Lesson 4 of 4 · Interpret failures and development tests
Interpret failures and development tests
6 minute lesson · 3 checks along the way
Your goal for this lessonDistinguish Epsilon flight outcomes from ground tests and interpret preliminary motor measurements.
In this lesson 3 sections · 3 checks
Using archive links & definitions
Follow a linked name to explore its archive card. “Back to your lesson” brings you to the same part of the reading.
Read & understand
Keep the flight failure in the record
Epsilon-6 launched on October 12, 2022 carrying the third innovative-satellite demonstration mission and QPS-SAR spacecraft. JAXA’s initial account described an attitude deviation at the second-to-third-stage separation decision, followed by a determination that orbit could not be reached and a flight-termination command. The launch failed.
That first announcement also opened an investigation. It documents the observed sequence without itself providing a final root-cause conclusion. Do not replace that distinction with an invented connection to a different motor test just because both events belong to the Epsilon family.
Check 1 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Read & understand
Ground tests and flights answer different questions
Epsilon S development encountered second-stage motor explosions during ground firings in July 2023 and November 2024. These were tests at a ground facility, not additional orbital launch attempts. The November 2024 investigation announcement explicitly distinguishes this development work from the planned vehicle flight.
On July 23, 2026, JAXA conducted a ground firing of the M-35a second-stage motor. Its next-day report said the test ended normally and further data analysis would follow. This supports a bounded test result; it does not by itself establish a completed Epsilon S orbital mission or a guaranteed date for one.
Interpret a test without overstating the result
Original teaching diagram. Original evidence guide; ground tests and flights remain distinct.
Open full-size diagram in a new tab: Interpret a test without overstating the resultCheck 2 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Read & understand
Compare measurements without inventing acceptance limits
The July 2026 preliminary table lists a 129.9-second burn against a 127.9-second prediction. Subtracting gives a 2.0-second difference, about 1.6 percent of the prediction. It also lists 355.3 kN maximum thrust against 358.2 kN predicted. The measured maximum is 2.9 kN lower.
A difference from a prediction is not automatically a violation of an acceptance criterion. The table does not provide every tolerance or the full thrust history. In particular, multiplying maximum thrust by burn time assumes the maximum was sustained throughout the burn; that does not give a defensible total impulse without additional data. Test interpretation needs requirements, measurement definitions and analysis.
Check 3 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Put it together
Your lesson progress
Each check connects to a part of the story. Complete all 3 to earn your 25-point lesson bonus.
Explore further · Optional
Go to the source
Explore the evidence behind this lesson. These optional readings and videos open in a new tab.