Launch Failures! December 1, 1994! Ariane 501 Incident " Ariane 4 ! 70th flight! at Three Levels of Description! February 19, 1996! Long March 3B ! 1st flight! 501 Report Dates! 501 Launch Events! June 4, 1996! 0 seconds! Ariane 501 ! June 4-6, 1996! H0 - main cryogenic ! 1st flight! Initial reports of the ! engine ignition! incident! 7 seconds! August 12, 1998! Liftoff! Titan 4A ! 36.7 seconds! Backup inertial reference ! 20th flight! June 6 - July 19, 1996! system inoperative due to ! Intermediate reports! numerical overflow in ! August 26, 1998! horizontal velocity! Delta 3 ! 37.2 seconds! Primary inertial reference ! 1st flight ! July 19, 1996! system inoperative due to ! Inquiry Board Report! numerical overflow in ! horizontal velocity! Time! (months)! 37-38 seconds! July 20-26, 1996! Booster and main engine ! Reports based on ! nozzles swivel, rocket veers ! off course and breaks up ! inquiry findings! from aerodynamic loads ! July 27 - September, 1996! 39 seconds! Automatic self-destruct ! Comprehensive reports ! 45 seconds! Time! Time! Range safety officer destruct ! (days)! (secs.)! “High Profit” Documents!
Ariane 5 Flight 501 Failure: Report by the Inquiry Board (July 19, 1996)! Inertial Reference Software Error Blamed for Ariane 5 Failure; Defense !Daily (July 24, 1996) ! !!! Software Design Flaw Destroyed Ariane 5; next flight in 1997; ! !Aerospace Daily (July 24, 1996) ! !! Ariane 5 Rocket Faces More Delay; The Financial Times Limited ! !(July 24, 1996) ! Flying Blind: Inadequate Testing led to the Software Breakdown that !Doomed Ariane 5; The Financial Times Limited (July 25, 1996)! Board Faults Ariane 5 Software; Aviation Week and Space Technology !(July 29, 1996) !! Ariane 5 Explosion Caused by Faulty Software; Satellite News ! !(August 5, 1996) ! Ariane 5 Report Details Software Design Errors ; Aviation Week and !Space Technology (September 9, 1996) !! Ariane 5 Loss Avoidable with Complete Testing; Aviation Week and !Space Technology (September 16, 1996) ! !! Titles/Dates are Weak Cues to Content! Inaccurate Statements Resulting ! From Inaccurate Information!
• S3: the rocket blew up after 44 seconds! • S6: they reused the inertial guidance system from the Ariane 4 ! • S5: the number overflowed because it was too large! • S6: inaccurate description of why the rocket unexpectedly swiveled! • S3: monetary loss could be recovered by insurance! Participant 6’s Process Trace on Unexpected Swiveling! Participant 7’s Process Trace on Unexpected Swiveling! Inaccurate Statements Resulting ! From Stale Information!
• S9: the cause of the failure was mechanical! • S6, S7: the Cluster satellite program was discontinued! • S8: the 502 launch was originally scheduled for the first half of 97! • S4: the original date for the 502 launch was May 1997! • S6: the delay to the 502 launch was about 6 months! Participant 6’s Process Trace on Cluster Satellite Program! “The immediate impact were that the solar wind experiment was destroyed. They couldn’t afford to build any more satellites so they couldn’t pursue that anymore.” ! Predicted 502 Launch Delays!
Report ! Launch ! Announcement Date! Projected Launch Date! Date! Date! June 96 June 96 Prior to 501 Launch ! September ‘96! July July Aug Aug Sept Sept Right after 501 incident! December ‘96! Oct Oct (June 4, ‘96)! Nov Nov Dec Dec After Inquiry Board Report ! March - June ‘97! Jan 97 Jan 97 (July 19, ‘96)! Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr December ‘96! July ‘97! May May June June July July March ‘97! September ‘97! Aug Aug Sept Sept Actual 502! Oct Oct October 30, ‘97! Launch Date! Nov Nov Process Traces on 502 Launch Delays!
Main Updates! Participant 4! Participant 5! Participant 6!
Report ! Launch ! Report ! Launch ! Report ! Launch ! Report ! Launch ! Date! Date! Date! Date! Date! Date! Date! Date!
June 96 June 96 July July Aug Aug Sept Sept Oct Oct Nov Nov Dec Dec Jan 97 Jan 97 Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May June June July July Aug Aug Sept Sept Oct Oct Nov Nov Participant 6 Briefing: “It delayed the next launch about six months”!
Report ! Launch ! Date! Date! Article Date/Content! Participant’s Response! June 96 June 96 July July June 4, 1996:! nothing ! Aug Aug A few months from now ! Sept Sept Oct Oct June 6, 1996:! nothing ! Nov Nov Delayed for at least six months! Dec Dec Jan 97 Jan 97 June 5, 1996:! Feb “…it delayed the Feb Within next few months! Mar Mar second test launch” ! Apr Apr July 25, 1996! May May June June Postponed to mid-! nothing ! July July semester 1997! Aug Aug Sept Sept July 5, 1996:! nothing ! Oct Oct In or around June 1997! Nov Nov Participant 4 Briefing: “Impacts…delay of second flight of Ariane 5.” ! !!!! Report ! Launch ! Date! Date! Article Date/Content! Participant’s Response! June 96 June 96 June 4, 1996:! “Second launch scheduled July July Launch preparation will ! for June 16, 97” (can’t tell if Aug Aug begin June 16 ! that is a delay from original Sept Sept schedule) ! Oct Oct “Second launch scheduled Nov Nov October 13, 1997:! Rescheduled to Oct. 28, 1997. for October 28” (would like Dec Dec Initially scheduled for June 1997, to find out when second Jan 97 Jan 97 reset to Sept. 15, then Sept. 30! launch was originally Feb Feb scheduled)! Mar Mar March 27, 1997:! “Originally set for May Apr Apr Put back to mid Sept…initially ! 1997.” (thinks should get the May May set for May, put back to June, ! actual date the flight June June then July! occurred) ! July July Aug Aug “So it was originally October 30, 1997:! Sept scheduled to be launched in Sept Today Ariane 5 rocket was May and it was launched in Oct Oct successfully launched! Nov Nov October.” ! Participant 5 briefing:! “The next flight of the vehicle was scheduled already. Apparently one article said the first six months of 97. I looked at another article that said March or April and I saw another that said it was going to happen in July, so it was getting backed off and the final launch, I believe, was in October. The second launch, the 502 vehicle, which is Ariane 502.”!
Report Date! Launch Date! Article Date/Content! Participant’s Response! June 96 June 96 July 25, 1996: mid-semester 1997! nothing ! July July (wants to see actual Aug March 25, 1997: until at least September! Aug 502 launch date) ! Sept Sept June 5, 1996: within the next few months! nothing ! Oct Oct (notes the launch Nov Nov October 30, 1997: today...launched! anomaly on 502) ! Dec Dec June 4, 1996: a few months from now! nothing ! Jan 97 Jan 97 Feb Feb July 28, 1996: first half of 1997! “predicts delay for 502” ! Mar Mar Apr Apr June 5, 1996: early 1997! nothing ! May May June 6, 1996: later this year! nothing ! June June July “delay qualification ! July June 10, 1996: early 1997! Aug Aug of Ariane 5” ! Sept Sept July 24, 1996: March at the earliest! nothing ! Oct Oct July 24, 1996: mid-1997! “next flight in 1997” ! Nov Nov Cues to “Data Quality”!
Source! Document! Description!
Reputation for credibility! Temporal relationship ! Temporal relationship! to events (do not have all ! to updates (can be ! the information right away)! “stale”)! Reputation of bias! Amount quoted directly ! Level of sensationalism! from official document! Reputation for expertise ! in a particular area! Distance from the original ! Technical language! data: secondhand, translated !
If given official ! Length! responsibility to do ! an analysis! Depth and breadth of ! theme coverage! Types of Documents!
On topic:! contains information that is relevant to the task at hand!
High-profit:! detailed, accurate description of important events from a credible, low bias source!
Comprehensive:! long, on-topic, article from a credible, low-bias source that is not immediately after the event and not overly distanced from the original data!
Peripheral mentions:! documents that reference the event briefly but whose focus is on items of low relevance to the user’s tasks and goals!
Unrelated collections:! documents that contain many unrelated themes that are not ordered in a meaningful way!
Themed:! documents that address a single particular theme ! Circumscribed roles for active “intelligence”" Mixed initiative cooperation!
Analyst! Machine! • Directly manipulate! • Structure! • Select! • Seed ! • Expand/ Contract! • Followup! • Add ! • Learn! • Define! • Remind! • Critique! Sub-document Bundles From Notes Grouped by Theme! Description of the failure
Raymond Orye, head of the Ariane-5 program, said About 500 channels of good telemetry were Journalists at the control centre heard two the exhaust nozzles at the base of two booster acquired until the breakup, which along with movie explosions and saw a giant wreath of orange flames rockets swiveled abnormally and broke off, and video footage should provide an accident and blazing wreckage about five kilometres away. triggering an on-board self-destruction mechanism. investigation board with sufficient data. ESA and Officials then hustled them indoors and evacuated CNES officials were forming the board late last the area. week, and want an independent report by mid-July detailing the cause of the accident and proposed The rocket veered off course 37 seconds into flight modifications. THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION and was destroyed, raining flaming debris near the BOARD APPOINTED AFTER THE European Space Agency's launch center off French FAILED ARIANE 501 LAUNCH ON JUNE 4 Guiana. Attempts will be made to recover the on-board computers and other key parts. The terrain is a SUBMITTED ITS REPORT ON JULY 16. mixture of savannah and muddy mangrove trees. ANALYSIS OF THE TELEMETRY AND AN EXAMINATION OF ONE OF THE INERTIAL The Ariane 5 launcher failed on its first flight last REFERENCE SYSTEMS (IRS) RECOVERED KOUROU, FRENCH GUIANA, 1996 JUN 4 (NB) week after gimbals on all three rocket engines REVEALED THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE -- The maiden launch of Europe's Ariane-5 rocket moved to full deflection. AND HOW IT ORIGINATED: A went badly wrong this morning in Kourou, French MALFUNCTION OF THE IRS SOFTWARE Guiana when the rocket exploded just seconds into The gimballing caused the 1.6-million-lb. launcher FOLLOWING NUMERICAL OVERFLOW IN Background flight. The rocket was seen to climb strongly for to pitch and yaw at rates estimated at 30 deg./sec. It AN UNPROTECTED DATA VARIABLE DUE TO The Ariane 5, developed over 10 years at several seconds before nose diving towards the quickly broke up from the airloads, and the breakup A a cost of $ 7 billion, was to be the ground and exploding.Members of the ground crew, triggered an auto-destruct system that reduced DESIGN FLAW. THE VARIOUS successor to the Ariane 4. journalists, guests, and those down range from the Ariane 5 to a broad shower of flaming debris. ENGINEERING TEAMS HAVE LOST NO TIME launch site were immediately evacuated because of Though spectacular, the debris caused no known IN DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM, AND the danger of falling debris, much of which was injuries or property damage. QUALIFICATION FLIGHT 502 IS NOW white EXPECTED IN THE FIRST HALF OF 1997. hot, and an almost full tank of flaming fuel.
Payload Impacts - economic, insurance, reputation
The Ariane 5 rocket failure caused reverberations in The immediate impact will be to delay qualification Ariane5's disastrous maiden launch, which ended Impact on 502 the international insurance market yesterday, even of Ariane 5, but industry officials expect the long- when the rocket and its Pounds 500 million cargo The next flight, Ariane V502, was set for October- though it was not insured and the loss will be borne term effect on Arianespace will be small (see p. 21). had to be blown up a minute into their flight. November but may be delayed to early 1997, depending on the report. by the European Space Agency. After Tuesday's disaster underwriters are likely to take a more The failure is the worst accident in European space The Ariane 5 rocket took off from a South American One of its two payloads is to be the Atmospheric careful approach to commercial launches anywhere history, coming at the culmination of an 8-10-year, jungle base at 8:35 a.m. EDT loaded with four solar Reentry Demonstrator, and officials are offering and insurance premiums may rise. $8-billion development program. Ariane 5 was science satellites valued at $ 500 million. discounts to fill the other slot with a commercial designed to be man-rated with higher reliability than satellite. The European programme has a relatively good Ariane 4, but the new redundant computers appear reputation among satellite underwriters. 'If they to have allowed, if not caused, a fatal mistake. have got it wrong, we're going to be that much more Qualification flight V501 on June 4 was conducted Flight V502 was to be the second and final cautious,' said Mr Simon Clapham, underwriter at by the European and French space agencies (ESA qualification flight, and ``we have no reason yet to Marham Space Consortium at Lloyd's of London. and CNES) and carried four Cluster consider an additional qualification flight,'' said Michel Mugnier, head of the CNES launcher On the other hand, the Ariane 5 failure might magnetospheric research satellites worth $500 The Ariane explosion should not be allowed to division. ``Financial issues could arise in the last persuade backers of future launches to take out more million that were to be placed in a 22,350 X 175- obscure the ESA's proud record. Commercially, quarter of 1996 if there was a requirement to insurance. mi. geosynchronous transfer orbit (see p. 22). Europe is the world's leader in the launching of Aerospatiale is the ``industrial architect'' for Ariane implement major and costly modifications.'' -- not least because no astronauts were involved. A satellites. The Ariane disaster, although it involved a 5 and is responsible for the main cryogenic stage scientific rather than a commercial launch, may dent If it turns out to be the software that sent the rocket further 14 rockets are in the Arianespace production and solid rocket boosters (AW&ST May 6, p. 60). the ESA's reputation for reliability and threaten to oblivion, that would suit everybody. 'That's the line, so providing the fault is not generic, the future contracts, but it should be borne in mind that easiest thing to put right,' program will not suffer too much. rocket launches are inherently risky. Evidence to date suggests that the agency is the most rigorous of operators. That record should help it to survive this setback. Sub-Document Bundles Grouped by Theme!
Background!
Failure! Description! Payload!
Impacts! 502! Econ.! Visual Narratives! disrupting! event! (ongoing plan)! event thread!
analysis of! past event! prediction of ! future event!
landmark! report ! dates! report ! space! Epoch!
Sort, Selection Mechanism! Visual Narratives!
• interwoven, partially decomposable threads in time! • sequences of events at multiple levels! • backdrop of ongoing plans and expectations! • disruptions to a plan generate visual activity! • landmarks, epochs! • updates over time make information “stale”! • predictions have predictable signatures! – the farther the time before the event, the less believable! – they generally “slide” in one temporal direction! – the closer to the event, the more predictions converge!