[HN Gopher] Ariane 5 User's Manual (2011) [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
Ariane 5 User's Manual (2011) [pdf]
Author : weinzierl
Score : 124 points
Date : 2023-07-05 09:48 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.arianespace.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.arianespace.com)
| rcarmo wrote:
| Well, _this_ at least, is rocket science.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| I would have expected that the manual has way more pages and a
| bigger scope. I'm surprised it has "only" 270 pages.
| aredox wrote:
| Well, actually, the basic manual inputs of an orbital rocket
| are "go up" and "explode". The rest is automated.
|
| (Has anyone trained a neural networks to play Kerbal Space
| Program?)
| imglorp wrote:
| The user is the party who is concerned with payload
| integration: dimensions, center of gravity, electrical,
| thermal, vibration, orbits etc.
| nunuvit wrote:
| The guide is just an overview to help potential customers
| ("users") decide if the Ariane 5 would work for their payload
| and mission. Nothing to do with Arianespace operating the
| rocket.
| rtkwe wrote:
| I'd expect a detailed manual to fall under the Missile
| Technology Control Regime, MTCR, which is kind of the sister
| of ITAR for the EU.
| [deleted]
| nunuvit wrote:
| They wouldn't make a more detailed manual for customers
| that they couldn't show to those customers. They do provide
| more detailed interface and system documentation, but they
| don't share the restricted implementation details. Even for
| internal use, they'd want to confine the controlled
| information to a smaller subset of documents because
| otherwise it's difficult to circulate information.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Very true. What I was saying was they probably couldn't
| provide what MrGilbert was maybe thinking this would
| because it would constitute restricted arms information.
| As neat as it would be to get some juicy details about
| the rocket even as it's being retired that info is very
| tightly regulated in most countries.
| nunuvit wrote:
| Gotcha. Most of the system-level information is under
| less restrictive control than ITAR or MTCR, but the
| effect is the same.
|
| Honestly though, the information isn't all that juicy.
| What most people would find interesting has been out
| there for a long time. The hardware in any rocket looks
| basically the same since Saturn V, and the only
| remarkable thing about the software is that it's
| organized.
|
| Is there anything you'd like me to point you to?
| JakaJancar wrote:
| I love how all the acronyms in the glossary are basically
| inverted English ones.
|
| - BAF - Final Assembly Building - Batiment d'Assemblage Final
|
| I knew about NATO/OTAN and such, but didn't know it's so
| universal.
|
| They also had fun with some of them:
|
| - PLANET - Payload Local Area Network
|
| - SHOGUN - SHOck Generation UNit
| kergonath wrote:
| > I love how all the acronyms in the glossary are basically
| inverted English ones
|
| It's very common because the order of adjectives and nouns is
| most of the time reversed between English and French (and
| Romance languages in general; it's the same with Spanish and
| Portuguese for example), but English retains so much French and
| latin roots that the initials are often the same. Other
| examples include
|
| - IMF/FMI (international monetary fund/fonds monetaire
| international)
|
| - EU/UE (European Union/union europeenne)
|
| - and before it EEC/CEE (European economic community/communaute
| economique europeenne)
|
| - SARS/SRAS (severe acute respiratory syndrome/syndrome
| respiratoire aigu severe)
|
| - HIV/VIH (human immunodeficiency virus/virus de
| l'immunodeficience humaine)
|
| And many others I am sure, that's just what I could think off
| the top of my head.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Another fun one is UTC. In English it's Coordinated Universal
| Time, in French Temps Universel Coordonne. To get one name
| for all languages a compromise was chosen: UTC, which doesn't
| match either. At least it's a nod to UTC being a version of
| TAI that's kept in sync with UT2 (UT0, 1 and 2 is time as
| measured by earth's rotation, with increasing numbers of
| corrections for wobbling applied).
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| I wouldn't say inverted, just everything translated into
| french, because for whatever reason, the french feel like
| everything should be in french.
|
| Everyone else on the planet can use english based acronyms just
| fine in the local language, except the french :)
| weinzierl wrote:
| It's not in this manual, but I definitely remember the Ariane
| to have an _" Anti Pogo Device"_ which kind of sounds anti-fun,
| in a funny way.
| gruturo wrote:
| Pogo oscillations
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_oscillation) are actually
| quite dangerous and can lead to damage or destruction of the
| rocket, so yeah.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Why was Ariane 5 retired? Did ESA replace it with something else?
| m2fkxy wrote:
| Ariane 6, which suffers from some delays. Vega and Vega-C are
| also supposed to fill the lower segment gap, but they are
| grounded after a series of mishaps. Tough spot for ESA
| launchers, but we'll get through this!
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| AFAIU only Vega-C is grounded, Vega is still in operations
| with SSMS 16 scheduled for September?
|
| But yeah, Vega-C has been very unlucky with the nozzle throat
| insert on the second stage eroding away and failing, plus the
| general trouble with certain parts being made in Ukraine now
| during the war.
| cubefox wrote:
| They wanted to replace Ariane 5 in time with Ariane 6, but it
| got delayed a lot. Ariane 6 will be ready next year at the
| earliest.
| pfdietz wrote:
| And Ariane 6 isn't competitive against SpaceX either. They've
| really screwed up.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Only in the sense that _everyone_ isn't competitive against
| SpaceX. They absolutely could have done better, but the
| role isn't to produce the most price competitive launch,
| the role was securing Europe's launch capability. If both
| could be done at the same time then that's a win but it's
| not the primary goal.
| pfdietz wrote:
| You're just explaining the process by which they screwed
| up.
| tivert wrote:
| >>> And Ariane 6 isn't competitive against SpaceX either.
| They've really screwed up.
|
| >> Only in the sense that everyone isn't competitive
| against SpaceX. They absolutely could have done better,
| but the role isn't to produce the most price competitive
| launch, the role was securing Europe's launch capability.
| If both could be done at the same time then that's a win
| but it's not the primary goal.
|
| > You're just explaining the process by which they
| screwed up.
|
| No, the problem is that you're acting like you define
| their success criteria, when you don't. You're a rando on
| the internet, quarterbacking from your armchair.
| pfdietz wrote:
| LOL. I think competing in markets is an objective
| criterion for success. Governments defining for
| themselves what success is? That's what's called a "self-
| licking ice cream cone". Of course one can be a success
| if one gets to define what success is, but stating it as
| baldly as that shows how ludicrous that is.
|
| Europe has totally dropped the ball here. I think they'd
| be well advised to just give up. They don't look like
| they have the attitude or desire to actually deliver a
| world class competitive result.
| tivert wrote:
| > LOL. I think competing in markets is an objective
| criterion for success.
|
| "LOL." That kind of thinking is myopic _and dated_.
| Pretty much every year from 2020 onwards had yielded
| high-profile new lessons about its flaws. The market
| doesn 't optimize for some pretty important things.
| Angostura wrote:
| You sound like the kind of person who believes there is
| no downside to (say) the US outsourcing all manufacturing
| and design of everything to China because it's cheaper.
| pfdietz wrote:
| How did you get that howling non sequitur?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Dumping boatloads of money on the MIC isn't a screwup if
| it's the primary intended outcome with a functioning
| rocket merely as a nice bonus.
| pfdietz wrote:
| "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit."
|
| "Sir, it's the intended outcome that it tastes like
| shit."
|
| "Oh, I guess that must be ok then."
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| More like:
|
| "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit."
|
| _" Sir, that is not your soup. It is a nutrient broth to
| satisfy another customer who has different priorities
| than you do."_
|
| "Oh, I guess that must be ok then."
| pfdietz wrote:
| The point I was making that a bureaucracy choosing a goal
| doesn't mean that goal is a good one, or that achieving
| it is a positive thing.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Fair enough:
|
| "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit."
|
| _" Sir, that is not your soup. It is a nutrient broth to
| satisfy another customer who has different priorities
| than you do."_
|
| _" Then their priorities are wrong, they should want a
| good tasting soup!"_
|
| _" Sir, I must ask you to leave."_
| martin8412 wrote:
| The goal is not launches at the same price SpaceX
| charges.
|
| The goal is reliable independent launch capabilities.
| SpaceX is the furthest from what can be described as
| reliable.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > The goal is not launches at the same price SpaceX
| charges.
|
| That's a rationalization.
|
| When the Ariane 5 was ruling the roost, ArianeSpace
| absolutely wanted to maintain their market position.
|
| It's only after they've given up on that goal that the
| talking points have changed to "independent access to
| space".
|
| > SpaceX is the furthest from what can be described as
| reliable.
|
| Lol. The Falcon 9 has the longest streak of successful
| launches of any rocket in history.
| martin8412 wrote:
| They may have the longest streak of successful launches,
| but among their cavalier attitude to safety, as seen with
| the latest starship launch and the chief twat playing it
| fast and loose with his security clearance, they can't be
| described in any way as reliable. The FAA can halt
| launches for any reason. His allegiance to China and
| Russia certainly won't help.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > among their cavalier attitude to safety, as seen with
| the latest starship launch and the chief twat playing it
| fast and loose with his security clearance
|
| You do understand that Starship is still in development,
| right? SpaceX is well known for their "hardware rich"
| development process. That doesn't seem to affect their
| operational reliability.
|
| Not sure what you mean by "fast and loose with his
| security clearance". He says wacky stuff on Twitter. I'm
| not defending what Musk writes there, but it doesn't
| really have an effect on SpaceX's reliability.
|
| > The FAA can halt launches for any reason.
|
| Not sure how this is relevant.
|
| > His allegiance to China and Russia certainly won't
| help.
|
| I don't think I've seen anyone establish any links
| between him and Russia. He had that one Ukraine peace
| plan, which was never going to work, but that isn't
| really a tie to Russia.
|
| Tesla does have a plant in China. But Boeing sells tons
| of planes in China; I don't ever hear people asking about
| ULA's ties to China. Same thing with Airbus and
| ArianeGroup.
| martin8412 wrote:
| Boeing defense is not the same as Boeing selling
| airliners.
|
| The dude smokes weed on a podcast with Joe Rogan. However
| silly, that is grounds for revocation of his security
| clearance. So is his friendly attitude towards enemies of
| the US. His peace plan for Ukraine came straight from the
| propaganda department of the Kremlin. Most likely,
| they'll settle for him being forced to divest his part of
| SpaceX.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Lol. The Falcon 9 has the longest streak of successful
| launches of any rocket in history.
|
| Launch reliability is one aspect. For Europe, the
| possibility of SpaceX or the US itself cutting them off
| from access to space is one to consider in the calculus.
|
| Same reason the US is likely to still fund non-SpaceX
| launches/ventures, even if more expensive.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US
| government needs launch capacity, the president will bump
| foreign commercial and government launches. Europe can't
| be entirely reliant on the US for launch capability.
|
| The same justification was used in the US after the
| Spanish American war to justify a massive expansion of US
| shipyard capabilities that was subsidized by contracts
| for US warships. It worked out well enough, by the end of
| WWII the US had the most capable navy in the world.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US
| government needs launch capacity, the president will bump
| foreign commercial and government launches.
|
| Given the reality of SpaceX's launch schedule, probably
| not. Unless someone in Europe wanted 40 extra launches a
| year or something. SpaceX has shown a willingness to
| sacrifice Starlink launches for paying customers.
|
| But from a more philosophical standpoint, I do think that
| Europe is correct to maintain an independent launch
| capability.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Indeed. If maintaining independent access to space were
| the goal, they could have just kept building Ariane 5. So
| obviously that wasn't the goal driving the decision to
| build Ariane 6.
| wongarsu wrote:
| But it's a screw up most space launch providers are
| sharing, and it's one most of them will survive in the
| medium term for the same reason: their respective
| governments see more value in them than revenue and will
| prop them up.
|
| The more interesting question is what will happen after
| Ariane 6. SpaceX's lead continues to grow, and catching
| up would require changes to the development process not
| everyone seems comfortable with.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Ariane Next's design goals seem to be mostly "be Falcon
| 9": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next
|
| No-one's trying to build a Starship at this point apart
| from SpaceX (leaving aside a couple of less credible
| Chinese attempts).
| DylanSp wrote:
| New Glenn has a _potential_ path to compete with Starship
| eventually, with BO 's work on making a reusable version
| of its second stage. It's years away at best, but it's
| arguably more than anyone else is doing.
| wongarsu wrote:
| On paper New Glenn looks interesting. But Blue Origin is
| one year older than SpaceX but with slightly fewer
| success stories to talk about. So far they managed 30
| suborbital launches (counting all test flights); in the
| same time SpaceX did 240 orbital launches.
|
| New Glenn has lots of _potential_ , but it's also really
| hard to get excited about.
| DylanSp wrote:
| Entirely fair. The main reason I bring up them as even
| having realistic potential is that they've built a few
| BE-4 engines that're ready to go on Vulcan, and I think
| they've been spotted building hardware for New Glenn's
| first stage. They've definitely got a lot of work to do,
| though.
| martin8412 wrote:
| No, the others gave up on that can of worms in the 60s.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Which would be quite foolish. Controlling a large number
| of engines was made a lot easier by about 60 years of
| improvements in microcontroller and sensor technology.
| pfdietz wrote:
| I remember a NASA-connected SF author explaining at a
| Worldcon in Chicago that Falcon 9 wasn't going to be
| reliable because it had too many first stage engines.
|
| Oops.
| cubefox wrote:
| The Chinese Long March 9 plans, which are close to
| Starship, seem quite credible to me.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > The Chinese Long March 9 plans, which are close to
| Starship, seem quite credible to me.
|
| The plans for the Long March 9 change every year or so.
| The last time they published a design, it was a Saturn V
| semi-clone (with many more 1st stage engines).
|
| I'll take the Long March 9 seriously when they start
| showing off actual hardware.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| And of all the designs, it is the one with the least
| price transparency.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Last time, arguably that was years ago and hard numbers
| are really hard to come by, for the heavy lifting, as in
| no re-use of rockets and higher orbits, Ariane Space and
| SpaceX were not that far apart. Back of the envelope
| calculations so, so a lot of assumptions. That being
| said, the advertized prices are not what customers pay
| for specific missions.
|
| Agree on the launch capability, that is something
| strategic. I just hope those European initiatives
| continue. And Ariane still got paying customers, so their
| prices cannot be that outrageous, can they?
| pfdietz wrote:
| You may be able to find specific missions for which
| Ariane 5 could compete, but for the usual, bread and
| butter missions, like launching satellites to
| geostationary orbit (Ariane 5 typically launched these in
| pairs), SpaceX just grabbed that market. Ariane 5 could
| not compete there. And without volume, Ariane 5 could not
| be kept operating, the fixed costs would be too high.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Agree, hence Ariane 6. That being said, until SpaceX's
| Falcon 9(?) showed up, Ariane 5 was the go to standard.
| Not to bad for a rocket initially designed to launch a
| European space shuttle, and not conventional payload.
|
| Competion is a good thing, it drives innovation.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Because it was becoming old tech and primarily it costs too
| much. It's fine for a few big ticket once-in-a-decade launch
| missions but things are evolving.
| pfdietz wrote:
| It could not compete with newer launchers, particularly those
| from SpaceX.
| hef19898 wrote:
| So, the alternative is what? Start lobbying to force
| Euorpean, an other, governments to exclusively use SpaceX
| because they are so cool?
|
| And I don't know, maybe we should wait until Ariane 6 had its
| first launches, while also cutting them the same slack for
| failed early launches SpaceX gets?
| pfdietz wrote:
| Actually, the coercion would have to be forcing the
| European governments to use the expensive European
| launcher, when they could save a great deal of money just
| launching on SpaceX.
|
| SpaceX has definitively shown that there's a disconnect
| between delivering a great product and acting as a
| distribution mechanism for aerospace entitlement.
| pyrale wrote:
| > SpaceX has definitively shown that there's a disconnect
| between delivering a great product and acting as a
| distribution mechanism for aerospace entitlement.
|
| Did spaceX not receive significant "aerospace
| entitlement" funding through public contracts?
| kps wrote:
| This is on the event of the last Ariane 5 launch, but the _first_
| Ariane 5 launch failed due to software.
|
| The inertial reference system (SRI) was derived from Ariane 4.
| Since 5 was faster, a numeric conversion overflowed, which was
| not physically possible on 4. Since overflow was 'impossible',
| there was no explicit handling. Since the code was written in a
| 'safe' language (Ada), an 'unsafe' undefined result was
| impossible, so the module panicked. The SRI operation at that
| point was not actually required on the 5, but they had not wanted
| to make 'unnecessary' changes to disable it. Finally, the flight
| computer interpreted the SRI crash diagnostic data as flight
| data, and sent the rocket wildly off course.
|
| https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/esa-x-1819eng.pdf
| okl wrote:
| It didn't fail "due to software", it failed because the
| analysis wasn't redone, that came to the conclusion that range
| checks, as specified by the Ada programming language, can be
| disabled to increase performance.
| barelyauser wrote:
| Pedantic and pointless.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Also notable as one of the few actual software-related failures
| in spaceflight. It's usually some other design flaw at fault,
| as software has relatively small complexity footprint.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Depends exactly how you define software, but most of the N1
| failures were caused or exacerbated by bad behaviour by the
| control system. A few early Proton failures were also caused
| by control system failure, and then of course there was the
| Mars Climate Orbiter...
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| There was a Russian sigint satellite that somehow got
| programmed to roll 360 degrees and execute its initial burn
| to reach the desired orbit. Satellites are generally
| launched upside down. So it basically rolled over and de-
| orbited itself, fast.
|
| Would you consider that a software failure or not?
| orbital-decay wrote:
| These issues didn't have the software as some kind of cause
| - MCO failed due to the spec mismatch. Another example of
| this is Cassini failing to initialize Huygens fully before
| separation, and many others - these were not software
| issues as software was compliant with the spec. AFAIR early
| Proton-Ks failed due to the process issues - impossibly
| high cadence (typical at the time) and the lack of
| integration testing with Block D, and N1 3L's issue with
| KORD was external interference caused by fire.
|
| Edit: I stand corrected - the MCO failure report [1] says
| that the software behavior was against the spec. So yeah,
| it's a software failure indeed.
|
| [1] http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/MCO_report.pdf
| aftoprokrustes wrote:
| What I really "like" about the footage of the launch is how the
| commentator says "every parameter nominal" literally as the
| thing is blowing up. This is a great illustration of how fast
| the system failed.
| jldugger wrote:
| Commentator's curse in action!
| fermigier wrote:
| https://www.irisa.fr/pampa/EPEE/Ariane5.html
|
| "The truly unacceptable part is the absence of any kind of
| precise specification associated with a reusable module."
| danvk wrote:
| This is fascinating. It reminds me of the infamous MCAS on
| the Boeing 737 MAX. A system was designed, implemented and
| rigorously tested to be used in a specific scenario. A
| decision was then made much later to use it in a very
| different scenario without any understanding of the
| consequences.
| dsq wrote:
| I've been looking for something like this, thanks.
|
| I wonder if theres a similar manual (similar in that a non
| spcialist can follow and make some kind of sense from it) for
| SpaceX as well.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Try this? https://www.spacex.com/media/falcon-users-
| guide-2021-09.pdf
| Sanzig wrote:
| There's also this guide for their rideshare (Transporter)
| missions, if you don't want to buy a whole rocket:
| https://storage.googleapis.com/rideshare-
| static/Rideshare_Pa...
|
| It's surprisingly affordable, starts at $330k USD for a 50 kg
| microsat (although unless you want to build and qualify your
| own separation system, it'll really be almost double that
| because you'll have to buy a separation system from SpaceX).
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| "accessories not included" :))
| cubefox wrote:
| Context: Today is the last ever Ariane 5 launch.
| lagt_t wrote:
| I understand there must be some irrefutably valid points, but
| it seems crazy since it launched the most expensive science
| experiment in a while just over a year ago, perfectly.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| The motivation for Ariane 6 is to halve launch costs and
| increase launch cadence.
|
| As some have noted though it will still be an order of
| magnitude slower cadence than SpaceX is achieving and still
| not re-usable at all.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Solids really make rapid reuse impossible. You need to
| recast them.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| It's not competitive with SpaceX anymore. The Falcon 9 is
| cheaper and is launched so often its track record is already
| comparable.
| malermeister wrote:
| It's not just about market competitiveness. It's also about
| keeping capabilities in Europe and not being fully
| dependent on a foreign entity with questionable leadership.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| rather ironically, I do not believe there is the
| possibility of launching the Ariane 5 from Europe.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The French spaceport is, despite being close to the
| equator in latin america, part of the EU. And a rather
| good location.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I think the problem is in the event of war how do you
| manage to securely transport a launch vehicle and its
| payload to South America?
| wongarsu wrote:
| How did the US supply Great Britain throughout WWII, and
| how did they manage to ship their equipment and personnel
| there to actively fight in the European Theater in the
| later years of the war?
|
| War is full of logistics challenges, and slipping a
| retrofitted container ship or tanker carrying an Ariane-
| sized rocket in between other innocent maritime traffic
| would be one of them.
|
| Though the more common scenario in the last century or so
| seem to be harsh words, boycotts and proxy wars, not
| total war and sea blockades.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| There are many scenarios other than war where you want
| independent launch capability.
| malermeister wrote:
| Looks like there's a space port in Sweden now, too.
| Doesn't look like they're launching Arianes there yet
| tho.
|
| https://sscspace.com/the-world-watched-the-inauguration-
| of-s...
| Gravityloss wrote:
| You could launch north from say Spain, UK, Norway or
| their near neighbors if they grant overflight permission.
|
| To a polar orbit. To geostationary it's not great (don't
| know would it even be possible).
| kjs3 wrote:
| [flagged]
| malermeister wrote:
| Never said anything to the the contrary, no need to be so
| confrontational.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Yes but you don't need two launchers for that, only the
| latest one. Countries financing its development will want
| to use as much as possible to bring the cost per launch
| down.
|
| As implied by the comment I'm replying to, the only
| reason to keep Ariane 5 flying would have been its good
| track record bringing business on the commercial market
| but that's not going to happen because Falcon 9 gets all
| these customers now.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Well, it's being replaced with the Ariane 6. The 4 was also
| fairly successful, but was replaced with the 5.
|
| It was actually meant to be retired a few years back.
| PreInternet01 wrote:
| Fascinating, although especially the communications section shows
| the (2011) vintage: V24 circuits, pagers, and other miscellanea
| from a bygone era...
| bad_alloc wrote:
| Probably something that works for them now and a change might
| degrade reliability.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-05 23:02 UTC)