Experimental Air Force Rocket Launch Fails (theverge.com) 60
schwit1 writes: An experimental Air Force rocket, dubbed Super Strypi, failed seconds after launch. The launch was part of the Air Force's Operationally Responsive Space (ORS)-4 mission which aims to test small alternative launch vehicles. The Verge reports: "A small, experimental rocket meant to carry 13 communication satellites into space for the Department of Defense failed just one minute after launching from Hawaii last night, according to the US Air Force. Video footage of the event shows the rocket spiraling out of control as it falls back down to Earth, leaving a crooked contrail in its wake. This was the first flight ever for this kind of vehicle — known as a Super Strypi rocket — as well as the first rocket launch attempt from the Hawaiian Islands."
Why a experimental launch carried 13 satellites? (Score:1)
Re:Why a experimental launch carried 13 satellites (Score:4, Informative)
"meant" to carry.
I know no one RTFA, but at least RTFS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Failure of the rocket that was "meant to carry 13 communication satellites into space" does not mean that it wasn't carry those 13 communication satellites.
It means that it did not carry them into space.
Whether or not it carried them at all is not stated.
Re: (Score:1)
What is also not stated is whether it was capable of carrying any more or fewer than precisely 13 satellites.
Re:Why a experimental launch carried 13 satellites (Score:5, Funny)
African or European (Score:2)
Well-played Sir!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but African satellites are non-migratory.
Re: (Score:2)
You just called African satellites the N word. ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
And if you read the article, you'll see that the Air Force knew of a flaw in the upper stage motor, but wanted to launch anyway to get data from the first stage.
Why would they load it up with shitloads of satellites when they know it will never leave the atmosphere? Answer: they wouldn't, and didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Experimental launches do not include actual payload.
They should (and probably did) include mass to simulate the presence of a payload, but there is no way they put multi-million dollar satellites into an experimental vehicle.
Look at the history of the most successful rocket programs, and you will see an enormous number of failed experiments. They know this stuff tends to go boom.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind previous. Read the DISA writeup linked in the article, this was actually an operational mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"meant" to carry.
I know no one RTFA, but at least RTFS
Oh crap, I RTFA. Most appy lolly gees.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Constitutionally granted.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you're not a tailor.
Re: (Score:1)
Why a experimental launch carried 13 satellites?
It is designed to carry satellites. It was not carrying any for this launch.
There is something odd here. The summary contains quite a bit of information that is NOT in TFA. Some of it is just wrong: This is not the first rocket launch from Hawaii. Dozens of USAF rockets have been launched from Hawaii. But other information seems to contradict TFA. The summary says "seconds into the flight" but TFA says "mid-flight".
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says "seconds into the flight" but TFA says "mid-flight".
Many hundreds of seconds
Re:Why a experimental launch carried 13 satellites (Score:4, Interesting)
Experimental rockets often carry payloads, in fact it's better if they do because a) they don't have to carry ballast in order to mimic operational weight and CG, and b) they can partially defray the costs of the development program and launch campaign.
Not that they charge much, and the payloads are not often insured, so it's usually University and High School and NGO satellites or experiments. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the space was donated.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, TFS should have specified it was the first *orbital* rocket launch from Hawaii.
(I've launched suborbitals from Barking Sands myself... it's usually used to send missiles towards Kwajalein, either to test an ICBM vehicle, or to launch targets for missile defense tests.)
Re: (Score:2)
Or wait for a commercial Russian rocket import that works, has a US private sector costs and has more contractors looking over the project.
Re: (Score:1)
Another view... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The rocket spins like that during the ascent for stability. When I saw the footage, I thought that it might not be spinning fast enough. This rocket did not have a guidance system. Have a look at a sounding rocket spinning during the ascent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTfgOYb1Fn8
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, it literally says IN THE VIDEO HE LINKED that it's spin stabilized. For those who don't know, spinning something puts energy into an object without changing the trajectory. More energy means it's harder to change direction. That's why rifled bullets spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but this one started precessing wildly at about 0:48.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And to explain it using a car analogy, it looked like someone forgot to turn off the emergency brake on the left side of the car.
"first"? (Score:2)
A bit of clarification (Score:5, Informative)
The rocket was in fact carrying satellites -- a large primary payload (HawaiiSat-1), and a number of small CubeSats.
http://www.hsfl.hawaii.edu/wor... [hawaii.edu]
The SuperStrypi is an evolved variant of a spin-stabilized 1960s sounding rocket, so the axial spin is expected, though the anomaly that ultimately doomed the mission was not!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Disclaimer: I helped port some code to run on the system board of one the CubeSats. Let's just say it was a disappointing afternoon....
Re: (Score:2)
Are the existing fast acceleration profiles even that good for some very hand crafted, bespoke satellite?
Can the new emerging US private sector do intelligence payloads soon? Getting certification soon?
A titanium science gap? Or some industrial wide issue for the type of rockets needed? The big nosecone with fast speed and hug
Re: (Score:3)
Whats going more wrong more often per design? Is the US just always trying new, cheaper, faster build methods or have too many advance skills be lost in some sectors per decade? Are the existing fast acceleration profiles even that good for some very hand crafted, bespoke satellite?
New rockets always have a high failure rate. If it's still failing often after the fifth or sixth launch, then it's a problem.
Can the new emerging US private sector do intelligence payloads soon?
They've been doing them since oh, 1986 or so. The current launch provider is the United Launch Alliance which operates the Atlas V and Delta IV rocket systems though I believe SpaceX may be close to launching some military payloads on Falcon 9.
Re: (Score:2)
The decrease launch costs, domestic consideration of the Russian RD-180 engine that works well is also a factor.
It will be interesting to see the new private sector offerings vs the costs of the old but now cheaper rebranded joint venture efforts
Re: (Score:2)
Shove a firecracker up your ass and light it. see how easy it is to survive that.
rockets are an extremely dangerous method of launching into space. right now it is our only practical method. until we get a single stage to orbit engine(maybe sabre) every new rocket will show us new ways to fail spectacularly.
Re: (Score:3)
Some new attempts with balloon-launched and other methods
Hmmmmm (Score:3)
So they're saying that it....went off the rails?
No need to get up, I'll see myself out.
/sigh (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be dead in seconds. Probably a lot of seconds, but it can definitely be measured in those units.
Re: /sigh (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This. It's not even more sensational if it fails after 'seconds' rather than in a minute, so this is probably a routine journo hyperbole, the problem is, as you say, that they write without considering the target audience (i.e. they don't give a shit about them).
Re: (Score:2)
If at first you don't succeed... (Score:2)
...try try again! It often takes many failures to achieve success. Edison experienced many disappointments before who chanced on a practical light bulb design.
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty damn close to spot on. Though nobody's budget is unlimited, the bigger and more affluent the society the more financial risks it can afford.
Obviously... (Score:1)