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

[mgreb]

Every STS flight has had some problems, so if the definition of sucess is that absolutly nothing has gone wrong, I guess every Shuttle flight is a failure? All kidding aside, I see Ares 1-x a quite sucessful mission.

 

[Leovinus]

I voted "absolutely".

The point of the flight was to verify that the darned thing would fly. It did.

Ok, so they have to work on the parachutes. They weren't going to re-use that booster anyway. You learn things from failures as well as successes.

 

[wtrix]

I don't know whether it was success or not. Tests have to give you some answers to some questions. It very much depends what the real questions were. Those made available to general public are more like some kind of "executive summary" of the test questions.

However what I noticed and what seem to be a real problems are:

1. Partially failed separation of SRB and second stage. That caused the tumbling of the second stage and at that speeds the resulting accelerations may kill or incapacitate the crew
2. To my knowledge all rockets are ment to fly stright up until they have cleared the thower. However Ares I-X leaned heavily away from the tower so much as the end of it almost seemed to touch it
3. Parachute failure may have resulted frome partially failed sep. Thus I would not focus on that very much

 

[Leovinus]

I don't know whether it was success or not. Tests have to give you some answers to some questions. It very much depends what the real questions were. Those made available to general public are more like some kind of "executive summary" of the test questions.

However what I noticed and what seem to be a real problems are:

1. Partially failed separation of SRB and second stage. That caused the tumbling of the second stage and at that speeds the resulting accelerations may kill or incapacitate the crew
2. To my knowledge all rockets are ment to fly stright up until they have cleared the thower. However Ares I-X leaned heavily away from the tower so much as the end of it almost seemed to touch it
3. Parachute failure may have resulted frome partially failed sep. Thus I would not focus on that very much

1. Second stage was unpowered and unguided. I am not surprised that it tumbled after separation.
2. From what I read about pad damage, the tilt on liftoff was designed in for pad clearance.
3. I don't think the parachutes come out that early. By the time they did, the two stages were well separated. I think they're going to have to rethink how they pack them.

 

[orlandorays]

The launch itself was a partial success, only really marred by the parachute failure. But I still believe the Ares I-X was the wrong choice. They should've man-rated one of the EELVs for use with Orion. That way we'd be using renewable fuels (LO2-LH2) instead of harmful non-renewable aluminum-based fuel that releases perchlorates. (How did this get by the environmentalists?) I have no problem with developing the Ares V for the moon missions, but the Ares I should not exist.

I'm rooting for SpaceX's Falcon 9 and the Dragon module, which will be carrying men to the ISS long before Ares/Orion is ready.

 

[Zipi]

The launch itself was a partial success, only really marred by the parachute failure. But I still believe the Ares I-X was the wrong choice. They should've man-rated one of the EELVs for use with Orion. That way we'd be using renewable fuels (LO2-LH2) instead of harmful non-renewable aluminum-based fuel that releases perchlorates. (How did this get by the environmentalists?) I have no problem with developing the Ares V for the moon missions, but the Ares I should not exist.

I'm rooting for SpaceX's Falcon 9 and the Dragon module, which will be carrying men to the ISS long before Ares/Orion is ready.

Don't get me wrong after this comment since I as well like to see atop EELV instead of Ares, but my reasons are more in costs and the time when such thing could be available, as well as performance... But now the comment to your posting:

LO2 and LH2 are renewable fuels but especially LH2 needs significant amout of power to produce. How you know how that power is produced to make LH2? After all the flight rate is so low that in emissions point of view I'd keep rockets meaningless...

 

[EPGrondine]

As many point out, the purpose of a test is to find failure points. But:

The Ares 1 X is not the Ares 1. The solid first stage was not the same as the Ares 1 first stage, the second stage was a dummy. Flight control systems were naturally different.The whole Ares 1 X test appears to be nothing more than a PR stunt trying to show that progress is being made on Ares 1.

Let's see - set launch pad on fire, parachutes failed, second stage tumbled.

So was the Ares 1 X test a success? Yes - it showed us that the Ares 1 is probably not the way to go.

That would appear to leave Falcon and the EELVs for ISS servicing, and Direct (AKA Ares 3) for other purposes.

 

[Brentum]

It was a successful test of a failed rocket program and design. It was originally supposed to be directly shuttled derived and use the same 4-seg SRB the Shuttle uses, with a modified SSME for the upper stage. Now it's needing a brand new 5 or 5.5 seg-booster, a brand new J-2X upper stage engine, and even will all of that they've had to strip down Orion and remove it's ground landing capability (which is a key ability if you want to really reuse Orion).

So, it was a test using a booster that it won't really be using, with an upperstage that it won't be using. If Ares hadn't had to morph from it's original concept, this would have been a successful test of consequence, because it would have been using the booster it would really be using.
It's part of a program that's falling apart due to harware changes and skyrocketing costs. It has virtually no heritage with the Shuttle, and neither would Ares V, except Arex V will probably never get built.

We should be building and testing something that's actually shuttle derived as originally planned and not wasting time on this dead end, and that even if built will have the capability of the Delta4-H....which has already flown successfully 3 times....full out, not just a half-arsed test. Maybe invest a fraction of this Ares 1 money into man-rating that for Orion and take all that extra money and put it into an actual shuttle Derived heavy-launch vehicle.
Take your current Shuttle ET. Put a payload on top and 3 SSME's under it and viola, you have a shuttle derived HLV capabile of putting about 75mt into LEO. Done. WANt more? Launch a 2nd one. You have more payload to LEO than Ares V would at a fractio of the cost and decades sooner. And you aren't trying to duplicate the capabilities of an EELV-heavy class launcher that ALREADY exists and is flying in the Delta4-Heavy!!! (Or Atlas V heavy, which is all designed and realy do build, they just haven't had an order for one yet).

 

[wtrix]

I don't know whether it was success or not. Tests have to give you some answers to some questions. It very much depends what the real questions were. Those made available to general public are more like some kind of "executive summary" of the test questions.

However what I noticed and what seem to be a real problems are:

1. Partially failed separation of SRB and second stage. That caused the tumbling of the second stage and at that speeds the resulting accelerations may kill or incapacitate the crew
2. To my knowledge all rockets are ment to fly stright up until they have cleared the thower. However Ares I-X leaned heavily away from the tower so much as the end of it almost seemed to touch it
3. Parachute failure may have resulted frome partially failed sep. Thus I would not focus on that very much

1. Second stage was unpowered and unguided. I am not surprised that it tumbled after separation.
2. From what I read about pad damage, the tilt on liftoff was designed in for pad clearance.
3. I don't think the parachutes come out that early. By the time they did, the two stages were well separated. I think they're going to have to rethink how they pack them.

1. Both stages started to tumble TOGETHER. In no case would the engine of the second stage be launched so close to the first one. It seemed as if a single rocket broke in the middle. It pretty much seems to be partial separation failure.
2. I may be wrong in this area
3. Well. The parachutes are stored somewhere and the touch with second stage may have damaged the doors or something else releated.

 

[radarredux]

The Ares 1 X is not the Ares 1. The solid first stage was not the same as the Ares 1 first stage, the second stage was a dummy.

That is true, much as the Have Blue is very different than the F-117. It gives them a chance to test elements of the approach years before the final system is complete. The one thing I wonder is how much longer would the Ares I-X been delayed had they waited to test a 5-segment motor. If it would have been a delay of 6 months, I think it would have been worth it.[/quote]

So was the Ares 1 X test a success? Yes - it showed us that the Ares 1 is probably not the way to go.

And that is a perfectly valid "good result" for a test. All designs have lots of assumptions built in, both known and unknown (or under appreciated). Testing (and uncovering) these assumptions as early as possible is a good thing. Even if the tests tell you something bad, as long as it tells you something it is good. The more it tells you, the better. And I think they collected lots of good data on many aspects of the system.

To me, the big "win" in this test ("win" in the sense that the test told you something) was that it pointed out how important the issue of the residual thrust (as well as the unevenness of the thrust towards the end of the burn) is. Just a gut feeling (with zero data to back it up), but I think if there is going to be a nail in the coffin of Ares I, this is it because it is such a fundamental aspect of the technology they chose (solid rocket motor).

I think the Augustine Report (and discussions) made the business case for killing Ares I (overbuilt for supplying ISS, too late for the ISS, and Lunar missions are ~15 years away) and Ares I-X may have contributed to the technology case for killing Ares I (no clean first stage thrust cut off).

 

[StevenKTait]

NASA was able to launch before Obama's administration pulled the funding.
NASA was successful in gathering all the data they wanted from the launch.

This is why I would call it a success.

If they had used a fifth segment, it would have landed in a much different, further downrange area out of video range for separation. And the second stage may well have gone into orbit for at least a while and laneded who knows where.

Also I believe the fifth segment wasn't empty but filled with instrumentation, sensors, recorders that were recovered and used if the telemetry hadn't worked.

 

[Eman_3]

Did the flight go exactly as planned? Definitely not, unexpected problems brought about unexpected results.

As a test flight, can it be considered a success? Definitely, the reason for the flight was data collection, and going by NASA's statements, all the data was collected.

Just because things don't do as planned during a test flight isn't an indication of failure. I know many engineers, and each has told me that you learn by your mistakes. Robert Goddard's early missile flights were almost always an adventure, and he suffered a lot of failures. The same pattern occurs in almost every endeavor of human achievement. Columbus wasn't the first to set out for the Orient, he was just the first to make it there and back.

Right now, I rate the Aries test flight a total success.

 

[tanstaafl76]

I think it was successful if they were really only trying to get data on a 4 segment SRB, but if that was the only thing they were trying to do then I guess I have a problem with the scope of the test flight. I think it's a bit wasteful actually for the following reasons:

1) I understand they haven't flown a 4-segment SRB by itself, but they've flown them numerous times on the shuttle, and I don't see the point of only doing a 4-seg SRB on this when the final version is going to be a 5.5 segment SRB, which also will probably have to be tested. Why not make Ares I-X a 5.5 segment SRB so you have a more realistic test for Ares I?

2) The separation snafu was very disappointing. I understand they were not testing a fully functional second stage, but I would have thought they would have put enough thought into it to ensure a clean separation.

3) The SRB residual thrust issue seems like it could be a substantial issue, I don't understand how they could not have anticipated more of what occurred.

4) Parachute design, how could this have gone so badly?

In the end, I'm sure they got plenty of data, but I sort of question the very low bar they were going for. There were such doubts that they could fly a 4-seg SRB on it's own that they couldn't do ANYTHING ELSE with this test mission? Seriously?

 

[radarredux]

3) The SRB residual thrust issue seems like it could be a substantial issue, I don't understand how they could not have anticipated more of what occurred.

To be honest, I don't think we have heard a lot (or anything) from people on the inside. They may have completely anticipated this and already have plans to address this issue that we haven't heard. Or maybe they thought it might be a problem, and this just confirmed that it was. Or...

In short, I don't know what they knew or when they knew it. Does anyone here have some inside NASA or ATK skinny on this issue?

 

[Bill_Wright]

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.

So you think it was a complete success because NASA says so. The same NASA that claimed that Columbia couldn't have been damaged by that little piece of foam? The same NASA that pressured a vendor to OK the launch of Challenger in unprecedented weather conditions? The same NASA that allowed Astronauts Grissom, Chaffee, and White to sit in a 100 percent oxygen atmosphere with wire bundles that had sub-standard insulation, and an untested escape procedure? The same NASA that allowed Skylab (the world's first house in space) to burn up because they couldn't sell anyone on a rescue plan? The same NASA that is over-funding the COTS program? The myopic Hubble NASA? You have more faith than I, my friend. When I was 20 and saw footprints on the Moon I had faith in NASA, but the mis-steps and cover-ups have added up to the point that I believe nothing that they say is true, just spin.

 

[radarredux]

So you think it was a complete success because NASA says so. ... When I was 20 and saw footprints on the Moon ...

Alas, that is a general problem I have, and it is hardly unique to NASA. I've been on the "inside" of a number of programs where I knew the reality that the situation wasn't good, but then I would see the higher ups go and make presentations telling their higher ups or the public that everything was going great. And I see the same thing in academic publications (and of course a company's promotional material). Spin, spin, spin.

When you have seen this so many times over the years it is hard not to be jaded.

 

[hewes]

I think the real objective of Ares 1-X was to put the image of the rocket, in flight, in everyone's mind.

 

[Hogan_314]

The data returned from more than 700 sensors throughout the rocket will be used to refine the design of future launch vehicles and bring NASA one step closer to reaching its exploration goals.
Data collected will be utilized to build the Ares 1 Y.

I have not read one single reference of any kind that data collection failed.

It's a 100% success test.

 

[Scorpio1155]

What is the value of this poll? I happen agree 100 percent with the poll's results. Thankfully, that just indicates that the average space.com reader is much more inteligent than the idiot that dreamed up this poll in the first place. I do apologize about the flame, but I was shocked when I read the question and the three possible answers. Again, kudos to most of space.com's well-informed readers! Steve in Iowa

 

[AeroSpaceGhost]

Yes, the Ares1-X launch was/is a success. Unfortunately it is probably too little, too late. US space programs are becoming an embarrassment. Hopefully private sector businesses can return some integrity to the industry.

 

[jakethesnake]

In my view the Ares 1-X launch was a total success and I believe I can say this in that this was a test!

A test is just that… if you run a test and can gather information from the beginning to the end of the test, identifying errors along the way, then you have succeeded, and that is what has been done with the Ares 1-X.

This rocket was launched with more than 700 sensors amassing a huge amount of data as well as video monitoring the flight from the beginning to the end of this TEST.

If the Ares 1-X had blown up on the launch pad or anywhere within its flight valuable data would have been lost and it would have only been a partial success.

A test only has to be as good as to glean valuable information in which to improve and or modify an idea, so in my opinion this was most certainly achieved!

Here are some recently released photos of the Ares 1-X parachute trouble, which also adds valuable data as to the cause of the parachutes failure i.e. monitoring the end of this TEST… hence another success from beginning to end.

From Spaceflight Now.com

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091102video/

From Webster’s Online Dictionary

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.o ... ition/test

Aerospace Specialty Definition: Test

A procedure or action taken to determine under real or simulated conditions the capabilities, limitations, characteristics, effectiveness, reliability, or suitability of a material, device, system, or method.2. A similar procedure or action taken to determine the reactions, limitations, abilities, or skills of a person, other animal, or organism.

 

[radarredux]

The latest "Aerial View of Ares I-X Flight Test"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4l2wxbMEQg

shows separation at around 1:32 into the video, about the same time that a large flash of light is seen -- the issue that has caused so much discussion. From what I've been reading, NASA states that there was no contact between the first and second stage, so this was not the cause of the 2nd stage tumbling. Still, that flash (was there an accompanying acceleration?) combined with continued low-level burn long after separation does bother me. Even as late as 3:30+ into the video you can still see flames coming out of the rocket and it is trailing smoke.

All in all, I thought it looked cool, but as the white Ares I-X was tumbling away with smoke and flame coming out of one end, I couldn't help but think it looked like a cigarette thrown out the car window.

 

[scottb50]

So you think it was a complete success because NASA says so. The same NASA that claimed that Columbia couldn't have been damaged by that little piece of foam?

With the experiences from other flights it was a supportable assessment. That the extent of the damage was as large as it was and in such a critical area wasn't fully understood. By not changing to California for landing shows there was minimal concern being voiced.

The same NASA that pressured a vendor to OK the launch of Challenger in unprecedented weather conditions?

Hopefully it's not that same NASA.

The same NASA that allowed Astronauts Grissom, Chaffee, and White to sit in a 100 percent oxygen atmosphere with wire bundles that had sub-standard insulation, and an untested escape procedure?

Luckily they got most of the rest of it right. I think this was an accident and a lot was learned from it.

The same NASA that allowed Skylab (the world's first house in space) to burn up because they couldn't sell anyone on a rescue plan?

Without the politicians NASA's hands were tied.

The same NASA that is over-funding the COTS program?

I think NASA is vastly underfunding it. NASA should be strictly operational with hardware left up to industry. I would also hope, in a very short amount of time, Commercial vehicles become available.

The myopic Hubble NASA?

Didn't they fix that?

You have more faith than I, my friend. When I was 20 and saw footprints on the Moon I had faith in NASA, but the mis-steps and cover-ups have added up to the point that I believe nothing that they say is true, just spin.

There have been missteps and mistakes but NASA has always seemed pretty fair to me. The problems are inherent to Government interactions. The FAA or OSHA are good examples.

NASA should do research and not development. They want a vehicle they publish their wish list and ask for bids just like other users.

 

[tanstaafl76]

The latest "Aerial View of Ares I-X Flight Test"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4l2wxbMEQg

shows separation at around 1:32 into the video, about the same time that a large flash of light is seen -- the issue that has caused so much discussion. From what I've been reading, NASA states that there was no contact between the first and second stage, so this was not the cause of the 2nd stage tumbling. Still, that flash (was there an accompanying acceleration?) combined with continued low-level burn long after separation does bother me. Even as late as 3:30+ into the video you can still see flames coming out of the rocket and it is trailing smoke.

All in all, I thought it looked cool, but as the white Ares I-X was tumbling away with smoke and flame coming out of one end, I couldn't help but think it looked like a cigarette thrown out the car window.

A couple interesting things from the video

1) Around 1:22 you can see the thrust start to fluctuate as the SRB enters the last 10 seconds before separation. Visually it looks like that fluctuation can be significant, and I would think that directly before separation would be a dicey time to start having your thrust fluctuate substantially (and unpredictably to a certain degree?).

2) That perspective definitely makes it look like contact occurred after separation and caused the "jack-knife" effect. That seems the most plausible solution that the two pieces moved in the exact manner they did. It's a jack-knife, just like can happen with a big rig on the highway when the cab slows down but the trailer keeps going.

It seems like it would be wiser to hold off on separation until they are sure that solid motor is really burned out.

 

[jakethesnake]

Here is for the most part a complete video of the Ares 1X taken from a small Cessna Skymaster which NASA had circling the launch site about 10 miles away… very, very, very cool video! This video even shows the parachutes opening and one of the chutes failing almost immediately after deployment.

Just another example of how complete and successful this test was from start to finish.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4l2wxbMEQg[/youtube]