Yes there was a discussion of an anomaly with an/the APU (at about 25:00). Overall, the first flight of a brand new rocket went well.

There seems to be confusion about this, so to clarify: All the orbital payload was succesfully launched, so all satellites were succesfully launched. The failed payload was 2 re-entry capsules that would have ridden with the final stage down to Earth. There were 17 total payload missions: 13 satellites, 2 satellite deployers, and 2 re-entry capsules. One of the deployers deployed 4 satellites, the second 2 satellites. This is why ESA divided the payload into 11 steps, 9 of which were about the satellites and their deployment. That is what they refer to when talking about "9 satellites". 15 out of 17 missions, 9 out of 11 steps, were succesful. Again, all the satellites were launched succesfully. The lost payload refers to only the 2 re-entry capsules that were supposed to come back to Earth with the spacecraft.

Sus title. 24:30 for the explanation. Basically, as part of the testing, they shut down and then restarted the APU on the upper stage. It shut down correctly, restarted, but then shut down again for unknown reasons. As a result, the vehicle was not able to relight the engine and put itself in a safing state so as to reduce further issues which could cause debris. As it was safed, it prevented it from releasing the two payloads.

I wonder if they had internal arcing or something when messing with the APU in near vacuum.

When is the upgraded solid booster gonna be ready? They are called P160C right

With the altitude that means the second stage will take 15 to 25 years to deorbit.

I guess the second stage will be a satellite-like object we can observe from earth, hopefully with the naked eye?

That's a bummer, however for a first launch not terrible.

I never understand why they not program an override command in such software for such problems where the software just is stupid, then they could have restarted ( not much can get wrong on such a mission when the rocket is in orbit)

Yikes...as much as they are trying to downplay this...its actually a big problem for their customer base. In fact...during the broadcast the commentators specifically mentioned that the main difference between Ariene 5 and 6 is the Vinci's engines ability to restart. In fact this is one of the biggest niche selling points of Ariane 6 in the first place. The ability to use it to put multiple satellites in GEO or to put multiple satellites in different orbits. The multiple relights of the second stage is KEY for their number 1 selling point. Any satellite needing multiple burns to get to its operational orbit will indeed be looking at flying on an Ariene 6 as real suspect now until they actually prove they can do this reliably. And ironically the very thing they used in this press conference to excuse and downplay the anomaly is the very thing that makes it a bigger deal that they failed to do this on this test flight. The fact that you cannot test this component on the ground, and you can only fully test this capability in the micro-g environment of space. For instance...it has zero chance competing against falcon class rockets for GEO...but throw in 2 companies splitting the cost on a launch for 2 GEO SATs being launched on one flight...then they at least have a bigger shot at negotiating that contract. Except now...even that will be in question until Vinci is proven to be reliable for a full mission duration.

💫🙏 0:37

What happens to Ariane 6? Does it reurn to earth, or burn up?

Essentially the 2nd stage de-orbit burn failed. This would not impact a typical payload's mission.

Last heavy launch vehicle inaugural flight was 30 years ago? I think you are forgetting SpaceX's Falcon Heavy 6 years ago.

If they can't master ancient technology, they have no chance at developing modern reusable rockets.

So, is the mission a fail overall or not? Have they lost the vehicle and main payloads - assume yes. Lots of right hand left shoulder stuff going on, but really?

Good ol Ariane. Projected 12 flights a year. Falcon 9 & Heavy have already done 69 flights by early July 2024.. I am not impressed by ESA. At best Ariane is a reliable semi-=freighter. They will never have the balls to put a human capsule on it. Oh. Right. SpaceX.

Of course theyre going to talk this failure up otherwise no more money. Failure to complete mission by not launching 9 satellites is a failure. Now just space debris,

If it can’t deliver a payload to orbit, who cares?

Fake title.