Slashdot Mirror
2 Galileo Satellites Launched To Wrong Orbit
As reported by the BBC, two satellites meant to form part of the EU's Galileo global positioning network have been launched into a wrong, lower orbit, and it is unclear whether they can be salvaged. NASASpaceFlight.com has a more detailed account of the launch, which says [D]espite the Arianespace webcast noting no issue with the launch, it was later admitted the satellites were lofted into the wrong orbit. “Following the announcement made by Arianespace on the anomalies of the orbit injection of the Galileo satellites, the teams of industries and agencies involved in the early operations of the satellites are investigating the potential implications on the mission,” noted a short statement, many hours after the event. It is unlikely the satellites can be eased into their correct orbit, even with a large extension to their transit time. However, ESA are not classing the satellites as lost at this time. “Both satellites have been acquired and are safely controlled and operated from ESOC, ESA’s Operations Centre in Darmstadt, Germany,” the Agency added.
Over the course of the next "year or so," an additional 24 satellites are slated to complete the Galileo constellation, to be launched by a mixed slate of Ariane and Soyuz rockets.
Just killing some kerbals
I know, right?
One must ask onesself, "It was a wrong orbit for who?" Perhaps it was the right orbit for some other purpose. A purpose that you aren't supposed to know, or even consider....
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Says the Anonymous coward...
This is the 2012 report, and a summary of success rates. You'll find the first American rocket as #7...
http://www.spacelaunchreport.c...
In 2013 the Atlas moved up to #4, Still after the Russian and EU.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.c...
Never mind, wrong post.
I'll never understand these idiotic mistakes made by space agencies.
Remember when the spirit rover mission almost failed because they never did a real test of the OS's file system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
After I heard about that, all I could think of was "Why would you spend billions of dollars on something, send it to mars, and never simulate the trip to see if the OS would have a problem?"
Using alien technology. To film it in a Hollywood basement.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Well, wouldn't the Russian rocket basically just get the satellite into LEO, while mission-special rockets would do final delivery to the proper orbit?
at least that's what my wife suggested when I asked her just now. And she actually is a rocket scientist...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Everyone said I was daft to build a duplicate global positioning system, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It fell from orbit and sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That fell from orbit and sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That exploded, fell from orbit, burned on re-entry, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Would I have married her otherwise?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
if they had used Engrish units this never would have happened.
This will for sure mess up the constellation, which is designed to minimize the times where some places on Earth do not have 4 satellites above the horizon, and also the places where this is going to happen (i.e., coverage gaps over the far South Pacific are likely to be more acceptable than over Northern Europe) . Since these satellites are too low, they will have shorter periods and will thus not be commensurable with the existing constellation, and will drift in and out of place.
You can be sure ESA engineers are busily looking at orbits this weekend, to see what can be salvaged from this debacle. Now, they may be really lucky, and have gotten an orbit where these two satellites can be used to fill a hole in the current constellation. I would bet in that case that both satellites would serve to fill the spots normally filled by one satellite; so at best only one, but if (as is more likely) they are unlucky, two satellites will have to be launched to fill the gaps.
In other words, while these satellites are not a loss, and will be used, new launches are likely to be necessary to make the constellation whole, which will cost as much as if they were lost.
That's only for stuff that goes up into the heavily populated geostationary belt. GPS orbits are about half-way down and much more sparse, so there's no need to have a graveyard orbit the way there is in GEO. Besides, a higher orbit analogous to the geostationary graveyard is still a usable orbit for GPS, so there's nothing to be gained by moving there at the end of life, and the orbits are too high for re-entry burns to be practical the way they are for certain LEO orbits.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice, especially where large institutions are involved.
That's kinda how they work, depending on the design. It's the cell phones that don't work that way.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Maybe they just thought that Pulsar Navigation System, or PNS, would never be widely adopted due to the pronunciation of its acronym...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The final stage that was meant to put the two satellites into their proper orbit was a Fregat-MT upper stage built by the Russians and supplied as part of the complete Soyuz stack.
The satellites have their own motors used for station-keeping, trimming orbit etc. but I doubt they have enough fuel to move themselves to the planned orbit. Even in the wrong orbit the satellites will still work and provide position data to GPS receivers but they will not provide the sort of whole-sky coverage originally planned. They are high enough that they're not likely to deorbit within the next few years at least.
The complete Galileo constellation is intended to consist of twenty-four working satellites and six spares so ESA and the Galileo consortium have some leeway. They might revamp the deployment schedule to use fewer Soyuz launches and more Ariane V launches for the rest of the constellation though unless the Russians can explain what went wrong with the Fregat-TM and guarantee it won't happen again.
Take a closer look at that table. The US vehicles in 7-8 place have one and only one failure. The low ranking is because they are relatively new and have participated in a small number of missions.
In the 2nd table, showing retired vehicles the US has 3 of the top 4 spots.
Yeah, and Gene Roddenberry wrote about faster than light space travel back in the 60's, but that didn't make it possible.
Cell phones can, under ideal conditions, transmit 30 to 40 miles, while a low earth orbit is 99 miles up, and it would have to be directly overhead to be 99 miles away..>/p?
Fictional stories are fiction for a reason.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
The SAR component of galileo is a separate service to the positioning service. The intention is that it can operate as an EPIRB receiver. Conventional emergency beacons can be located by satellites, but the resolution is poor (tens of miles) and the time to fix is long (30-60 minutes). The beacon transmits a signal, and suitably equipped satellites detect the beacon, and relay it to ground stations, which then compute the location of the beacon by measuring the change in Doppler shift as the satellite flies by. The SAR component of galileo was designed with the intention that the overhead satellites would detect the time-of-arrival of the beacon signal and cross reference it with the satellites' atomic clocks, effectively performing a reverse GPS-fix. Such a system would be able to obtain a fix within minutes or seconds, and such a fix would likely have a resolution of 1-2 miles. The SAR component is not a mandatory service. You can use the passive location service without implementing SAR in a device. You would only use the SAR service, in an emergency locator beacon device. At the time the galileo SAR system was designed, feedback was a problem with locator beacons. The user had no idea if the signal had been received. Later revisions to the system mean that modern beacons and satellites now offer two big upgrades - the beacons can contain a passive GPS reciever, and can embed the location data in the beacon signal; and the satellite system can transmit feedback to a compatible receiver telling it that it's signal has been received and a position fix made. The Galileo SAR function is therefore rather redundant, but it's often helpful to have a 2nd independent and redundant safety system available, so I can see that it would still get used.
Then If you want space done right go retired American vehicles
Radio astronomers are look at pulsars a different way than a Galaxy Position System needs to.
The pulsar interference issues came up shortly after the industry found out that Trimble was making use of the short bit at the end of the message to figure out when a frame started on the military signal which gave them much better accuracy. The pulsar noise messes up the way that was found so it had to be filtered out and those filters helped clean up other noise issues. That was over 15 years ago and I haven't worked on this in over a decade.
I agree you need a large antenna if you want to see some of the finer detail of pulsars radio transmissions since they tend to have something in the range of 400 to 450 db signal loss. For a GPS system, you don't need that fine of detail, you just have to be able to compare the time between two pulsars which is a much simpler problem.
Fourth try? That's a remarkably efficient track record. Thomas Alva Edison took around a thousand more tries to get inventions working. ;-)
"My parents call me Alvie. You can call me DC all the way."
To