Editing Ariane 2 (section)

==Development==
In 1973, eleven nations decided to pursue joint the collaboration in the field of space exploration and formed a new pan-national organisation to undertake this mission, the European Space Agency.<ref name = "harvey 161 162">Harvey 2003, pp. 161-162.</ref> Six years later, in December 1979, the arrival of a capable European [[expendable launch system]] was marked when the first [[Ariane 1]] launcher was successfully launched from the [[Guiana Space Centre]] at [[Kourou]], French Guiana.<ref name = "harvey 169">Harvey 2003, p. 169.</ref> The Ariane 1 soon became considered to be a capable and competitive launcher in comparison to rival platforms offered by the [[Soviet Union]] and the United States.<ref name = "harvey 172"/> However, even prior to the launcher entering service, there was a strong desire to quickly produce improved derivatives that would be able to handle even greater payloads than Ariane 1 could. These desires would result in the creation of both the Ariane 2 and [[Ariane 3]].<ref name = "harvey 1724">Harvey 2003, pp. 172-174.</ref>

While the initiative was first proposed in 1978, prior to the Ariane 1's first flight, approval to commence the first phase of development was not received until July 1979.<ref name = "harvey 174">Harvey 2003, p. 174.</ref> The bulk of development work on the new launcher occurred between 1980 and 1982. The Ariane 2 was designed to satisfy the future demand for the delivery of two tonne payloads into a [[Geosynchronous transfer orbit]] (GTO).<ref name = "harvey 174"/> According to aerospace historian Brian Harvey, in spite of the numbering sequence adopted, the Ariane 3 was the direct successor to the Ariane 1, rather than the Ariane 2, as could be logically assumed.<ref name = "harvey 174">Harvey 2003, p. 174.</ref> The principal agency behind the development of the Ariane 2 was the [[Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales]] (CNES), while the lead company for its production was the French aerospace manufacturer [[Aérospatiale]].<ref name = "harvey 214">Harvey 2003, p. 214.</ref>

In order to keep costs down, CNES directed that only tested technologies could be implemented in the launcher's improvements; in fact, no budget was provided for new test series to be performed. Furthermore, it was restricted to using the existing launch pad and handling facilities established for the Ariane 1, and that there was to be no allowance for retooling of the Ariane production line.<ref name = "harvey 174"/> However, one new piece of infrastructure that was permitted was the establishment of tracking equipment in the [[Ivory Coast]]; the existing infrastructure based in Brazil used by the Ariane 1 was less suitable due to the increased performance of the Ariane 2, which flew a different ascent profile than its predecessor.<ref name = "harvey 215">Harvey 2003, p. 215.</ref> Performance boosts were achieved via several different ways, such as the elongated third stage fuel tanks to carry 30 per cent more fuel, elevated combustion pressure in multiple stages, a new intertank structure that supported the addition of solid-fuel boosters, and the adoption of a new fuel mixture.<ref name = "harvey 2135">Harvey 2003, pp. 214-215.</ref>

The finalised Ariane 2 is largely identical to its sibling, the [[Ariane 3]], the only major difference being the lack of additional [[solid rocket boosters]], which gave the Ariane 3 a higher payload capacity at a greater unit cost.<ref name = "harvey 515"/> The payload capacity of the Ariane 2 was {{convert|2175|kg}} to a [[geosynchronous transfer orbit]] (GTO), exceeding that of the preceding Ariane 1.