Super-Strypi/SPARK/LEONIDAS first flight-4th November

[Kryten]

Super-Strypi/SPARK/LEONIDAS is a small (~250kg to SSO) launcher developed by Aerojet-Rocketdyne, the University of Hawaii and Sandia National Labs, with funding from the DoD office of responsive space and Aerojet internal funds. The combination of private and government funding means it's being hit both by trade secrets and government classification policies, so information is pretty scarce, but we do know it's currently set to launch at about 23:30 UTC on the 30th. Launch is from the Pacific Missile Range on Kaui, Hawaii.

SPARK is designed for relatively low cost; it uses the GEM-46 booster from the Delta IV as it's first stage, and pre-existing Aerojet motors for second and third. The first stage is spin-stabilised rather than guided, and it's set to use a rail for launch, a first for an orbital launcher but common in sounding rockets. We don't have an image of the vehicle yet due to the aforementioned issues, but here's an image of the ground-testing prototype;

The payloads on this launch are the University of Hawaii's Hiakasat earth obervation sat, and a bunch of smaller sats for the ORS and NASA (see here for extra info and a full list).

Edited November 4, 2015 by Kryten

[fredinno]

Super-Strypi/SPARK/LEONIDAS is a small (~250kg to SSO) launcher developed by Aerojet-Rocketdyne, the University of Hawaii and Sandia National Labs, with funding from the DoD office of responsive space and Aerojet internal funds. The combination of private and government funding means it's being hit both by trade secrets and government classification policies, so information is pretty scarce, but we do know it's currently set to launch at about 23:30 UTC on the 30th. Launch is from the Pacific Missile Range on Kaui, Hawaii.

SPARK is designed for relatively low cost; it uses the GEM-46 booster from the Delta IV as it's first stage, and pre-existing Aerojet motors for second and third. The first stage is spin-stabilised rather than guided, and it's set to use a rail for launch, a first for an orbital launcher but common in sounding rockets. We don't have an image of the vehicle yet dueto the aforementioned issues, but here's an image of the ground-testing prototype;

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77142205/x/SPARK_6.jpg

The payloads on this launch are the University of Hawaii's Hiakasat earth obervation sat, and a bunch of smaller sats for the ORS and NASA (see here for extra info and a full list).

Well, maybe Aerojet Rocketdynes DOES have a future. If I was the CEO of their company though, I would still be preparing for a significant downsizing in the very near future.

Also, I like how they are launching from Hawaii- allows for polar and equilateral launches.

I wonder if they could use this as a small, rail launched ICBM. Also, Aerojet needing to use ATK SRBs kind of saddens me. They have their own line of SRBs too, SRSLY? Couldn't they make a scaled down Atlas SRB? EDIT: No, they are using Aerojet SRBs for all 3 stages http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/07/05/navy-looks-to-extend-danger-zone-at-pacific-missile-range-on-kauai/. OP confused LEO-46 for GEM-46.

Poor Pegasus, so much attention on smallsat and cubesat launchers, and still only 1 flight a year. Especially sad, since it has a similar capability to things like Firefly Alpha, and an air-launched Cubesat LV I forgot the name of. You'd think it would be a lot more successful?

Edited October 29, 2015 by fredinno

[lajoswinkler]

I've been looking at its launch prediction in one app for a long time now.

The only thing I can think of when I read that name is this old cartoon and the laughter in it.

[Streetwind]

Looks like the date slipped a day or two; more updates here: http://www.hsfl.hawaii.edu/wordpress/missions/hawaiisat-1/

[Streetwind]

[Rune]

SPARK is designed for relatively low cost; it uses the GEM-46 booster from the Delta IV as it's first stage, and pre-existing Aerojet motors for second and third. The first stage is spin-stabilised rather than guided, and it's set to use a rail for launch, a first for an orbital launcher but common in sounding rockets.

A first? IIRC, the Japanese built an orbital launcher that had no guidance in any of its stages, save the final one...

Rune. Can't remember the name for the life of me, though.

[K^2]

The first stage is spin-stabilised rather than guided, and it's set to use a rail for launch, a first for an orbital launcher but common in sounding rockets.

They know they aren't launching a hobby rocket from a parking lot, right?

[ElWanderer]

A first? IIRC, the Japanese built an orbital launcher that had no guidance in any of its stages, save the final one...

Rune. Can't remember the name for the life of me, though.

I think the first is the launch rail, not the spin stabilisation. Scott Manley mentioned the Japanese rocket in his kOS video, but I don't know if he named it.

[Kryten]

I think the first is the launch rail, not the spin stabilisation. Scott Manley mentioned the Japanese rocket in his kOS video, but I don't know if he named it.

It's Lambda-4S, and yes I meant the launch rail.

After a few days of delays, launch is not set for 02:30 UTC, 2 and a half hours from the time of this post. There is a livestream, but unfortunately it's only available on spaceflightnow and isn't embeddable, so here's a link to their coverage.

[fredinno]

It's Lambda-4S, and yes I meant the launch rail.

After a few days of delays, launch is not set for 02:30 UTC, 2 and a half hours from the time of this post. There is a livestream, but unfortunately it's only available on spaceflightnow and isn't embeddable, so here's a link to their coverage.

Why is it launched from rail? It's launching from Hawaii, so there's not much rail for the rocket to move anyways...

[magnemoe]

They know they aren't launching a hobby rocket from a parking lot, right?

Sounding rockets are not hobby rockets, they are ballistic rockets who are in the borderline of reaching space.

Norway launches some to study aurora borealis, they uses an old nike anti air rocket first stage or at least used it earlier, probably an custom upper stage.

They use rails as the nike used rails, makes some sense on an anti air rocket as you want to point it before launching. Modern long range anti air rockets are more agile and tend to launch from boxes and straight up.

[Kryten]

Launch is in about 15 minutes, webcast is here; http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/11/03/ors-4-mission-status-center/

Oh, and something I forgot to mention earlier; when Aerojet test-fired the first stage motor, they found it had burned through the insulation and nearly through the entire casing due to a production flaw; that flaw also exists in the motor on this flight. They decided to press on because it's considered a high risk mission anyway, and they didn't want the ~6 month delay that would result from building a replacement motor. So, long story short, there is a high chance the launch will fail, probably near the end of the first stage burn.

[Kerbal01]

Cool. Launch is currently at L-3 minutes and holding because of some unexplained issue.

[Kryten]

Out of the hold, but with an extra hour on the count, they must've had to reset it. T-53 minutes.

[Kryten]

Vehicle launched, and telemetry showed it tumbling crazily; not clear it actual vehicle issue or just the telemetry. Feed is now blank.

[Mattasmack]

It looked like the rocket developed a coning motion, based on the animation they showed after launch. Once it got severe enough, that would be enough to cause the rocket to break up either from the motion itself or due to aerodynamic forces (since the rocket would certainly have still been in the atmosphere at that time). The later animation of the rocket spinning end-over-end could have been after it broke apart. Whatever fragment that held the telemetry could have ended up spinning like that, though the animation showing the whole rocket doing so must be incorrect.

Edit to add: It's really too bad they cut away from the initial four views they showed right at launch. The video from the tracking camera would show for sure whether the rocket broke up, so we wouldn't be left guessing if their animation just went screwy or if the rocket was really lost.

Edited again: Here's a recording of the launch footage that someone uploaded to Youtube:

Right before it cuts from the four views at 1:28, I think all the views support the conclusion that the rocket tumbled for real: in the lower-left tracking view, the exhaust trail is becoming corkscrew-shaped. In the upper-right onboard view, the exhaust grows more and less visible with each rotation of the rocket, indicating that the rocket isn't facing the same direction it is going. And the animation based on telemetry, in lower-right, shows a tumbling motion rapidly growing larger. Edited November 4, 2015 by Mattasmack

[Motokid600]

Breakup seems to occur around 57 seconds into the video. Edited November 4, 2015 by Motokid600

[mythbusters844]

Video replay of the stream. Looks like the time after launch at which the breakup occurs in Motokid's video matches up with when the tumbling started, and also with when it seems to have started wobbling.

RIP Super Strypi Edited November 4, 2015 by mythbusters844

[Kryten]

RIP Super Strypi

In more ways than one, most likely. It was already unclear leading up to the launch if there would ever be a second.

EDIT spaceflightnow just received official confirmation of a failure from USAF.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Kryten

[mythbusters844]

New update from Spaceflight Now:

"The U.S. Air Force just released the following statement to Spaceflight Now:

"The ORS-4 mission on an experimental Super Strypi launch vehicle failed in mid-flight shortly after liftoff at 5:45 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (7:45 p.m. PST; 10:45 p.m. EST) today from the Pacific Missile Range Facility off Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. Additional information will be released as it becomes available.""

Edited November 4, 2015 by mythbusters844

[magnemoe]

Video replay of the stream. Looks like the time after launch at which the breakup occurs in Motokid's video matches up with when the tumbling started, and also with when it seems to have started wobbling.

RIP Super Strypi

Is it only me but this reminds me of the typical KSP 1.0x tumble in high speed. No its probably not aerodynamic unbalance but more an engine issue but still.

[Streetwind]

Ouch! Some politicians are going to have a field day with this one. Also see: this article from a few days ago, about a government watchdog report that heavily criticized the execution of all the various ORS missions...

[DunaRocketeer]

Yet another rocket failure. Can't say I'm surprised, unless your rocket is operated by ULA, CSA or ESA, failure seems to be in vogue.

Is it just me, or did we used to be better at this? I feel like we're back in the late 50's.

[Streetwind]

Well, they knew ahead of time that the engine was faulty and was likely going to fail.

Also, I'm fairly sure that if you compared your gut feeling with actual statistics, you'd be surprised

[DunaRocketeer]

Proton, Soyuz/Progress, Falcon 9, Antares. With the exception of Proton, these vehicles needed to be in the upper bracket of reliability because of to the ISS. All failed within a year of each other due to inadequacies in their respective companies. I think that's more than the average for a class of vehicles that need to be reliable due to human spaceflight support.

Edited November 4, 2015 by DunaRocketeer