(FRENCH) Super rocket explodes on launch (OOPS ALERT)

BBC News ^ | December 12, 2002 | BBC News

[aquawrench]

Hey! Ill have you know that I owned a Le Car before, till it blew up.

[rockfish59]

Gays In Space!

[Cobra64]

I take that as a yes. My response is "ypu're welcome." I had an uncle that died on Omaha Beach on your stinking country. 50,000 Americans died in one day in your lousy country. The French can't design anything that has wings, wheels, or props that works properly. The French Charles DeGaulle aircraft carrier dropped a prop not too long ago. BTW a little soap and deodorant goes a long way.

[rogue yam]

I have no idea what you mean when you say I am confusing momentum with energy. However, let's perform a little thought experiment:

Two satellites are to be launched into co-planar circular polar orbits of equal altitude. One is launched from a point on the equator, the other from the North Pole. Let us also stipulate that the desired orbit plane contains the launch site of the equatorial launch and further that the Earth is not rotating. In this case, the launch from the equator is due north (or south) and the launch from the North Pole is along the meridian containing the equatorial launch site. Both spacecraft use an identical amount of fuel to get to the target altitude and then circularize.

Now restart the experiment only this time the Earth is rotating. The Earth's rotation has no effect on the polar launch. Using your method, the equatorial launch is due east. When the spacecraft reaches the target altitude it is traveling orthogonal to the desired orbital plane. Yes, it has used less fuel to get to apogee than the other spacecraft did, but it must first fire a retrograde impulse to bring itself to a complete standstill, then fire a second impulse, orthogonal to the first, to impart sufficient momentum to provide for a circular orbit. The "free" energy the spacecreft left Earth with (due to the Earth's rotation) is orthogonal to the desired orbital plane. Instead of contributing to the final angular momentum of the spacecraft, rather it costs you fuel to get rid of it.

By the way, I have Bate. Nice book, if a bit outdated.

[rogue yam]

I have no idea what you mean when you say I am confusing momentum with energy. However, let's perform a little thought experiment:

Two satellites are to be launched into co-planar circular polar orbits of equal altitude. One is launched from a point on the equator, the other from the North Pole. Let us also stipulate that the desired orbit plane contains the launch site of the equatorial launch and further that the Earth is not rotating. In this case, the launch from the equator is due north (or south) and the launch from the North Pole is along the meridian containing the equatorial launch site. Both spacecraft use an identical amount of fuel to get to the target altitude and then circularize.

Now restart the experiment only this time the Earth is rotating. The Earth's rotation has no effect on the polar launch. Using your method, the equatorial launch is due east. When the spacecraft reaches the target altitude it is traveling orthogonal to the desired orbital plane. Yes, it has used less fuel to get to apogee than the other spacecraft did, but it must first fire a retrograde impulse to bring itself to a complete standstill, then fire a second impulse, orthogonal to the first, to impart sufficient momentum to provide for a circular orbit. The "free" energy the spacecreft left Earth with (due to the Earth's rotation) is orthogonal to the desired orbital plane. Instead of contributing to the final angular momentum of the spacecraft, rather it costs you fuel to get rid of it.

By the way, I have Bate. Nice book, if a bit outdated.

[rogue yam]

I have no idea what you mean when you say I am confusing momentum with energy. However, let's perform a little thought experiment:

Two satellites are to be launched into co-planar circular polar orbits of equal altitude. One is launched from a point on the equator, the other from the North Pole. Let us also stipulate that the desired orbit plane contains the launch site of the equatorial launch and further that the Earth is not rotating. In this case, the launch from the equator is due north (or south) and the launch from the North Pole is along the meridian containing the equatorial launch site. Both spacecraft use an identical amount of fuel to get to the target altitude and then circularize.

Now restart the experiment only this time the Earth is rotating. The Earth's rotation has no effect on the polar launch. Using your method, the equatorial launch is due east. When the spacecraft reaches the target altitude it is traveling orthogonal to the desired orbital plane. Yes, it has used less fuel to get to apogee than the other spacecraft did, but it must first fire a retrograde impulse to bring itself to a complete standstill, then fire a second impulse, orthogonal to the first, to impart sufficient momentum to provide for a circular orbit. The "free" energy the spacecreft left Earth with (due to the Earth's rotation) is orthogonal to the desired orbital plane. Instead of contributing to the final angular momentum of the spacecraft, rather it costs you fuel to get rid of it.

By the way, I have Bate. Nice book, if a bit outdated.

[rogue yam]

Yeah, yeah, I bet you all heard me the first time, huh?

Sorry...

[desertcry]

would be staged on french soil rather than in thier colonies Knowing the french, they certainly would have liked to launch their rockets from Paris. But unfortunately for them, the french rockets could not launch a frog into orbit, without Mother Earths angular momentum's help, which is most potent at the Equator. Colonies do have some uses.

[Saturn_V]

Hmmm. I can't give out too many annecdotes, but I know that just as they were getting into the Western launch markets, some site surveys found unsettling amounts of free propellant vapor in the spacecraft fueling facility, some facinating grounding (or complete lack thereof) in several areas, and less than adequate fire fighting arrangements. The Russians had some very impressive equipment and facilities in places, but the overall infastructure (particularly communications) wasn't up to western standards. In addition, preventive maintanence was kind of a lost cause with them...
Russian space engineering has always been kind of a pinnacle for them (for example, the whole concept of 'state-space' modeling came directly from early Russian rocket engineers), and the Russian approach favoring simple brute-force solutions (at the expense of efficiency, mass, and ease of repair), and paying a fair amount of attention to worst case technical concerns works well with launch vehicles. They have less of the complication for complication's sake than a typical Western design. They do tend to take rather a 'relaxed' approach to personel safety (even after several major fatal explosions, there are still viewing stands well inside the blast radius in the event of a failure). Overall, though, the Proton and especially the Soyuz have surprisingly good reliabiliy, especially considering the scary Russian planes you have to fly to get to Baikonur...
-SV

[1Old Pro]

. Our trade balance is positive

Which means that the French don't have the disposible income and the corporations don't have the cash to buy anything from outside markets.

[1Old Pro]

Hey karl, do you live in Paris by chance?

Paris makes bid for gay tourists - tourism officials to give new meaning to the term "Gay Paree"

[Scott from the Left Coast]

HOLD MY BRIE!

[tracer]

The symbolic irony of this all is absolutely stunning....