Ares I-X 30 Day ReportAres I-X 30 Day ReportBob Ess, Mission ManagerMarshall Smith, SE&I Chief Bob Ess, Mission ManagerMarshall Smith, SE&I Chief

December 3, 2009December 3, 2009

www.nasa.gov

Post Flight Data Schedule

♦This is the 30day report based on initial assessment of preliminary data

♦Future reports• 60 day report Late January • 90 day report Late February

2

Outline

♦Ground Systems♦Guidance, Navigation and Control♦Roll Response♦Vehicle Response♦Control System Performance♦Structural Damping♦Thrust Oscillation♦Thrust Oscillation♦Stage Separation♦Connector Assessment♦USS Splashdown♦Data Recorder♦FS Hardware Assessment

3

Ground Systems (GS)

♦Completely successful Fly Away Maneuver• Designed to protect higher level structures

Mi d t d t l l l♦Minor damage was expected at lower levels• Considered acceptable • Shuttle has routinely causes some damage • Plume impingement locations were different than Shuttle that had not been• Plume impingement locations were different than Shuttle that had not been

hardened yet

4

GS

♦Also experienced some damage in the flame trench to the fondue fireto the fondue fire.• West side wall had some damage

on the flame fence wall. No obvious brick damage was observed.

• East wall damage was near a suspect location identified in the pre-launch inspectionpre-launch inspection.

5

GS

♦PAD designers were very satisfied with results♦This flight will help Ares I structures designers as they design for

an Ares I FAM

6Oct 5, 2009

Guidance, Navigation and Control

♦Preliminary lift off drift analysis shows the vehicle performed as expected. • Aft Skirt location initially translates toward the FSS due to the Fly-Away• Aft Skirt location initially translates toward the FSS due to the Fly-Away

Maneuver• Aft Skirt travels a very minimal amount toward the FSS

♦Vehicle bending response was as expected♦Vehicle bending response was as expected

Roll Torque Estimate

♦Primary Objective 5 intended to estimate roll torque• Low roll torques observed• Estimate of roll torque assessed by the Roll Control System firings• Estimate of roll torque assessed by the Roll Control System firings

− Very few firings required. Only a couple that may be related to roll torque• Simulations show that roll torque may be primarily due to aero data as

opposed to the motor( )

2800

2400

WinPlot v4.54Vacuum Thrust_Negative Torque Engine Vacuum Thrust_Positive Torque Engine

Stop roll Possible response to roll torque or aero

(lbf)

2000

1600

1200

800

400

8Oct 5, 2009

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

400

0

Time 9:59:46AM 11/16/2009Initiate CW

90 deg rollOvershootcorrection

Vehicle Response vs Simulation

2

4

6de

g/se

c

SimulationFlight

0 20 40 60 80 100 120-2

0p, d

Time,sec

0

1

2

, deg

/sec

0 20 40 60 80 100 120-1

q

Time,sec

4

0

2

r, de

g/se

c

9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120-2

Time,sec

Attitudes vs Simulation

20

-40

-20

0

20h

Atti

tude

, deg

SimulationFlight

0 20 40 60 80 100 120-80

-60Pitc

h

Time, sec

2

0

1

2

g A

ttitu

de, d

eg

0 20 40 60 80 100 120-2

-1

Hea

ding

Time, sec

150

200

Atti

tude

, deg

10

0 20 40 60 80 100 12050

100

Rol

l A

Time, sec

Control System Performance

10

20

30Gain Bode - Transonic

-250

-200

-150

-100Phase Bode - Transonic

modelPitch PTIYaw PTI

modelPitch PTIYaw PTI

-10

0

10

dB

-450

-400

-350

-300

deg

Transonic

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3-30

-20

Freq (Hz)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3-600

-550

-500

Freq (Hz)

25Gain Bode - Aerodynamic

-100Phase Bode - Aerodynamic

10

15

20

25

-250

-200

-150

-100modelPitch PTIYaw PTI

modelPitch PTIYaw PTI

-10

-5

0

5

dB

-400

-350

-300

degSupersonic

110 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

-25

-20

-15

Freq (Hz)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3-550

-500

-450

Freq (Hz)

Structural Damping vs. Simulation

0.6

SimulationFlight

0 2

0.4

/sec

0

0.2

r, de

g/

94 96 98 100 102 104

-0.2

♦Quick look shows closed-loop 1st mode flight damping about 20% lower than simulation.

94 96 98 100 102 104Time,sec

12

First Thrust Oscillation Mode

1L th t ill ti k d b t T+77 d T+79 d♦ 1L thrust oscillation peaked between T+77 and T+79 seconds

♦ Substantial margin between recommended load and actual load• Peak pressure was about 1/3 of the predicted value

F 15 H• Frequency was ~15 Hz

77 to 79 seconds

13

Second Thrust Oscillation Mode

♦2L thrust oscillation peaked between T+75 and T+85 seconds♦Substantial margin between recommended load and actual load

• Peak pressure was about 1/2 of the predicted value• Frequency was ~ 29 Hz

75 to 85 seconds

14

Nominal Stage Separation

♦ First Stage separation from the Upper Stage Separation was nominal • Altitude at separation ~128 kft (nominal ~ 129 kft)• Mach ~4.6 (nominal 4.6)Mach 4.6 (nominal 4.6)

♦No recontact• Review of all the onboard and chase plane video show no indications of

recontact• Initial review of debris radar does not indicate a recontact

Forward Looking Video

P i t S ti P i t T blPrior to Separation Prior to Tumble

During Tumble Partial First Turn

16

Engineering Simulation of Separation

S ti 3 SSeparation + 3 Sec

Separation + 5 Sec

Separation + 7 Sec

Separation + 9 Sec

♦Post-separation tumble of the Upper Stage Simulator was expected due to mass properties and aerodynamicmass properties and aerodynamic forces

17

Connector Assessment

♦Three separation connectors on the Forward Skirt dome did not separate• Pendulum effect under the drogue chute may have caused an off center pull• Pendulum effect under the drogue chute may have caused an off center pull• A improper disconnect failure scenario was identified prior to launch and

determined not to have any significant effects to the system • No loss of functionality of the connectors

18

Failed Separation Connectors

19

Parachute Assessment

♦One of the main parachutes failed at initial inflation

♦1st parachute may have “dis-reefed” prematurely allowing parachute to i fl t t i klinflate too quickly• Increased initial load on

parachute and riser line systemy

• Salt Water Activation Release (SWAR) hardware exhibits damage representative of an overloadoverload

♦A second parachute then partially failed

A t d• Assessment underway

20

Main Parachute Failure

21

Main Parachute Failure

22

Intact USS + CM/LAS prior to Splashdown

23

Intact USS + CMLAS Splashdown

24

Data Delivery Status

♦Recovery of data from Data Recorder in process• Completely recovered first 270 seconds of data and will be released

internally by 12/8/09internally by 12/8/09− Includes all 4 data streams and 3 video streams

• Remaining 80 seconds of data is still in work

25