Past and future of the KH-11 Keyhole/Evolved Enhanced CRYSTAL constellation (part 4)
The previous analysis was focussed on the orbital planes of the satellites. In this fourth post in this series, I will take a look at other orbital parameters, such as apogee and perigee heights, eccentricity and mean motion.
now in secondary West plane,
probably soon to be de-orbited?
soon to switch from primary West plane to
secondary West plane?
into the primary West plane
Let me first briefly summarize the previous analysis. In these I showed that the KH-11 constellation consists of two primary orbital planes separated by 48-50 degrees in RAAN. In addition, each primary orbital plane has an accompanying secondary orbital plane, 10 degrees more west for the West plane and 20 degrees more East for the East plane.
Satellites are initially launched into one of the primary planes, in their primary mission: after a couple of years, and after a replacement has been launched into the same orbital plane, they shift to the accompanying secondary plane, going from primary mission into secondary extended mission.
For example, USA 129 did this in 2006 after the launch of USA 186; and USA 161 did this in 2011 after the launch of USA 224. I pointed out that I expect USA 186 to do the same early 2014 following the recent launch of USA 245 into the West plane. I also expect USA 129 to be de-orbitted.
The graphic summaries given in that previous post, were these two images (see previous post for discussions):
Shifting from primary to secondary orbital planes is however not the only thing that happens. When we look at various orbital parameters, we can see other, accompanying patterns, notably in the apogee and perigee heights:
(note: all the orbital parameters used in the diagrams above have been determined by Mike McCants from amateur observations, including mine).
New plane, lower apogee altitudes, and more circular orbit
For example: in the previous post on this topic it was discussed how USA 161 (2001-044A) in the East plane manoeuvred from the primary East plane to the secondary East plane late 2011 by changing its RAAN by 20 degrees (i.e., by rotating its line of apsides). This followed the launch of USA 224 (2011-002A) into the primary East plane, as a replacement for USA 161.
In the diagrams above, we can see that other orbital changes took effect as a result of the same series of manoeuvres. In addition to its orbital plane, USA 161 (blue dots in the diagrams) also changed its orbital eccentricity and its apogee and perigee heights. The apogee height was significantly lowered (which initially confused analysts at the time), from about 960 km to eventually about 390 km altitude. The perigee height was raised somewhat, from 310 km to 390 km altitude. The result is a much more circular orbit.
The inclination of the orbit was also changed, by about one degree. The reason for this can be seen in the lowermost diagram: with the changes in apogee and perigee altitudes, the orbital inclination had to be changed to make the resulting orbit sun-synchronous again.
In all, although much of this was accomplished within 6 months after the massive manoeuvre of late August 2011, it took USA 161 about a year to settle in its new orbit.
A repeat of an earlier case
Earlier, in 2006-2007, changes in the orbit of USA 129 (1996-072A) in the West plane can be seen to follow a somewhat similar pattern.
After the launch of USA 186 (2005-042A) into the primary West plane in 2005, USA 129, by that time already 10 years old and hence quite of age, moved to the secondary West plane by changing its RAAN by 10 degrees. Accompanying this move, is a change in perigee and apogee altitudes. The perigee is gently raised from about 280 km to eventually 310 km altitude. The apogee is lowered from about 1020-1030 km to eventually about 770 km altitude. The orbit becomes much more circular as a result.
With USA 129, this process took much longer than with USA 161 and the changes are less drastic. Yet the ideas behind them are clearly similar to what USA 161 did five years later: change orbital plane from primary to secondary plane, lower apogee significantly, raise perigee gently, and circularize the orbit (although not to the degree like USA 161 later did).
The more gentle approach taken by USA 129 in 2006-2007 compared to USA 161 in 2011-2012 might implicate either of these two scenarios:
(a) USA 129 had less fuel reserves left in 2006 than USA 161 had in 2011;... or (and I prefer this explanation):
(b) it was anticipated in 2006 that the lifetime of USA 129 needed to be prolonged untill well after the initial lifetime estimates, putting restrictions on fuel use for manoeuvres.
Remember: this is around the time the KH-11/CRYSTAL follow-up program, the FIA Optical program, entered delays and was next cancelled. So option (b) could well be the case.
What to expect?
Based on these past patterns, I expect USA 186 to do the following things by means of a series of manoeuvres starting the first months of 2014:
1) change RAAN by 10 degrees (i.e. rotating its line of apsides), moving itself from the primary West plane into the secondary West plane (see previous post here);
2) drastically lower apogee (currently at about 1020 km) to about 390 km altitude;
3) gently raise perigee (currently at 260 km) to about 390 km altitude.;
4) circularize its orbit as a result of (2) and (3);
5) change inclination by about one degree to re-attain sun-synchronicity after the altered apogee and perigee altitudes.
These changes should take a few months and be completed towards the end of 2014. They will likely be initiated by a large manoeuvre early 2014 (in February or March likely).
As mentioned earlier I expect USA 129 to be de-orbited this winter or spring.
Why the apogee and perigee changes?
One question pertaining is: why these changes in perigee and notably apogee? Is a circular ~390 x 390 km orbit easier to maintain? Is there instead some operational reason behind this change in altitudes, in terms of desired track-repeat intervals or equipment performance (e.g. demands of image resolution)? If so, why are similar changes not made to the orbits of the primary plane objects but only to the secondary plane, extended mission objects? I have no answers, and at best I can speculate from a few ideas I have. That is not for this blog, however.
This post benefitted from discussions with Ted Molczan and Cees Bassa. Interpretations and any errors theirin are mine.