NASA Booster Rocket Damaged in Test Flight

Launch of Ares I-X Successful but 2 of 3 Parachutes on Booster Failed to Work Properly

(CBS/ AP)  Two of three parachutes malfunctioned in the test flight of a prototype moon rocket earlier this week, causing major damage to the booster, NASA said Friday.

The problem caused the Ares I-X booster to slam into the Atlantic Ocean harder than expected. The booster was badly dented by the impact.

Mission manager Bob Ess said Friday the damage is irrelevant because the booster is not meant to fly again. The parachute trouble does not detract from the overall success of Wednesday's flight, he said.

"Don't play this too much," Ess urged reporters. "The parachute thing was like 'Hey, look at that.' We're not worried about that. There's no investigation. There's no unusual thing we're doing. We're just going through our usual post (flight) tests."

Despite the parachute issue, an initial look at data from NASA's Ares I-X test flight shows the towering rocket performed as well or better than computer modeling predicted during the climb out of the dense lower atmosphere, reports CBS News space analyst Bill Harwood.

The major goals of the unmanned six-minute flight were to collect engineering data on how the tall, slender rocket flew through the lower atmosphere, how the structure responded to aerodynamic and acoustic forces and how the new parachute system, scaled for the planned Ares I, performed, Harwood reports.

For in-depth space coverage, visit the CBS Space Place

All three parachutes on the first-stage booster opened following the two-minute flight. One quickly deflated. Another deployed only part way.

The booster, in essence, was brought down by the equivalent of 1½ parachutes.

Ess said the parachute lines may be to blame, but engineers won't know for sure until the parts are inspected early next week. The recovered booster arrived back at port Friday.

The $445 million flight test was the first step in NASA's effort to return astronauts to the moon. The White House may change direction, however, and scrap the Ares I in favor of other rockets and destinations.

Initial indications are that the rocket was "rock solid" during liftoff, with no worrisome shaking from all the thrust, Ess said. There was concern a year ago, among some, that the launch vibrations could be violent.

The definitive word, Ess said, will come once engineers get the data recorder back and conduct weeks of analysis.

[Noval53]

Why is the US Space Program going backwards in time. In the movie 2001, space travel was depicted as advanced and glorius. Things we expected to see in space by now, like stations with artificial gravity using centrifugal force, still don't exist. They don't exist because the visionary real men of NASA in the 1960's have been replaced by new age bean counters who are quite comfortable doing as little as possible. They certainly don't want to take any risks that might endanger there cozy desk jobs, health care, and retirement plans.

[SAMTORRES66]

The technology to go back to the moon is already there, we already went once, did we?

[SAMTORRES66]

$445 MILLION DOLLAR TEST......ARE WE KIDDING OURSELFS.....OMG...FOR WHAT?

[Jim1900]

This might be a great booster for missions to the outer planets or whatever. And even a manned moon mission might be a good idea. But the original plan of sending men to Mars was so crackpot that even W. gave up on it, not to mention the fact that he bankrupted us to the point that we couldn't afford it anyway.

[rwsmith29456]

I just looked it up and Apollo 15 was designed to land with 2 chutes but carried 3. One failed and they landed at 32 ft/sec rather than the planned 28 ft/sec. No big deal.

[rwsmith29456]

What's the big deal? The rocket was a success. A parachute failed. We've dropped tons of capsules by parachute in the last 40+ years. One in a about a hundred don't open.

[joeovercoat]

We are supposed to beleive that the failure of the parachutes, which are critical to the system design, is of no concern? How obvious does it have to be that they will say anything when they are concerned about the program being cancelled for greater reasons? On this point, NASA lies.

[rwsmith29456]

My later comment states that the Apollo craft were designed to land with 2 parachutes and carried 3.Apollo 15 landed with one bad chute but just hit the water a little harder.

[erasmus111]

I don't see the purpose of going back to the moon. Been there, done that. Go somewhere new.


Hungry, what's another BILLION? Huh? : )

[stevenmcclur]

Let the Chinese do it. Their technology will soon be passing ours anyway. Our day is over...

[wheresmycountry]

Bush wanted to go back to the moon because NASA is located mainly in Texas and Florida. Those states are the best for our space program, because they are nearest the equator, from which launches are cheaper and easier, and communications with satellites is better. Cheney wanted to go back to the moon because Haliburton builds the buildings and infrastructure for NASA.

Unless we can move Chicago closer to the equator, we won't be going back to the moon with Obama as president.

[incog-nito]

Easy on the drugs there buddy.

[hungry1968-17]

Great.

How many BILLIONS is this going to cost us?

[displeased]

I doubt it will cost billions. I didn't realize you are against research, hungry.

[legacyABQ2]

different hungry