POLL - Was NASA's Ares I-X Launch a Success?

[doublehelix]

NASA launched its Ares I-X rocket prototype on a brief test flight on Oct. 28, 2009 to aid the development of the new Ares I booster, which the agency is building to launch astronauts to space after the shuttle fleet retires. Watch a video of the launch here: http://www.space.com/common/media/video ... res_launch

One of the three parachutes of the rocket's first stage – the only part recovered – deflated during descent, while another only partially deployed. The glitches caused the booster to crash into the Atlantic Ocean harder than planned, leaving a huge dent in the rocket.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/09 ... pdate.html

 

[mr_mark]

The flight was a complete success because, the test was made to measure Ares in flight characteristics only. It was NOT a test of separation or parachute recovery. The only reason they used parachutes was to get a post flight review of the Ares first stage booster. So, from an in flight perspective it was a complete success. They expected over 25 roll commands. They needed only three. Some expected vibrational issues. There were none.

 

[rcsplinters]

From what we've read, all flight goals were met. All data gathered. One potential chute problem identified. By any objective definition, I think that's a complete success. Now if we learn that they failed to accomplish something they set out to accomplish then we'll have to rethink that position.

 

[docm]

From what we've read, all flight goals were met. All data gathered. One potential chute problem identified. By any objective definition, I think that's a complete success. Now if we learn that they failed to accomplish something they set out to accomplish then we'll have to rethink that position.

All flight goals were not met - meaning the parachute failure(?s) and that little problem with the 2nd stage's carousel mode.

 

[mr_mark]

MSNBC REPORT: Mission manager Bob Ess said Friday the damage is irrelevant because the booster is not meant to fly again. He says the parachute trouble does not detract from the overall success of Wednesday's flight.

 

[Zipi]

The flight was a complete success because, the test was made to measure Ares in flight characteristics only. It was NOT a test of separation or parachute recovery. The only reason they used parachutes was to get a post flight review of the Ares first stage booster. So, from an in flight perspective it was a complete success. They expected over 25 roll commands. They needed only three. Some expected vibrational issues. There were none.

Nonsense. This was also a test for parachute system and separation no matter what you say. See page 2: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 039387.pdf

This was only partial success, nothing more nothing less. Huge load of data was gathered which is good and I'm happy that NASA was able to fly this thing. This flight had more positive than negative things, but calling this total success is lying.

If there was a contact between the stages as video footage shows: Most probably contact of the stages caused parachute system to fail. Contact were caused by residual thrust of SRB which is probably very annoying problem to solve. Hopefully I'm wrong with this.

 

[Geoffrey_Landis]

Seems a success to me-- in many ways, the point of a test flight is to find the problems, so you can solve them before they show up in a real flight.

 

[Zipi]

Seems a success to me-- in many ways, the point of a test flight is to find the problems, so you can solve them before they show up in a real flight.

I see your point but still... If you have mission objectives like:

"Perform a nominal in-flight separation/staging event between an Ares I-similar First Stage and a representative Upper Stage."

And:

"Demonstrate First Stage separation sequencing, and quantify First Stage atmospheric entry dynamics, and parachute performance."

If you are able to do those but the end result is failure, is the flight successfull in total?

 

[ThereIWas2]

The residual thrust causing the bump on the second stage should not have happened. I remember somebody lambasting SpaceX for a similar mistake.

About vibration - what was the mass of the dummy second stage? Unless it was tuned to cause the same resonant frequency relative to the 4-segment motor that the fully loaded real second stage, plus Orion, would be for the 5 segment motor, you would not EXPECT to see much vibration. It is the vibration characteristics of the full stack that is the question.
I do not think there could be NO vibration. Look at how rough a shuttle lift-off is, when seen in the interior camera. I think the entire vibration question is still open.

But considering that the newly integrated guidance system adapted from an Atlas worked perfectly, I give the overall effort a B-.

 

[vattas]

The same discussions again as with SpaceX flights... Is test flight considered success if all main objectives were met? I think yes. Because the goals were not defined like "Have perfect liftoff, stage separation, parachute deployment and splashdown", but "Test navigation systems, stage separation etc. etc.". If booster had exploded just after liftoff or had to be destroyed, it would be failure, because such things as stage separation and parachute deployment would not be tested...

BTW, article in spaceflightnow states that there was no contact between stages after separation. And that the booster actually landed on 1.5 parachutes.

 

[onlylogical]

Absolutely it was a success! Problems encountered during a test launch are as important, maybe more important, than nominal behaviors. I was a software engineer and a mission control support console jockey during early Shuttle flights and I can tell you the failures are every bit as important and valuable as the successes - you anticipate everything imaginable and then you test it and you learn from your mistakes and failures.

 

[nimbus]

Semantics

So it's a success because it's a failure.

 

[radarredux]

Re: Semantics

So it's a success because it's a failure.

Its a success because it gathered data to help make a decision. Lots of the data gathered will be used to validate or modify models going forward. Even the separation issue provided data to make a decision -- for or against proceeding with Ares I. Gathering data is good. Making decisions with no data is bad.

 

[AnonymousRex]

Test flight. A flight... that is a test. I dunno; seems fairly self explanatory to me.

 

[Builds_Rockets_4_Food]

Success? Depends, what was NASA's definition of success for this test flight?

Was it a success only if entire stack cleared the launch tower without taking it out?
Was it a success only if vehicle didn't shake itself apart?
Was it a success only if the vehicle completed it's entire powered flight profile?
Was it a success only if the vehicle separated properly?
Was it a success only if the parachutes deployed and the booster was retrieved with no damage?
Or, was it a success only if data was gathered on all aspects of the launch, flight, separation, and recovery?

As an engineer, I would bet on the last one. Success doesn't nessessarily mean every goes perfectly. Sometimes success means we got the opportunity to learn about the assumptions that were made about the design in the first place. I'd say this test was a complete success even if it didn't look like it to the layman.

 

[MrRightStuff]

United Launch Alliance was contracted by Lockheed who was contracted by NASA to provide all the avionics that controlled all aspects of flight from engine ignition, guidance, to all other aspects. The avionics worked flawlessly showing that United Launch Alliance, the maker of the EELV Delta 4 and Atlas 5, is capable of supplying human rated flight components, avionics, and if NASA / Obama chooses, entire safe vehicles too.

 

[MasterMiend]

The purpose of the test is to TEST. It does not mean that all of the hardware will work perfectly, but that the test occurs and data is collected. If it had been an actual program flight, then the hardware would be expected to function perfectly.

This is not a mere matter of semantics. You aren't getting the point of what a test is. When things don't work is when a test is most successful, as long as the data is collected. You want to find out what doesn't work. Otherwise, you have problems that can go undetected.

I call the test completely successful.

Some of you really want this program to fail. What is the problem? NASA should be allowed to continue with this program. At the same time, commercial companies should compete. It looks as if only one objective willbe able to be met with a NASA program. Having a second system will add flexibility to our overall space program.

 

[job1207]

Those who think this test was successful are in denial. If this was a real flight, the crew would not have made it to space. It is doubtful that the crew would survive since the first stage hit the second stage and caused it to tumble out of control.

The parachutes for the first stage failed, leading to what amounts to destruction of the reusable first stage.

We do not yet know about the vibration issue. It was said that the first stage could cause critical vibrations leading to LOC.

The thing did not blow up on the pad. Lot's of data about the failure was obtained. It is still a failure.

 

[roadableaircraft]

Vibration and other characteristics will be very different with the five segment stack than with the four. The configuration is very different between the two. How really relevent then was this test? I really believe the money would have been better spent on conducting a five segment test next year. They jumped the gun and used up a significant amount of hard to come by funds.

 

[Geoduck2]

Those who think this test was successful are in denial. If this was a real flight, the crew would not have made it to space. It is doubtful that the crew would survive since the first stage hit the second stage and caused it to tumble out of control.

If this had been a real flight there would have been a powered second stage with stablization. Without that the crew would not have made it into space anyway. This was not an orbital flight. The second stage was a dead weight dummy. This was a proof of concept suborbital test flight. Lastly lets state this in big letters THE FIRST STAGE DID NOT HIT THE SECOND AFTER SEPARATION. The video shows that. NASA has confirmed that. One camera angle, unfortunately the one shown live, looks like they might have touched but that has been debunked by other data.

 

[srmarti]

A success how? An actual answer would require complete knowledge of the goals of the test and how many were accomplished. I don't know how many issues were simply verifications or if there were any "what happens if we do this?" issues. Certainly seems like if one goal was to verify proper chute deployment and operation it's not a complete success.

 

[radarredux]

Vibration and other characteristics will be very different with the five segment stack than with the four. The configuration is very different between the two. How really relevent then was this test?

I have similar concerns, but there are still a lot of things that can be tested, such as software for many aspects of the launch, steering, and the validity of aerodynamic models for their computers. I would love for all computer models and wind tunnel tests to be 100% accurate to what is experienced in the real world, but sometimes they aren't and need tuning.

To me, "success" or "failure" in this test wasn't about the total performance of the rocket but about getting useful data. Think of this as an "X-plane" test for a rocket.

Personally I do not like humans sitting on top of a solid rocket first engine, and I would prefer to see the Falcon or EELVs be the future of humans to LEO. But I think the test was a success.

 

[Testing]

The purpose of the test is to TEST. It does not mean that all of the hardware will work perfectly, but that the test occurs and data is collected. If it had been an actual program flight, then the hardware would be expected to function perfectly.

This is not a mere matter of semantics. You aren't getting the point of what a test is. When things don't work is when a test is most successful, as long as the data is collected. You want to find out what doesn't work. Otherwise, you have problems that can go undetected.

I call the test completely successful.

At least someone else understands a TEST.

 

[EPGrondine]

The Ares 1 X is not the Ares1. Therefore the test was not a success.
No data related to the Ares 1 was obtained.

That's not mentioning setting the launch pad on fire, the second stage roll, the parachute failure.

 

[USAO]

How to measure success?
Did the flight meet the goals?
My understanding was the goals of the test flight were to gather data on the performance of the various subsystems.
Was that accomplished? Yes, copius data were collected.
I don't recall seeing anywhere that a successfull parachute deployment was a requirement, only that they wanted to evaluate the performance of the parachute sybsystem.
Since they did gather data on the parachute subsystem and are still doing-so in the vehicle recovery stage, then that goal was met.
There seems to be an implied relation between the correct operation of the various subsystems and the ability to gather data about those subsystems. However, unless someone can point me to documentation stating that the flight objectives were the correct operation of all flight subsystems, then I don't see how that subsystem failure can be associated with the failure to meet the goals of collecting data.
Final assertion is that it was a test flight for a reason, to test and evaluate performance, flight characteristics etc. I feel that was done so the goals were met.