The suspected cause of the debris event was an overcharge of the battery resulting in a minor explosion of the battery. The NOAA 8 satellite launched in 1983 suffered an onboard failure in December of 1985 leading to the release of six pieces of debris into orbits between 750 and 850 Kilometers. In 2004, the DMSP F11 satellite suffered a breakup that created 84 trackable debris. This altitude regime had already become cluttered with debris from historical break-ups which is particularly unfortunate given the importance of 850km Sun Synchronous Orbits for remote sensing and meteorological satellites. The bulk of NOAA 16 debris reside in orbits that will be very slow to decay and may last several decades. Image: NASA Orbital Debris Program Office Also, about half the debris were put into orbits with inclinations higher than the parent object, and half into orbits with lower inclinations. The debris could is mostly symmetric in altitude – a similar number of debris was thrown into higher and lower orbits. The DMSP F13 break-up left a debris could with a similar spread to that created by NOAA 16, extending more than 300 Kilometers above and below the pre-breakup orbit. More debris from the NOAA 16 satellite are likely to be detected in the coming weeks and months. It should be noted that only debris of a certain size can be tracked from the ground, small centimeter-sized debris or frozen fluid droplets that could also harm satellites can not be monitored from the ground. Initially, 43 debris were cataloged but the total number of liberated debris rose to 160 in the months that followed. This marked the second large debris event of 2015 involving NOAA/DMSP satellites after the DMSP F13 satellite suffered a battery explosion in February that was preceded by a sudden temperature spike in the satellite’s power system. Kelso shows the NOAA 16 debris event occurred at approximately 7:20 UTC on November 25.ĭMSP F13 Gabbard Plot – Credit: NASA Orbital Debris Program Office A collision had been ruled out earlier leaving only the scenario of an explosion onboard the satellite which is not unheard of in NOAA satellites and satellites of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program.Īnalysis conducted by Dr. This indicates that the debris were liberated with significant energy, suggesting either an onboard explosion or a collision between objects. JSpOC released orbital elements for 53 debris on Friday showing a large spread in orbits ranging from 462 by 858 to 829 by 1,278 Kilometers. It took one and a half weeks for data to be gathered on the number and orbital trajectories of the debris. NOAA 16 was in an orbit of 841 by 857 Kilometers when the event occurred and the Joint Space Operations Center became aware of the debris release at around 8:16 UTC on November 25. Given the behavior of satellites of similar construction, the leading suspect for the debris event is an explosion of the spacecraft battery. The debris event was detected on November 25 when ground-based radars sensed a number of debris in the vicinity of the NOAA 16 satellite that had been retired since 2014. Many of the ideas posted in the last few pages have been posted before (my own included.) And so we go round and round.The in-orbit break-up of the NOAA 16 weather satellite left a cloud of dozens of debris in orbit, data released by the Joint Space Operations Center indicates. But then we are talking about some later generation vehicle, not F9R. In such a world you could imagine 24 hour turn round, keeping the vehicle upright for processing and all the various other suggestions posted. It is not at all clear to me how we get from the way things are now to such a world. But this is in some future world where human spaceflight beyond LEO is extensive enough to create a demand for such services. I agree with those who say that tanker flights are the most likely types of missions which would benefit from complete and rapid re-usability. I think there is a reasonable chance that it will, but it is yet to be proved. F9R's viability is about not whether they can turn the vehicle round in 24 hours, but whether its re-use saves money. There are not enough payloads presently to require it. Rapid re-use has been featured a lot because it's a stated SpaceX goal, but I'm with those who believe that will be unnecessary for quite a while into the future. The discussion has moved from v1.1 to future re-usability possibilities very quickly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |