DOCSLIB.ORG

Halfway of the Ariane Four-Engine Assembly Showed Power Loss Only Once

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Halfway of the Ariane Four-Engine Assembly Showed Power Loss Only Once Nature Vol. 285 5 June 1980 353 lines at wavelengths greater than 0.8 mm. this loss was detected soon enough to abort an acoustic effect which in turn induced the It will also provide Britain's radioastron­ the launch. At a subsequent attempt, lift­ instability. The deflector geometry is omers-whose long lead in radiointerfero­ off and launch were successful, and the completely different at Kourou from the metry has been broken by the construction earlier fault was put down to instrument geometry adopted in the ground-based of the US Very Large Array- with access error. There may now be doubts about tests. Robert Walgate to at least one world class instrument. whether this was the case. Robert Walgate The Ariane first stage engines are derived from those of an earlier French rocket, Pesticides Ariane 'Diamant' - and this rocket also exper­ ienced catastrophic losses of power during its development. However, 44 ground tests EEC directive Halfway of the Ariane four-engine assembly showed power loss only once. disputed The fault probably traces back to a fluid to the Devil or chemical instability in the injector, the THE long-standing argument over the 'carburettor' that injects fuel and oxidant basis for environmental standards between EUROPEAN hopes of commercial into the combustion chamber; and the some European governments and the :ompetition with the delayed American question arises whether the instability is European Commission now appears to space shuttle have been called into question triggered by a mechanical fault in the have spread to the consumers' by the failure on 23 May of the second injector, or is simply an inherent instability associations. Thus last week (27 May) the launch test of Ariane, the European three­ due to a design error. If the latter, a further Consumers' Association, the London­ stage 1,750 kg payload launcher. The series of ground tests will be necessary based consumer group, published a European Space Agency, responsible for before Ariane's third test flight, and the criticism of the draft directive on the Ariane, has always held that two successful money available for those tests is limited. regulation of pesticides in foodstuffs flights in the four-flight test series (the next Another possibility being considered by originally promulgated in 1976. tests are due in November this year and Ariane engineers is that the geometry of the The CA's argument is based on a February 1981) would be counted a exhaust deflectors at the launch pad led to comparative study carried out in the past success; but what matters is whether three years in West Germany and the UK. potential clients will take the same view. The nub of the issue, according to the They will no doubt now be on their guard. report "Pesticide Residues and Food" The rocket fell into the sea less than 10 (Consumers' Association, 14 Buckingham km from its launch site in Kourou, French Street, London WCZ) is whether the Guyana. It now lies in muddy waters some regulation of pesticides in the human diet is 7 to 10 metres deep between Kourou and the best accomplished by fixing maximum former French penal colony, Devil's concentrations of permissible pesticide Island. Two ships are searching for it, one residues in foodstuffs appearing on the with sonar and the other with drag-nets. If domestic market. the rocket is found, it should be recover­ The EEC directive proposes that there able. should be maximum permitted levels of The fuel tanks were destroyed by an certain pesticides (particularly the automatic device, but the propulsion bay organocholorines) in foodstuffs, and that - the collection of four combustion it should be the responsibility of national chambers where the critical fault occurred governments to sample foodstuffs - is expected to be intact. It may prove regularly, analysing them for their crucial in determining the cause of the pesticide content. This is for practical accident. purposes the system now in operation in Preliminary analysis of telemetric data West Germany. has revealed that one of the four first stage By contrast, the British system is based engines began to 'flicker' 4.4 sec after on a voluntary scheme for the approval (by ignition, 1.1 sec after lift-off. The pressure the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and in its combustion chamber oscillated at Food on the recommendation of an expert I ,000 Hz with an amplitude of 4 bars about Advisory Committee) of pesticides offered its design pressure of 54 bars, and the for sale in the United Kingdom and on exhaust gases turned yellow, indicating estimates of what foods people eat. The CA inefficient oxidation of the fuel. By 6 joins with other critics of the system in seconds the fault appeared to have urging that the approval scheme should be corrected itself. made statutory, but otherwise comes to the At 28 seconds the fault recurred for an conclusion that this scheme has adequately instant, and then the temperature began to served its purpose of keeping pesticide rise steadily in the propulsion bay from concentrations in human blood and tissues 24°C to 56°C. At 64 seconds the tempera­ within acceptable limits. ture jumped to 100°C and the combustion One of the CA's chief arguments in chamber pressure dropped to 10 bar. favour of the British system of control is Ariane started to roll. By 104 sec the roll that the German system is much more had reached 10 rpm, and two other engines expensive. But the report, while lost pressure; the third followed at 108 sec. recognising that harmonisation of The self-destruct systems then decided that environmental standards is necessary in the Ariane had had enough, and blew out the interests of European free trade, argues fuel tanks. that it would be inequitable that all A similar loss of pressure was detected members of the EEC should have to adopt just after ignition of the Ariane engines on The Ariane launch, just as the first of the four the most stringent (and cumbersome) of the first launch test in November 1979; but engines began to flicker. the control procedures now in force. -···-----~ .. -~---------·····--- 0028-0836/80/230353-02$01.00 © J980Maunillan Journals [.td .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ariane-5 Completes Flawless Third Test Flight
    r bulletin 96 — november 1998 Ariane-5 Completes Flawless Third Test Flight A launch-readiness review conducted on Friday engine shut down and Maqsat-3 was 16 and Monday 19 October had given the go- successfully injected into GTO. The orbital ahead for the final countdown for a launch just parameters at that point were: two days later within a 90-minute launch Perigee: 1027 km, compared with the window between 13:00 to 14:30 Kourou time. 1028 ± 3 km predicted The launcher’s roll-out from the Final Assembly Apogee: 35 863 km, compared with the Building to the Launch Zone was therefore 35 898 ± 200 km predicted scheduled for Tuesday 20 October at 09:30 Inclination: 6.999 deg, compared with the Kourou time. 6.998 ± 0.05 deg predicted. On 21 October, Europe reconfirmed its lead in providing space Speaking in Kourou immediately after the flight, transportation systems for the 21st Century. Ariane-5, on its third Fredrik Engström, ESA’s Director of Launchers qualification flight, left no doubts as to its ability to deliver payloads and the Ariane-503 Flight Director, confirmed reliably and accurately to Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO). The new that: “The third Ariane-5 flight has been a heavy-lift launcher lifted off in glorious sunshine from the Guiana complete success. It qualifies Europe’s new Space Centre, Europe’s spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, at heavy-lift launcher and vindicates the 13:37:21 local time (16:37:21 UT). technological options chosen by the European Space Agency.” This third Ariane-5 test flight was intended ESA’s Director
    [Show full text]
  • Call for M5 Missions
    ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use M5 Call - Technical Annex Prepared by SCI-F Reference ESA-SCI-F-ESTEC-TN-2016-002 Issue 1 Revision 0 Date of Issue 25/04/2016 Status Issued Document Type Distribution ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use Table of contents: 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Scope of document ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Reference documents .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 List of acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2 General Guidelines ................................................................................................................ 6 3 Analysis of some potential mission profiles ........................................................................... 7 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Current European launchers ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Wittelsbach-Graff and Hope Diamonds: Not Cut from the Same Rough
    THE WITTELSBACH-GRAFF AND HOPE DIAMONDS: NOT CUT FROM THE SAME ROUGH Eloïse Gaillou, Wuyi Wang, Jeffrey E. Post, John M. King, James E. Butler, Alan T. Collins, and Thomas M. Moses Two historic blue diamonds, the Hope and the Wittelsbach-Graff, appeared together for the first time at the Smithsonian Institution in 2010. Both diamonds were apparently purchased in India in the 17th century and later belonged to European royalty. In addition to the parallels in their histo- ries, their comparable color and bright, long-lasting orange-red phosphorescence have led to speculation that these two diamonds might have come from the same piece of rough. Although the diamonds are similar spectroscopically, their dislocation patterns observed with the DiamondView differ in scale and texture, and they do not show the same internal strain features. The results indicate that the two diamonds did not originate from the same crystal, though they likely experienced similar geologic histories. he earliest records of the famous Hope and Adornment (Toison d’Or de la Parure de Couleur) in Wittelsbach-Graff diamonds (figure 1) show 1749, but was stolen in 1792 during the French T them in the possession of prominent Revolution. Twenty years later, a 45.52 ct blue dia- European royal families in the mid-17th century. mond appeared for sale in London and eventually They were undoubtedly mined in India, the world’s became part of the collection of Henry Philip Hope. only commercial source of diamonds at that time. Recent computer modeling studies have established The original ancestor of the Hope diamond was that the Hope diamond was cut from the French an approximately 115 ct stone (the Tavernier Blue) Blue, presumably to disguise its identity after the that Jean-Baptiste Tavernier sold to Louis XIV of theft (Attaway, 2005; Farges et al., 2009; Sucher et France in 1668.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tubesat Launch Vehicle
    TubeSat and NEPTUNE 30 Orbital Rocket Programs Personal Satellites Are GO! Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com About Interorbital Corporation Founded in 1996 by Randa and Roderick Milliron, incorporated in 2001 Located at the Mojave Spaceport in Mojave, California 98.5% owned by R. and R. Milliron 1.5% owned by Eric Gullichsen Initial Starting Technology Pressure-fed liquid rocket engines Initial Mission Low-cost orbital and interplanetary launch vehicle development Facilities 6,000 square-foot research and development facility Two rocket engine test sites at the Mojave Spaceport Expert engineering and manufacturing team Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Core Technical Team Roderick Milliron: Chief Designer Lutz Kayser: Primary Technical Consultant Eric Gullichsen: Guidance and Control Gerard Auvray: Telecommunications Engineer Donald P. Bennett: Mechanical Engineer David Silsbee: Electronics Engineer Joel Kegel: Manufacturing/Engineering Tech Jacqueline Wein: Manufacturing/Engineering Tech Reinhold Ziegler: Space-Based Power Systems E. Mark Shusterman,M.D. Medical Life Support Randa Milliron: High-Temperature Composites Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Key Hardware Built In-House Propellant Tanks: Combining state-of-the-art composite technology with off-the-shelf aluminum liners Advanced Guidance Hardware and Software Ablative Rocket Engines and Components GPRE 0.5KNFA Rocket Engine Test Manned Space Flight Training Systems Rocket Injectors, Valves Systems, and Other Metal components Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Project History Pressure-Fed Rocket Engines GPRE 2.5KLMA Liquid Oxygen/Methanol Engine: Thrust = 2,500 lbs. GPRE 0.5KNFA WFNA/Furfuryl Alcohol (hypergolic): Thrust = 500 lbs. GPRE 0.5KNHXA WFNA/Turpentine (hypergolic): Thrust = 500 lbs. GPRE 3.0KNFA WFNA/Furfuryl Alcohol (hypergolic): Thrust = 3,000 lbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas Launch System Mission Planner's Guide, Atlas V Addendum
    ATLAS Atlas Launch System Mission Planner’s Guide, Atlas V Addendum FOREWORD This Atlas V Addendum supplements the current version of the Atlas Launch System Mission Plan- ner’s Guide (AMPG) and presents the initial vehicle capabilities for the newly available Atlas V launch system. Atlas V’s multiple vehicle configurations and performance levels can provide the optimum match for a range of customer requirements at the lowest cost. The performance data are presented in sufficient detail for preliminary assessment of the Atlas V vehicle family for your missions. This guide, in combination with the AMPG, includes essential technical and programmatic data for preliminary mission planning and spacecraft design. Interface data are in sufficient detail to assess a first-order compatibility. This guide contains current information on Lockheed Martin’s plans for Atlas V launch services. It is subject to change as Atlas V development progresses, and will be revised peri- odically. Potential users of Atlas V launch service are encouraged to contact the offices listed below to obtain the latest technical and program status information for the Atlas V development. For technical and business development inquiries, contact: COMMERCIAL BUSINESS U.S. GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES BUSINESS INQUIRIES Telephone: (691) 645-6400 Telephone: (303) 977-5250 Fax: (619) 645-6500 Fax: (303) 971-2472 Postal Address: Postal Address: International Launch Services, Inc. Commercial Launch Services, Inc. P.O. Box 124670 P.O. Box 179 San Diego, CA 92112-4670 Denver, CO 80201 Street Address: Street Address: International Launch Services, Inc. Commercial Launch Services, Inc. 101 West Broadway P.O. Box 179 Suite 2000 MS DC1400 San Diego, CA 92101 12999 Deer Creek Canyon Road Littleton, CO 80127-5146 A current version of this document can be found, in electronic form, on the Internet at: http://www.ilslaunch.com ii ATLAS LAUNCH SYSTEM MISSION PLANNER’S GUIDE ATLAS V ADDENDUM (AVMPG) REVISIONS Revision Date Rev No.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Studies Towards an Australian Indigenous Space Launch System
    TRADE STUDIES TOWARDS AN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Engineering by Gordon P. Briggs B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc. (Astron) School of Engineering and Information Technology, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy January 2010 Abstract During the project Apollo moon landings of the mid 1970s the United States of America was the pre-eminent space faring nation followed closely by only the USSR. Since that time many other nations have realised the potential of spaceflight not only for immediate financial gain in areas such as communications and earth observation but also in the strategic areas of scientific discovery, industrial development and national prestige. Australia on the other hand has resolutely refused to participate by instituting its own space program. Successive Australian governments have preferred to obtain any required space hardware or services by purchasing off-the-shelf from foreign suppliers. This policy or attitude is a matter of frustration to those sections of the Australian technical community who believe that the nation should be participating in space technology. In particular the provision of an indigenous launch vehicle that would guarantee the nation independent access to the space frontier. It would therefore appear that any launch vehicle development in Australia will be left to non- government organisations to at least define the requirements for such a vehicle and to initiate development of long-lead items for such a project. It is therefore the aim of this thesis to attempt to define some of the requirements for a nascent Australian indigenous launch vehicle system.
    [Show full text]
  • Study of a 100Kwe Space Reactor for Exploration Missions
    Preliminary study of a 100 kWe space reactor concept for exploration missions Elisa CLIQUET, Jean-Marc RUAULT 1), Jean-Pierre ROUX, Laurent LAMOINE, Thomas RAMEE 2), Christine POINOT-SALANON, Alexey LOKHOV, Serge PASCAL 3) 1) CNES Launchers Directorate,Evry, France 2) AREVA TA, Aix en Provence, France 3) CEA DEN/DM2S, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France NETS 2011 Overview ■ General context of the study ■ Requirements ■ Methodology of the study ■ Technologies selected for final trade-off ■ Reactor trade-off ■ Conversion trade-off ■ Critical technologies and development philosophy ■ Conclusion and perspectives CNES Directorate of Launchers Space transportation division of the French space agency ■ Responsible for the development of DIAMANT, ARIANE 1 to 4, ARIANE 5, launchers ■ System Architect for the Soyuz at CSG program ■ Development of VEGA launcher first stage (P80) ■ Future launchers preparation activities Multilateral and ESA budgets • To adapt the current launchers to the needs for 2015-2020 • To prepare launcher evolutions for 2025 - 2030, if needed • To prepare the new generation of expandable launchers (2025-2030) • To prepare the long future after 2030 with possible advanced launch vehicles ■ Future space transportation prospective activities, such as Exploration needs (including in particular OTV missions) Advanced propulsion technologies investigation General context ■ Background Last French studies on space reactors : • ERATO (NEP) in the 80’s, • MAPS (NTP) in the 90’s • OPUS (NEP) 2002-2004 ■ Since then Nuclear safe orbit
    [Show full text]
  • Building and Maintaining the International Space Station (ISS)
    / Building and maintaining the International Space Station (ISS) is a very complex task. An international fleet of space vehicles launches ISS components; rotates crews; provides logistical support; and replenishes propellant, items for science experi- ments, and other necessary supplies and equipment. The Space Shuttle must be used to deliver most ISS modules and major components. All of these important deliveries sustain a constant supply line that is crucial to the development and maintenance of the International Space Station. The fleet is also responsible for returning experiment results to Earth and for removing trash and waste from the ISS. Currently, transport vehicles are launched from two sites on transportation logistics Earth. In the future, the number of launch sites will increase to four or more. Future plans also include new commercial trans- ports that will take over the role of U.S. ISS logistical support. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION GUIDE TRANSPORTATION/LOGISTICS 39 LAUNCH VEHICLES Soyuz Proton H-II Ariane Shuttle Roscosmos JAXA ESA NASA Russia Japan Europe United States Russia Japan EuRopE u.s. soyuz sL-4 proton sL-12 H-ii ariane 5 space shuttle First launch 1957 1965 1996 1996 1981 1963 (Soyuz variant) Launch site(s) Baikonur Baikonur Tanegashima Guiana Kennedy Space Center Cosmodrome Cosmodrome Space Center Space Center Launch performance 7,150 kg 20,000 kg 16,500 kg 18,000 kg 18,600 kg payload capacity (15,750 lb) (44,000 lb) (36,400 lb) (39,700 lb) (41,000 lb) 105,000 kg (230,000 lb), orbiter only Return performance
    [Show full text]
  • The European Launchers Between Commerce and Geopolitics
    The European Launchers between Commerce and Geopolitics Report 56 March 2016 Marco Aliberti Matteo Tugnoli Short title: ESPI Report 56 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print), 2076-6688 (online) Published in March 2016 Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel. +43 1 7181118-0; Fax -99 Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose with- out permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 56; March 2016. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, inciden- tal or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: Panthera.cc ESPI Report 56 2 March 2016 The European Launchers between Commerce and Geopolitics Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 10 1.1 Access to Space at the Nexus of Commerce and Geopolitics 10 1.2 Objectives of the Report 12 1.3 Methodology and Structure 12 2. Access to Space in Europe 14 2.1 European Launchers: from Political Autonomy to Market Dominance 14 2.1.1 The Quest for European Independent Access to Space 14 2.1.3 European Launchers: the Current Family 16 2.1.3 The Working System: Launcher Strategy, Development and Exploitation 19 2.2 Preparing for the Future: the 2014 ESA Ministerial Council 22 2.2.1 The Path to the Ministerial 22 2.2.2 A Look at Europe’s Future Launchers and Infrastructure 26 2.2.3 A Revolution in Governance 30 3.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIANE 5 Data Relating to Flight 225
    KOUROU August 2015 ARIANE 5 Data relating to Flight 225 EUTELSAT 8 West B Intelsat 34 Data relating to Flight 225 Flight 225 Ariane 5 Satellites: EUTELSAT 8 WEST B – INTELSAT 34 Content 1. Introduction .................................................................... 3 2. Launcher L579 ............................................................... 4 3. Mission V225 ............................................................... 10 4. Payloads ...................................................................... 19 5. Launch campaign ........................................................ 32 6. Launch window ............................................................ 35 7. Final countdown .......................................................... 36 8. Flight sequence ........................................................... 40 9. Airbus Defence and Space and the ARIANE programmes ........................................................................ 42 2 Data relating to Flight 225 1. Introduction Flight 225 is the 81st Ariane 5 launch and the fourth in 2015. It follows on from a series of 66 consecutive successful Ariane 5 launches. This is the 51st ARIANE 5 ECA (Cryogenic Evolution type A), the most powerful version in the ARIANE 5 range. Flight 225 is a commercial mission for Ariane 5. The L579 launcher is the twenty-fifth to be delivered by Airbus Defence and Space to Arianespace as part of the PB production batch. The PB production contract was signed in March 2009 to guarantee continuity of the launch service after completion
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Session II-A-Current Status of the Ariane 4 Program and of The
    1994 (31st) Space Exploration and Utilization The Space Congress® Proceedings for the Good of the World Apr 27th, 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM Paper Session II-A - Current Status of the Ariane 4 Program and of the Ariane 5 Development James R. Youdale Arianespace Inc. Washington, D.C. Douglas A. Heydon Arianespace Inc. Washington, D.C. Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Youdale, James R. and Heydon, Douglas A., "Paper Session II-A - Current Status of the Ariane 4 Program and of the Ariane 5 Development" (1994). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 16. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1994-31st/april-27-1994/16 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Current Status of the Ariane 4 Program and of the Ariane 5 Development James R. Youdale1 and Douglas A. Heyden~ Arianespace Inc. Washington, D.C. Abstract This paper provides an overview of the commercial siruation of Arianespace, a general update regarding its technical and operational activities and its near and medium term prospects. A summary of the Ariane 4 "track record" is given and the latest improvement to its third staae the HIO III, is presented. Operational improvements that reduce the interval between two = ' consecutive laWlches are also addressed. The ratiollale for going to Ariane 5 is discussed and the current status of the Ariane 5 development program is reviewed.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch Vehicle Control Center Architectures
    Launch Vehicle Control Center Architectures Michael D. Watson1, Amy Epps2, and Van Woodruff3 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 Michael Jacob Vachon4 NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 Julio Monreal5 European Space Agency, Launchers Directorate, Paris, France Marl Levesque6 United Launch Alliance, Vandenberg AFB and Randall Williams7 and Tom McLaughlin8 Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA 90245 Launch vehicles within the international community vary greatly in their configuration and processing. Each launch site has a unique processing flow based on the specific launch vehicle configuration. Launch and flight operations are managed through a set of control centers associated with each launch site. Each launch site has a control center for launch operations; however flight operations support varies from being co-located with the launch site to being shared with the space vehicle control center. There is also a nuance of some having an engineering support center which may be co-located with either the launch or flight control center, or in a separate geographical location altogether. A survey of control center architectures is presented for various launch vehicles including the NASA Space Launch System (SLS), United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V and Delta IV, and the European Space Agency (ESA) Ariane 5. Each of these control center architectures shares some similarities in basic structure while differences in functional distribution also exist. The driving functions which lead to these factors are considered and a model of control center architectures is proposed which supports these commonalities and variations. I. INTRODUCTION Launch vehicles in both Europe and the United States have been operating successfully for several decades.
    [Show full text]