Not so Fast: Galileo Satellites in Wrong Orbit
Europe’s Latest Galileo Satellites Injected Into Wrong Orbit After Launch, SpaceRef Business
“An investigation is underway after yesterday’s launch by Arianespace of a Soyuz rocket which left its twin payload of Europe’s fifth and six Galileo GPS satellites in a lower wrong orbit.
According to a statement released by Arianespace “complementary observations gathered after separation of the Galileo FOC M1 satellites on Soyuz Flight VS09 have highlighted a discrepancy between targeted and reached orbit.”
Galileo Launch, Initially Hailed as Success, Is a Failure, Space News
Marc’s note: After congratulatory speeches it was later learned from U.S. military data that the satellites were in the wrong orbit. One of the many questions include why didn’t the launch telemetry indicate the wrong orbit? The almost two hour Arianespace broadcast did not indicate anything wrong. Details courtesy Space News Paris Bureau Chief Peter B. de Selding.
Marc’s update: Based on what we know now this could be a candidate mission for future on-orbit servicing.
“… it was later learned from U.S. military data …”
While I’m perfectly familiar with the typical and easily recognizable format and language of naive grassroot-style pro-US propaganda, I’ll still try to request a reference to confirm that it was indeed learned from “US military data” specifically. Not holding my breath…
Was there another organization that released orbital tracking data sooner? Or would it be better to trust ESA to release the information in their good time, even if they must have known very quickly and instead chose to sit on the embarrassing information?
But no, it must be some “pro-US” conspiracy involved here. Clearly.
I don’t see what would be the point of sitting on that information when they knew perfectly well it could not be hidden.
Then how do you explain their actions? Either…
A) the Russians did not give them all the data (which they surely had) or
B) ESA was hoping no one would notice until much later, or
C) ESA is incompetent.
I’m not sure which explanation you prefer, but neither is flattering.
LM ru serious? “I don’t see what would be the point of sitting on that information when they knew perfectly well it could not be hidden”
1) that wasn’t our ground to air missile that shot down that plane.
2) We were invited into Crimea
3) And from today’s Google news: our soldiers are currently not in Ukraine being interviewed as captives.
so YES I believe that they would sit on information they knew perfectly well could not be hidden.
The UN has delegated releasing orbital elements to the US Air Force, the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) in California. The US has an extensive set of space objects tracking systems – as do the Russians. The US has provided a free service for decades – but the Russians do not release any data.
I used to work in a predecessor of the JSpOC and we supported lots of users for free by releasing orbital elements. The US Air Force can normally determine orbital elements even faster than the developer of the spacecraft, thanks to their coverage.
On behalf of the US Air Force – you are welcome.
Firstly, I don’t understand what it has to do with the UN. In any case, your assertion makes no sense at all: the UN does not involve itself in orbital tracking and does not “delegate” anything to anyone.
Secondly, Russian orbital tracking data has been routinely made public since 2001.
Thirdly, all miniature and sub-miniature satellite tracking is done by Russians and only by Russians (the US either does not have the capability or does not want to disclose it). Russians feed this data to the JSpOC as well. All miniature satellite data released publically by US satellite authorities is obtained directly from Russians and only from Russians.
Fourthly, all satellite tracking data for French Guiana Soyuz-Fregat launches comes directly and immediately from Russian side. And, as I said in another comment, all orbital insertion parameters were known to them immediately after this launch. Nobody had to wait for any “… U.S. military data …”. This is just naive comic-book-level propaganda.
You obviously have your version of reality and want to sell it to the rest of the world. First off the Russians do not give any data to anyone, and I have personally tracked lots of very small satellites at a US Air Force radar site in Alaska.
You also know that the Russians could easily join the rest of the world in prosperity, but they prefer to plunge their country back into isolation and poverty. Soon Russians will be carrying their string bags again, they will be standing in line for bread again. Perhaps another 20 years of suffering will help them mature? Fortunately they are surrounded by countries that they have oppressed since 1945 and who now hate them – countries (like Poland) that eagerly joined NATO. The sad fact is that space cooperation could have led to prosperity and integration with Europe. But the Russians prefer isolation.
Well you guys are disagreeing pretty severely, but I’m still interested in an answer your original request.
2 hour broadcast with no hint of a problem? Maybe they just cut off relaying information after finding out there was a problem so they could work on things for a while and that was the reason for the delay? Or they didn’t really know for a while?
It sounds like you’re not familiar with the topic of satellite tracking. If you go to the space-track.org site, you’ll notice that it is operated under contract to US Strategic Command. They regularly produce orbital elements that were most likely used for that statement. This data has been available from the US military since at least the 70’s that I’m familiar with and likely since the 1960’s and maybe 1950’s.
As a recognized authority on satellite tracking, I know firsthand that all orbital parameters of the newly launched satellites (including the orbital insertion anomaly in question) were known immediately after the launch and were immediately available to all parties involved. Which is why I can see these attempts to represent in that typical simplistically-dramatic propaganda fashion, like “everybody thought everything was fine, but the US military data…” for what they really are.
When you post under a pseudonym, you’re just another dog.
Ruff ruff. I gotta remember that one…
The SpceNews article quotes Jonathan McDowell as being the first to publicly note the incorrect orbit. He based that on data from StratCom. Others may have known about it, but you’ll have to provide some evidence that someone provided this information publicly before McDowell using non-StratCom data. I suspect the SpaceNews reporter heard about it from McDowell first.
Well, Mr. Recognized Authority on Satellite Tracking…presuming the anomaly was known immediately after the event, then why are you implying that it is the US Military trying to score propaganda points by being first to bring it to attention?
Seems to me, that the Arianespace officials who initially declared the mission a success, and that the Galileo satellites were delivered to their proper orbits (and should have known better), were being intentionally mislead. It is quite possible that this deceptive information was passed by Russia to Arianespace…or at the very least, that they withheld the truth of the matter.
That is almost the poster-child for “propaganda”. It is yet another sign of the unprofessional (corrupt?) behavior and opaque operations by Russia, who are supposed to be the friggin’ partner with ArianeSpace in this endeavor. You seem to have a “questionable” agenda, here, my friend…when you are implying nefarious machinations by US StratCom, when you should be questioning the motivations and lack of prompt disclosure by Roscosmos engineers, either embedded at the Arianespace Guiana telemetry center, or back at their home center in Russia.
I’m German and I really can’t say I’m proud of this.
Europe launches new navigation satellites and didn’t know where they are…
It seems ArianeSpace did rely on the Russian telemetry.
That’s the real crux of the matter, as Jim Oberg commented some years ago. Russia’s importance in space is on the wane. The reasons for this include declining quality control and endemic corruption.
It’s not at all surprising that they would pretend that the rocket had reached the correct orbit. It was either lower-level operators hoping to hide the problem (an old tradition) or upper-level management keeping uncomfortable facts to themselves (another fine tradition).
All of this smells of the Soviet Union, where I happened to have lived for a period. While the lights and glamor of a Moscow awash in petrorubles may hide the reality, the ground truth is that, functionally, the country is steadily turning back toward its ugly past in every sense.
The latest theory is that the Fregat upper stage’s last burn was in the wrong direction. If so, some serious egg on the manufacturer’s face as they do the pre-flighting and programming of their machines for ESA.
I wonder where the trail of breadcrumbs will lead this time?
http://spacenews.com/articl…
Russia seems particularly snakebitten by upper stage problems. The larger Briz-M and -KM stages have had several failures in recent years and now the smaller Fregat is playing up.
They should maybe outfit the launcher with GPS to prevent this sort of thing.
Heh.
I heard rocketry is tricky?
Compare with the Space News report on the recent Orbcomm launch: “the Falcon 9 delivered the satellites into an orbit whose inclination relative to the equator was within 0.005 degrees of the targeted 47 degrees, with an apogee of 720.5 kilometers and a perigee of 619.5 kilometers — both 0.5 kilometers from the target.”
http://www.spacenews.com/ar…
So, guess they may have to switch to their own launch vehicle now rather than the Soyuz. Strange that they’re using it anyway. Does it have anything to do with orbits? If not then why not A5? Anyone?
Thanks and cheers
Soyuz is a medium-lift whilst Ariane-5 is a medium-heavy lift.
Ariane-5, which was designed to support HSF, is really too large for any normal commercial payload; that’s why it has to carry two comsats at a time. Soyuz SB-2 offered the chance to fly normal-sized payloads without having to figure out how to stack them in pairs or more for one launch on the A5 giant.
One of the reasons Ariane-6 is planned to be smaller than Ariane-5 is because it’s sized for commercial satellite launch rather than crew vehicle and space station component launch.
One word – expense. They are planning to use A5 on three missions with 4 birds apiece, but the rest are to go up two at a time on Soyuz.
What I’m very surprised about is that no one from ESA or Arianespace had any early indication that things went wrong. Aren’t orbital maneuvers, including upper stage burns, normally tracked by radar from the ground? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t a “good burn” be confirmed not only by telemetry from the rocket, but also from the tracking data of a ground network? Is ESA (or Arianespace) relying on Russian operators to do such things? If so, I hope Europe will put more investment in having independent capabilities for radar tracking (or at least non-Russian capabilities).
I’m very surprised that Arianespace or ESA did not have early indication of the anomaly. Aren’t orbital maneuvers, including those of the upper stage, monitored not only with telemetry but all radar from the ground? If Arianespace was relying entirely on Russia for these functions, that is pretty scary in itself. I hope that Europe will invest more in ground tracking in the future, or make agreements with the US to do it.
What I find to be the most confusing aspect of this incident is that they didn’t realise the vehicle was on an incorrect trajectory until well after the satellite injection.
With SpaceX, you can hear the commentary as the launch progresses and they’re following engines, velocity, timing, trajectory, etc as the launch progresses. They seem to understand exactly what is happening and where their vehicle is at any particular moment.
Could anyone in the know comment on this observation since I don’t know whether or not SpaceX represents the normal situation or AS?
Cheers