch vehicle was achieved. The test flight was a success. The failed deployment of payloads is what makes it less than perfect. I wonder what you would be saying if a starship was stuck in orbit because it can't relight its engines.

It does put into perspective the different approaches. Starship wasn't meant to demonstrate full capabilities yet, so it was intentionally placed in a suborbital trajectory. On flight 3, as expected, they had issues. But it was fine since they made the mission profile assuming something went wrong. For Ariane 6 the flight was arguably much more successful than any Starship flight so far. The whole thing looks very reliable, they just have to get to the bottom of that one issue. A great result for a first flight. However, this was a demonstration flight, not a test flight. They aimed for perfection and they didn't achieve it. Now there are payloads in the wrong orbit and they left space debris. And we'll still have to see how this impacts the schedule going forward. I wish Ariane was a bit more cautious. You don't know if a system will work until you try it. One flight with a proper mass simulator on a (initially) suborbital trajectory would've been preferable.

It wasn’t just rich in data, it delivered the important payload and proved it could do what it is expected to do in the next 3 years

@@IndigoSierrathese payloads were very small scientific payloads that needed a very specific orbit to re enter the atmosphere, most payloads for Ariane 6 will be equivalent to the other payload which were successfully delivered

Yep, Ariane Space absolutely nailed it, thank god!😊

But if you are not sure about your capability, why not test like Space X, where it is on a trajectory destined to return at a safe place, no matter what?

The rocket did well for a first flight, but leaving a stage in low orbit, high enough to stay for decades, is messy. I think Ariane 6 will be a worthy, reliable successor to Ariane 5. But the engine relight tech was new. Not placing the second stage into a rapidly decaying orbit on the very first in-flight test is just bad planning.

@@r.b.4009 It proves it can do at least as much as Ariane 5 at half the cost.

​@@r.b.4009That strategy only work for a private company. And not even that. It's a SpaceX strategy alone.

@GuigEspritDuSage Well, it wasn't 64 variant which is more comparable to Ariane 5. But assuming there won't be issues on the first 64 launch (...next year) then ye.

We should have debris removal capabilities at this time.

​@@AViehl who's going to pay for that

Ariane 5 did exactly the same thing.

Can't wait for the money shot.

(slips a folded 1$ bill into the exhaust nozzle actuator)

The altitude was climbing steeply at the same time.

The whole segment was about pitch and not orientation, rewatch and pay attention

@@u1zha Pitch is one of the 3 axes of orientation.

@@stargazer7644 True but barbecue isn't conducted by pitching over 360 degrees, totally do rewatch

@@u1zha Perhaps you should spend a little more time re-reading the comments.

Next few launches won't need the Vinci to be restarted so I'm guessing it should be fine.

If it's Boeing, you ain't going! Back to earth, lol

You thought through your own question. Good job!

I suppose ground control hadn't the chance for such a maneuver. The rockets computer followed its program and passivated the second stage after the fault. Also the iivetime of the batteries is limited.

Also. Maybe the attitude of the stage was wrong. Pointing in the wrong direction

Newest rocket in the industry and it's still inferior to Falcon 9. Built more efficiently but still too expensive, lol

​@@bbeen40 Last time I did the math, with the kind of Geosynchronous payloads the Ariane does, the Falcon 9 needs to fly expendable, resulting in the Ariane 6 actually being cheaper than the Falcon 9 per kg of payload. And Elon has been price gouging since, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Ariane 6 has become even cheaper, for big, multi-satellite payloads to GTO.

With that kind of failure where a lot of mass potentially become a space junk capable of surviving reentry but with unknown timing? Wtf would use this kind of rocket?

@@roku_nine Knowing Arianespace's history with booster reliability, that one failure will probably be the one big failure of the design. Kinda like the one Ariane 5 that failed due to an overflow error in one of the computers.

@@ShadowFalcon With the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies every year from member countries it's kind of ridiculous to say that. They will never have much of an argument on price.

The JWST is not behind the moon...

Beyond the moon, rather.

JWST is at the Earth-Sun L2 point. The earth is always between JWST and the sun, it is nothing to do with the moon.

@@owensmith7530 correct, but is the tele parked beyond the lunar orbit?

​@@owensmith7530The moon is the disturbance that leads to the oscillation around L2

Always make sure you have a backup backup-beeper

Yes, it is odd how fast that was flying up. Payload must have been very light!

​@@mortenlund1418 No, it's not just that. Ariane was already known for this very fast take-off. It's very nice to see every time. I also think the Ariane looks pretty good.

@@user-li7ec3fg6h So do I. Really looking forward for the next launches. Not least Vega C!

Almost

Exactly! I'm not sure I would trust any digital systems from ESA after seeing they can't even handle Unicode in 2024.

More embarrassing than the equipment failure, imo.

Yes, but i need to use words regular people understand.

@@scottmanleyI often get comments like this on my channel and I give the same answer 😂

It was so chonky, indeed peak.

Probably some trapped gases in the paint escaping as the rocket enters the vacuum of space.

Could be microscopic trapped bubbles of air expanding as it increases in altitude. Not uncommon for some paint bases to do this if not completely degassed before deployment. At the end of the day it is a consumable so not a big concern I wouldn't think.

@@zbubby1202 Yeah, the paint has no purpose once the rocket is out of sight. :)

@@zbubby1202 Yea and looks like its paint from logo. while the main paint of the structure is probably done differently

​@@zbubby1202 seems like if it flakes off it becomes micro-debris, not great.

Apparently the program cost 4 billion euro, and even before the first flight, there was orders for 3.2 bilions, (near 30 flight) so I think, Ariane group can be happy.

The US has plenty of space companies which haven't done anything much .... Why ULA, why SLS, why Boeing...? Why no New Glenn yet?

IMO someone has to use solid rockets so the nuclear missile makers have a way to stay in the game. Ariane and Vega are the only European rockets so they have to be the mechanism by which various strategic capabilities are maintained in many EU states. If you consider this a waste the the US probably does it much more. Spacex has no politics to deal with, but has access to the pool of talent and suppliers that has been created by a lot of government spending.

If there's enough booking for them , they don't need to worry (EU, India,China,and Russia all want independent launch solutions, so their governments support the legacy systems). There's still enough time to make reusable systems. You need to worry more about the US launch providers

Nice try elon, we know this is your KZfaq account

Vinci is a brand new design.

@@DC2022 that's what I suspected

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing... hydrolox upper stages are efficient, but they're often underpowered. A lofted trajectory gives them a bit more time to complete circularisation before the atmosphere can drag them back down, at the expense of some efficiency.

@@simongeard4824 This is especially true for expander cycle engines, like the Vinci on this rocket, or the RL10 on many American ones. They are great, because they are efficient, simple and reliable, but their thrust is anemic compared to a turbopump engine.

You haven't got a fucking clue.

It's hard to overstate my satisfaction

Aperture Science We do what we must, because we can

For the good of all of us Except the ones who are dead

It was an appalling waste of European tax payers money.

They burn up, the second stage of the falcon heavy can't be reusable due to fuel limits

@@Alucard-gt1zf They are too high up in GEO at ~36,000km and can't burn up in the atmosphere any longer. I guess they steer the stage even higher into a graveyard orbit at ~37,000km.

They end up in a graveyard orbit. If it’s a “direct injection” launch I suspect they go into the same orbit as the disused geo com says. Not sure what happens to the ones that put the satellites on a transfer orbit.

if I'm not mistaken old geo satelites and 2nd stages are required to move to a graveyard orbit as none have enough fuel to deorbit like in LEO

this was the main stage.

And with less accuracy than Ariane 5 (which is comparable to A64 since this one is the replacement, A62 being the smaller and cheaper sister) ever had. Remember JWST.

Hard feelings ??

No, but F9 can deliver about half of the payload to GTO compared to A64... and the price of two F9 launches is considerably less than the price of a dual-payload Ariane launch. So Ariane 64 is left with a fairly small niche... basically, single payloads which need to go to high orbits (where that hydrolox upper stages excels over F9) and which are too bulky to fit the smaller Falcon Heavy fairing. Or government launches where cost is deemed irrelevant, of course.

@@simongeard4824 2 F9 for a A64? Tell that to most of the customers (NASA and Pentagon) who pay way over 120M$ apiece. For a rocket who has far worse capabilities for anything else than LEO in expandable mode which means launch being even more expensive. Right now Ariane 6 has over 3 years worth of launches, apparently its fairly small niche is quite large.

​@@simongeard4824Even government launches are moving to Falcon 9. EUMETSAT was supposed to launch on A64's first flight, but switched to F9. The German government launched two military satellites on F9, the EU did so for some Galileo sats, and Spain wants to launch some military sats on F9.

"The easier it is to stop up the drain"

Europe had a bad history of relying on foreign partners for space. USA that tried to vassalise them with the Symphonie case where USA said they won't launch the sat if they didn't accept a non-competition agreement who would pretty much kill the program. That's one of the reason Ariane existed. And recently with Russia who unilaterally forbid Soyuz exploitation by ArianeGroup. Well, this was a shot on their own foot because we can see how dead in the water is their space industry now but still. So yeah, it's not about pride, it's about sovereignty and full access to space. It's already a shame we rely on other to human access to space.

I assume it flew safe 😊

No way you can peek under the kilts from up there, Francis.

@@JZsBFFNo need to. Everything is in perrfect worrking orrderr