Zack Farrer ☆ "Wonderful Person" Anton is not far behind, tho.

Like a toothache lol no no i watch u bro

Ahahaha.. i know that feel too. Every KSP player know that feel too

Sadly I can’t build a good Delta IV Heavy.

And then moving from circular "onion" design to "flat" design.

. . . it is just the other way around: your ksp 'evolutions' follow (more or less) exactly the real design variations . . .

@@cashuma5010 a coevolution as it were as neither were causally linked. I wasn't studying them and emulating them nor them, I.

EVERYONE is asking them to put better cams on A6, and the PR team know there is a big demand. However, the said PR team is really small compared to other agencies and may not have the leverage to convince lead engineers to do so. Plus ArianeGroup had a really bad experience with a sensor added at the last minute causing the loss of an M51 nuclear missile a few years ago, so they may be reluctant to add cameras as a second thought on the A6. But let's pray that they do it anyway!

They said it'll have shipped cameras on the Ariane 6, that'll improve the live coverage, but they don't want to put them on A5 as it's already too reliable to mess-up even with small changes.

Na. Leave the propaganda victories to the super powers! Just keep the Ariane programm in a good competitive position. Adding a more experimental and corrageous(high risk, high reward) programm would be cool, though! Greatings from Germany

As a European (French) I worry. I worry that Musk's ambitions are already paving the way to a market for which the future Ariane is simply not ready. I worry that as it stands, this rocket will not be competitive for long. It is a deep worry which I hope will be addressed soon. We're not serious enough about this, have never been leaders in the domain with ambitious projects (such as China's, US' and soon India) and surely still won't be for long. Serious rethinking seems to be required.☹️

@@ChaineYTXF The problem is I believe partially the structure of many seperate nations working together instead of one entity (like for example the EU). Also for some reason there just isn't much talked about this in Europe. I think if you'd tell most Europeans about the Ariane, most will be surprisedthere is a European rocket and such a high quality space entity.

French and European? France is not European? ;)

Agreed! It would be really cool to see an anglo-french private spaceflight ops company!

@Portwave Weird. Because it is developed by Airbus Defense & Space, of which the headquarters is in Germany. The list of countries that parttake in the development? 20 ESA members. Its not mostly French. The only thing "mostly French" is the launch site.

@Portwave Dishonest? Those are facts. Yours is a good read, yet one of those comments that makes you say: you contradict your own argument. Your own comment states other nations contribute. Thus its not 'just French'. ESA is a multinational organisation. Started by France? Sure. Still just French? No.

@Portwave you keep contradicting yourself. First its all French, then other nations work on it too. I know youre not talking about ESA, and you admit other nations manufacture parts. What are you arguing for? France owning ESA... Have a happy new year btw.

I ran past it the other day.

thats what she said

I remember it when I went to expo 92. Next to the rocket there was a pavilion presenting Spain’s first indigenous satellite, hispasat.

Do you have a source for that first anecdote? I'm super intrigued by this. Can't find it anywhere and am wondering if it's true

@@lenmrt I second this.

Closer to Space bullshit

Closer to Space That first “fact” is very dubious. Why would the Americans attempt to sabotage a European space program? Why risk alienating France and Britain, their most powerful (and nuclear armed) allies at the height of the Cold War? How would the Americans know enough about Ariane’s design and hardware to send the self-destruct command, and if so, how did they fail? A good conspiracy theory should at least make a modicum of sense.

@@Cailus3542 back in the day it was way easier and less competition meant more money.

a VERY bad idea

@@konfunable All solid rockets do it.

@@johncrowerdoe5527 It's fine if you've got an opening on one end, liquid fuel tanks don't, so it's just a recipe for an explosion.

Apollo 13 tried it and indeed it didn't go very well.

@@jeffvader811 Yep bad in typical propellant tanks. Like the LOX on Apollo 13. Fine in combined tank/combustion chambers like on solids, hybrids and any designs that use the combustion as a non-propellant energy source.

watch the views not breaking the 100k though :P

@@5Andysalive I wonder for how long... It was posted today and it's 28k already!

@@5Andysalive There you have it... 105k views. Took about one day... Not very long.

How dare you not believing in us europeans?! NOT REACHING 100K?! Get out and watch us europeans take over the world once again!

@@rednex1989 Vive la France... bordel !

Yeah, cause the Arianne only launches like twice a year

It's unsurprising. ESA has a much smaller PR budget than NASA, and Roscosmos gets fairly regular coverage of Soyuz due to ISS crew/resupply which ensures a constant cadence of missions. ESA is also concentrating more on medium-lift "ride share" launches, as befits a cooperative multinational organisation, these are less glamorous and the coverage not as widespread.

@@JohnsontheFly More like 5 times a year, plus their smaller Vega and Soyuz launches

@@sixstringedthing having been to a talk by NASA's social media head last year, I can tell you that their (online) PR budget doesn't really exist (due to public funding). It actually all started with her tweeting a little personally... ESA is slowly getting better, but the ownership of the message seems even worse... :)

@@sixstringedthing Have you ever watched an ESA launch live? Whether it is a Soyuz or an Ariane, it's like they throw a party for VIPs every time. Every launch, the crowd gets taken out to the balconies 2 minutes before to watch the launch with their own eyes, and then shuttled back inside the control center to watch the staging on the big screen. After payload deploy, there's about an hour's worth of various politicians and CEOs giving speeches congratulating their teams.

Sorry, I can only subscribe once.

@@kineticinstallationspecial5775 You don't even want to try do ya?

@@kineticinstallationspecial5775 Share on the socials. Spread the gospel of Fly Safe. :)

What's the rush?

Only sub’d once?! Those are rookie numbers! Come on people!

Kaos Wylie -?

Yeah, pretty sure one of those tiles did some damage in one of the shots

@@Enemji @1:24 the shielding hits the side of the rocket and it begins to vent a gas

Well, at least it doesn't set itself on fire.

@@Gabriel-ow7wy I thought the same thing, but if you look at it frame by frame, the venting started before the tile reached that point on the rocket, but not by much. So it must have been a planned vent.

Space X🇺🇸💪 more Baddas

Did it look like a mess of spaghetti getting welded together?

Yeah, I noticed that too!

Was just going to say the same. Surely not :D

Yeah it looks like something that would kill a Spaceshuttle.. but I think it’s intentional because it happens in every clip

I was just about to say the same. Didnt look like it was supposed to happen.

Over pressure valve?

Sooooo, 30 years from now. 😃

Which is coincidentally 1 month after singularity.

JWST will be _ready_ for launch 2 weeks after fusion becomes viable, whereupon Congress will order NASA to scrap the entire project and redesign it from scratch.

@@giovannifoulmouth7205 by that time humanity will either be completely eradicated by Super A.I. or completely integrated into virtual universe. 😅

@@roku_nine a.k.a. Skynet.

Okay boomer

Sheng Loong Tan Okay loser !

@@tomf3150 okay winner

*favorite

@@DragonsAndDragons777 Sory i am from german and i am not so good in englisch grama and spelling

Reliability is the key. However, I cannot see how Ariane 6 will be able to compete in the late 2020s against the Falcons, when SpaceX *really* starts cutting prices. However Ariane NEXT, which will be reusable, is on its way, so there's a silver lining

@@Arkaid11 SpaceX has been promising to 'really' lower the cost of access to space since they got started. Seeing as how they're still throwing away their upper stages and only getting a handful of flights out of their first stages, I kind of doubt they're going to be able to cut costs enough to drive Ariane out of business.

@@andrewreynolds9371 Another point is, they don't really share markets. SpaceX seem to mostly focus on cheap access to LEO (which is why they use a Kerolox upper stage), while Arianespace mainly focuses on reliable (and reasonably cheap) GTO launches.

@@ShadowFalcon from what I understand, SpaceX limits itself to the LEO market because the Falcon, in all its variants, is optimized for that. Their performance is limited by their reuse philosophy, so the payload they can deliver to orbits beyond that is lower than their competitors.

@@andrewreynolds9371 Exactly. It's a similar story with Arianespace, only it was the European governments who wanted access to the Geostationary Orbits, and therefore all Ariane rockets are basically optimised for GTO, dual satellite delivery. So, comparing SpaceX to Arianespace is unfair to both, given they're in completely different markets.

It's really cool European space launch industry doesn't give up and follows new trend.

Same. Best intro of them all

Fr though, it’s kinda cringy

This comment is getting tedious to read on every video.

Those are some kind of foam tiles they absorb vibrations produced. You can see it in Chinese and Indian rockets (especially PSLV and GSLV MK2)

Yeah, it's not like he commented on it gazillion of times already, maybe just watch his starship movies?

@@randomnickify did he ? I must have missed that...every time.

probably some insulation to keep the tanks cool on ground. I had to watch the 1:25 sequence several times because at first I thought one of the pieces actually pierced the fairing and ruptured a line. But this appears to be a vent that blew something right at the time the insulation material passed the exhaust

foam insulation panels.

I suspect they are thermal blankets used to keep the cryo tanks cold on the pad, but yeah - in that one it looks like it punctured the tank at 1:28 or so.

To bad it succumbed to the same bad meme that the shuttle did, ergo sea level hydrolox engines. It would have been so much more capable if it had used kerolox instead.

@@carljohan9265 Wait, why? The central hydrolox engine is a sustainer. The tandem with the solid boosters is perfectly balanced, as in the Shuttle.

@@andreabindolini7452 Wrong. The reason it even needs the SRBs is precisely because it is using a hydrolox engine at sea level. Because hydrolox has great specific impulse but garbage thrust and can't lift a large rocket of the pad. The saturn 5 was much larger and didn't need side boosters because it used kerolox engines to get of the pad (fantastic thrust/energy density) and had the hydrolox engines on the upper stages that fired once it was in the vacuum, where specific impulse is the be-all end-all. Ergo, the Saturn 5 used the perfect fuel for each job. The shuttle and Ariane 5 did not. Even the use of SRBs is a terrible idea in general because you can't control them once they are lit (hence the Challenger accident). It would have been a much, much better idea to use kerolox or hypergalic strapon boosters if you absolutely had to have them (the russian Energia used kerolox starpons and was FAR more capable than an Ariane 5).

​@@carljohan9265 Wrong. The reason it even needs the SRBs is precisely because it is using a hydrolox engine at sea level. Because hydrolox has great specific impulse but garbage thrust and can't lift a large rocket of the pad. *Delta IV Heavy.* The saturn 5 was much larger and didn't need side boosters because it used kerolox engines to get of the pad (fantastic thrust/energy density) and had the hydrolox engines on the upper stages that fired once it was in the vacuum, where specific impulse is the be-all end-all. *Tandem staging and parallel staging works on the same principles, and thus you tipically need to couple a big thrust first engine with a high efficiency second engine. Tandem staging is slightly more effective on paper, but parallel staging has the big advantage to be simpler, because you don't need a powerful air-startable engine. Especially back then, this was a decisive factor in rocket design.* Ergo, the Saturn 5 used the perfect fuel for each job. The shuttle and Ariane 5 did not. *Any well designed rocket use the right fuel for each job. SRB are pretty good for the initial kick and the core stage is perfect as a sustainer for the remaining of the ascent. And, as said, you save an air-startable engine. I'm sure you are aware of the problems the designers would have to face to make the RS-25 engines air-startable, as required in the initial iterations of the ill-fated Ares-I rocket.* Even the use of SRBs is a terrible idea in general because you can't control them once they are lit (hence the Challenger accident). It would have been a much, much better idea to use kerolox or hypergalic strapon boosters if you absolutely had to have them (the russian Energia used kerolox starpons and was FAR more capable than an Ariane 5). *I'm pretty sure that, statistics wise, the majority of disastrous mishaps in rocketry comes from liquid-fueled engines (and NO, the Challenger disaster does not count because it was originated by horrible management, launcing the mission well outside the safety parameters). Well, let me be clear: I'm not a supporter of solid rockets. But they have their purpose. They are terribly inefficient, but also can easily provide much more thrust than any liquid fueled engine, so they are absolutely adequate for their job.*

@@andreabindolini7452 The Delta 4 heavy is massively underperforming for a rocket of it's size and is the peak of "optimizing something that should not exist", in this case sea level hydrolox. A falcon heavy, despite being smaller, can lift more than twice as much, potentially up to four times as much if fully expended. More accidents do tend to happen with the thing that is used far more, and liquid fueled engines have been used a LOT more in space going rockets compared to SRBs. Heck, the soviet union basically didn't use SRBs ever, and they made a shitload of different engines. Besides, small, single piece SRBs are generally pretty stable but large, segmented ones have a lot of unique problems and is a completely different category. No matter how you slice it, a hydrolox/SRB combo is inferior to just using something that is better suited for sea level, and no amount of optimization will change that. Saturn 5 could lift 140 tonnes, the shuttle could lift 27.5 tonnes. That is WOEFULLY inferior. The Ariane 5, despite it's size, just barely outperforms a falcon 9 in terms of payload capacity and costs 3 to 4 times as much to launch (and I'm not even mentioning the extreme difference in launch cadence).

Maybe the Italian sea-launched Alfa ICBM, but it wasn’t a commercial rocket in that developed phase

I was in ~fifth grade, living near Darmstadt, Germany at the time. Our German teacher (required course for American schools) took us on a field trip to the ESA headquarters and we each got a cardboard model of the Ariane rocket to cut out and assemble. Great memories! Side note, same teacher took us to one chocolate factory three times in two years lol. Also a couple of concentration camps... heavy stuff for a kid, but I'm very thankful for the experiences.

It's even more interesting because the one reliable part of Europa had been the British Blue Streak, by breaking off to make the Black Arrow they ultimately got to orbit but killed Britain's space launch capabilitye.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there was "outside" influence to stop the Brits from stealing someone else's thunder. Perhaps why the UK is using reactors and missiles from another country instead of developing their own, as France did.

Because there can be only one Europa!

Lets hope the software is not german. It may blow up the wrong "Europa".

they need all that ice to replace the ice caps Greta Thunberg has convinced them are melting. What else to chill their cocktails with at EU parties in Strassbourg?

@@5Andysalive Hey that only happened once or twice decades ago. No need to be worried. We can handle this.

Inners wreck Ganymede. Only Belter life matter now.

Well, the Ariane 5 seems to be a proven launch vehicle by now. But granted, shit happens, and it would be devastating if it would happen with the JWST …

@@c.augustin hopefully they built another one in secret. I doubt that happened but you'd think the could have with the amount they have spent. I think it will be ok honestly

"It's gonna launch!" - Fraser Cain