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.

Re:Proves point

[flyneye]

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....

ugh

[Charliemopps]

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... [wikipedia.org]

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?"

Re:Proves point

[TWX]

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...

What a debacle

[mbone]

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.

Re:fuel reserves

[RightwingNutjob]

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.

Re:Stupid metric system

[TWX]

My theory is that most pre-Metric units were designed because they're sizing/spacing was convenient to the type of measuring and the task at hand.

I work on a lot of machinery. To cover a span of 1" or 24mm, I need almost half-again as many mm-sized tools as I need SAE-sized tools at 1/16" increments, and I can't omit any metric sizes because there's no rule that I've found on where one can go from x1mm to x2mm or x3mm spacing between fasteners. With SAE tools, once above 1-3/8, typically one only needs to carry 1/8" increments, and above 2", 1/4" increments.

0 degrees Fahrenheit is really cold, about the coldest that one can stand by simply bundling up, without having to resort to special clothing. 100 degrees Fahrenheit is pretty hot, about the hottest that one can stand without having to take special precautions with hydration and attire. By contrast, -18 degrees Celsius and 37 degrees Celsius aren't terribly intuitive.

SI also lacks a good equivalent to the Foot. Decimeters are only about 4" long, and meters are over 3' long, so nothing in between.

SI reminds me of hyperinflated currencies, where the units don't align well with real-world uses. I like the idea of base-ten conversion given our current numbering system, but the scales are off.