back to article Galileo! Galileo. Galileo! Galileo frigged-LEO: Easy come, easy go. Little high, little low

The European Space Agency (ESA) says it is working “relentlessly” after an “injection anomaly” pushed its two new Galileo sat-nav satellites into the wrong low Earth orbit (LEO). The ESA today said “the satellites are safely under control” and pointing in the right direction at the Sun, at least. The agency is also prepared to …

  1. i like crisps
    Alien

    "injection anomaly"

    I had one of them at Hospital, when i split my thumb with a hammer!

  2. GBE

    Brilliant headline

    Absolutely brilliant.

    1. NoneSuch Silver badge

      Re: Brilliant headline

      That the Reg staff get paid to think this stuff up amazes me. :)

      1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

        Re: NoneSuch

        Don't worry, it amazes me too.

        C.

    2. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: Brilliant headline

      Red-top headlines at their best. Well done El Reg!

      1. stucs201

        Re: Brilliant headline

        Open your eyes

        Look up to the skies and see

        I'm in a poor orbit, I needed more velocity

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Brilliant headline

          They clearly could not let it, could not let it go..

          (etc - I'm sure someone will work out how to fit in even more of the lyrics :) ).

  3. Crazy Operations Guy

    Not surprising since they accelerated the lunch schedules

    It does bring a certain phrase to mind, I can't remember it at the moment, but it had something to do with 'haste' and 'waste'...

    1. stucs201

      Re: Not surprising since they accelerated the lunch schedules

      Ah, that'll be the problem there. Worrying about lunch schedules, not launch schedules.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Not surprising since they accelerated the lunch schedules

      This was a test launch. The rest of the birds are going up on Ariane 5s

  4. Len
    Holmes

    They are not insured, for a good reason

    ESA has already confirmed the satellites were not insured.

    As they have a production line that makes 30 of these satellites (with a considerable chunk made by SSTL in Surrey http://www.sstl.co.uk/Divisions/Telecommunications---Navigation/European-GNSS-Programme) it is cheaper to just have them create two extra than paying eye-watering insurance premiums for something that might never happen.

    That said, some people think the launch vehicle might be to blame. If that turns out to be the case the launch company might actually have to shoulder some of the cost, depending on their contract.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: They are not insured, for a good reason

      Please don't forget to email corrections@thereg if you spot any problems.

      C.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: They are not insured, for a good reason

      Isn't this the second and third satellited they've lost, out of the first 6 launched? I believe one of the earlier ones didn't work, although it's possible these two can be salvaged. But it's a bit sad to have lost half of the reserve of 6, in the first year of the program. On the other hand, out of 15 launches you'd expect to lose at least one, no-one's got a perfect record. It's almost as if rocket science was hard...

  5. Colin Miller

    what is their current orbit?

    How low are they? Can they be used in their current orbits? If not, is there enough fuel onboard to boost them to a useful orbit?

    1. Len

      Re: what is their current orbit?

      They are quite a bit off actually.

      "The targeted orbit was circular, inclined at 55 degrees with a semi major axis of 29,900 kilometers. The satellites are now in an elliptical orbit, with excentricity of 0.23, a semi-major axis of 26,200 kilometers and inclined at 49.8 degrees, according to Arianespace." http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4165

      The biggest problem is the inclination, which is off by 5 degrees. That is a lot. I am no rocket scientist but based on what I gather from people with more knowledge of the issue, being able to solve the multiple ways they are off with the limited amount of fuel they get to perform corrective measures might be very hard or impossible. Spending this fuel now would also reduce their life span

      Choosing a reduced life span to get them in the right orbit would mean the project wouldn't suffer the same delay as launching new ones. However, it would still come at a cost as they would need to be replaced sooner than anticipated.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: what is their current orbit?

        "shortened life" is relative.

        If the orbit can be circularised, at 24,000 miles up they will take several thousand years to come down.

        The main issue is not wasting too much fuel (needed for stationkeeping and solar pointing), although these do have ion thrusters.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: what is their current orbit?

          I don't think station keeping is much of a problem, it's not like geostationary orbit where they need to be within a small box over the equator as they are actually intended to be in a geosynchronous orbit (2 orbits in 24 hours is what the GPS SVs do, not sure if Galileo is the same).

          In theory all that matters is that they are in a predictable position, fill in an empty part of the constellation and can be found and their ephemeris data measured very accurately using the earth stations, the satellites just send this information back to the GNSS receivers of the users which then perform the calculations needed to locate themselves.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: Spending this fuel now would also reduce their life span

        That shouldn't be a problem. Just send up Harry in the Salvage 1 to give it a bit of a nudge or maybe refill the tanks.

        Oh, wait that was fictional. I meant we should send up the space shuttle to refuel...

        Dammit! Not only do I not have a flying car, all the tech we thought we had seems to be disappearing too.

  6. Steve Knox
    Facepalm

    Schadenfreudean Slip?

    ... a stricken sad-nav.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Schadenfreudean Slip?

      Deliberate.

      C.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: Schadenfreudean Slip?

      It is a SAD-NAV. I heard they were feeling a little low...

      /rimshot

  7. stucs201

    Given that sat-nav directions now might as well be : "Anyway the wind blows"

    Better give this message to loved ones before heading out on a journey:

    If I'm not back again this time tomorrow

    Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters

    1. kmac499

      Re: Given that sat-nav directions now might as well be : "Anyway the wind blows"

      I've got a Dog under my desk at the mo, and judging by the way his wind is blowing I don't think I'll survive til' tomorrow.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They may be usable in these orbits

    Navigation Satellites like Galileo (and GPS after which it is modelled) broadcast the details (or ephemerides) of their orbit in their navigation message - stuff like orbit inclination, radius, eccentricity etc etc. I haven't checked, but the numeric range of these paarmeters should allow the description of these 'non-nominal' orbits to the same level of accuracy. So in theory they can be used in their current orbits. In will bugger up the coverage calculations as they won't be in sync with the other satellites in the three nominal planes. I'll bet there are some sleepless nights at ESTEC now with people running constelation simulators. There's probably no threat to other satelltes as MEO (mis Earth Orbit) is basically empty apart from sat nav satellites - the radiation levels are high. Sat nave does not need GEO stationary orbits and LEO orbits near the earth would not last long enough due to the drag of the Earth's atmosphere

    1. Charles Manning

      Re: They may be usable in these orbits

      They're still usable in ANY orbit.... so long as they are predictable.

      Pseudolites - fake satellites - are even positioned on the ground to help provide exta "satellites" when there are insufficient real ones in view.

  9. Richard Pennington 1
    Facepalm

    Moon flybys?

    Can anyone tell me how they might do a Moon flyby from an altitude of 26200 km?

    1. wdmot

      Re: Moon flybys?

      Richard, the moon fly-by was done by the PAS-22 in 1998, not one of these recent Galileo sats (see the wiki PAS-22 article linked). Perhaps something similar could be done with the Galileos that are in the wrong orbit.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Moon flybys?

        Sadly, Hughes owns a patent on the lunar flyby method, so the ESA would probably have to pay some kind of royalty or something.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: Moon flybys?

          Interestingly, Boeing's patent on lunar flybys seems to only apply to satellites launched in March or September.

          It also appears to have lapsed.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Moon flybys?

          How can you patent physics? Very odd

          Either way, looks like patent "US 6116545 A" - Free return lunar flyby transfer method for geosynchronous satellites - http://www.google.com/patents/US6116545?dq=6,116,545 may have now expired due to non payment of fees.

  10. AndrueC Silver badge
    Joke

    pointing in the right direction at the Sun, at least

    Upwards?

    Okay, I'll get me coat :)

  11. Rick Brasche

    fnar!

    injection anomaly-that's wot I told 'er!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    RE. Re. Moon flybys?

    Not sure how that can work, even with a full tank of fuel.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like