Saturday, 1 July 2017

OT: Broek in Waterland, the sixth Dutch meteorite (observed fall, 11 January 2017)

Last Monday was a special and extremely busy day. At Naturalis, the Dutch National Museum of Natural History, we presented a new meteorite: Broek in Waterland (provisional name). It is an L6 chondrite and only the 6th authenticated meteorite of the Netherlands in 177 years time, after Uden (LL7, fall, 1840), Utrecht (L6, fall, 1843), Diepenveen (CM-an, fall, 1873), Ellemeet (DIO, fall, 1925) and Glanerbrug (L-LL4-5, fall, 1990).

(left to right) The author and Leo Kriegsman (Naturalis) and Niek de Kort (Royal Dutch Association for Astronomy) with the new Broek in Waterland meteorite at the presentation in Naturalis Biodiversity Center, 26 June 2017

On 11 January 2017 at 16:08:40 UT (17:08:40 local time), just after sunset, a bright fireball appeared over the Netherlands. The sun was only 3 degrees below the horizon and the sky still bright blue and star-less at that moment, so unfortunately the Dutch-Belgian photographic all-sky network and the CAMS BeNeLux videonetwork where not yet operational. Dozens of people from the Netherlands and Belgium however visually spotted the fireball and reported it.

A driver on a highway near Weerde in Belgium, 165 km from the fall locality, captured the fireball with a dashcam and uploaded the video to a Belgian UFO investigation website. No other video records besides this one have surfaced, unfortunately. From a comparison of the road marking patterns on the video with Google Earth imagery, I determined that the fireball (going almost straight down in the video) appeared near geodetic azimuth 11-15 degrees. Broek in Waterland, where the meteorite was subsequently found, is in azimuth 11.5 degrees as seen from this locality, i.e. a very good match.

The next day, the owners of a garden shed near Broek in Waterland, a rural village just a few km north of Amsterdam, noted roofing tile shards on the ground next to the shed. Upon investigation, they discovered something had smashed through the roof and lodged on the supporting latticework. It was a 530 grams black stone, about 9 cm in diameter, the size of a small fist.

The Broek in Waterland L6 chondrite (click images to enlarge. Photographs by the author, 3 Feb 2017)

Puzzled by the curious incident, one of the finders started to search the internet for explanations. Two and a half weeks after the fall, she phoned Niek de Kort, who runs the Meteorite Documentation Center of the Royal Dutch Association for Astronomy and Meteorology. Niek was abroad at that moment, but the description and subsequent e-mail with pictures sounded very promising. He allerted Leo Kriegsman and the author (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, the Dutch National Museum of Natural History). We made an appointment with the finders and visited them at the fall locality on February 3, where we formally established that the stone was indeed a meteorite. From the look of it, I provisionally determined it as likely an L6 Ordinary Chondrite (a common type of stony meteorite). Subsequent laboratory testing has confirmed that initial assessment.

We arranged a temporary loan of the stone with the owners and got permission to cut off 20 grams for research. Subsequent laboratory research at Naturalis and Utrecht University with thin sections, XRF and microprobe confirmed that the petrology, mineralogy and chemistry was consistent with an L6 Ordinary Chondrite. Measurement of shortlived isotopes at the VU University Amsterdam found isotopes that confirm this is a recent fall.

The meteorite's pre-sampling weigth was 530 grams. It is fist size, and almost completely fusion crust covered, bar a few chips and scratches from the impact on the roof. One side of the stone is rounded, the other side shows flat facets, the larger ones of which are covered in "thumb prints" (regmaglypths). This evidences breakup of the stone during the ablative phase of entry into the atmosphere.

search activities in the fall area, February 2017 (photograph by author)

In the weeks after the stone came to light, I teamed up with Felix Bettonvil of Leiden Observatory to organise a search for more fragments in the surrounding area. Some fifteen volunteers, many of them veterans from earlier meteorite search attempts, from the Dutch Meteor Society, the KNVWS meteor section, Naturalis and Leiden Observatory, spend several weekends  meticulously searching a large area around the fall site, but no other fragments were found. The area in question has a lot of open water and is very swampy: part of the area is a nature reserve and a peat bog where, if you jump up and down, the ground surface starts to form waves, and it makes squishy sounds when you walk there. We used long metal rods to probe suspicious holes in the ground. Searches were halted when late March the bird breeding season started, and the area became temporarily prohibited for that reason.

Broek in Waterland is only the 6th authenticated meteorite of the Netherlands. The previous meteorite fall, Glanerbrug on 7 April 1990, was 27 years ago. It impacted on the roof of a house. We suspect, based on the total land surface of our small country, that on average about each three years a 0.5 kg meteorite lands somewhere in the country. Yet, we have on average recovered one only each 30 years. Evidently, a lot of them, 9 out of 10, fall straight into oblivion. The large amount of open water and generally swampy nature of much of the Netherlands, with very soft peaty and clayey substrates, might play a role here.

The location of Broek in Waterland, and the other Dutch meteorite fall localities (map by author)

All six Dutch meteorites are witnessed falls. The pre WW-II falls (Uden, Utrecht, Diepenveen and Ellemeet) all were recovered because the meteorite landed close to someone working the fields. With the mechanisation of agriculture post WW-II this no longer happened. The two post WW-II meteorites, Glanerbrug and the new Broek in Waterland, were recovered because they hit a building and caused damage.

We are actively trying to find meteorites and have been organizing dedicated searches a number of times, based on fireballs captured multistation by our photographic all-sky fireball camera network. Examples are a fireball from 2013 near Hoenderloo and another one from 2015 in Gaasterland. None of these searches was succesful.

The press attention on June 26, when the existence of the Broek in Waterland meteorite was made public by Naturalis, was enormous. We have been busy from 7 am in the morning to 1:30 am the next night, with Leo, Niek and I giving dozens of newspaper, radio and TV interviews. In the late evening of June 26 I was a table guest in a well-watched talkshow on Dutch television, RTL Late Night, live broadcast from Hotel Schiller in Amsterdam, showing the meteorite and talking about it with host Humberto Tan, with science journalist Govert Schilling as my side kick (or me as his, depending on your point of view).

the author (middle) as well as science journalist Govert Schilling (left) with the meteorite in RTL Late Night, 26 June 2017
RTL Late Night show host Humberto Tan with the meteorite

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

[UPDATED] Close Encounters of the Classified Kind: a post-event analysis of the close approach of USA 276 to the ISS on June 3

3 July 2017: A paper which is a further evolved version of this blog post has appeared in The Space Review. I advise you to read that paper

(UPDATED 7 Jun 2017 15:50 UT with two new figures showing circular motion of USA 276 around the ISS)

Something odd happened a few days ago, high above our heads. In an earlier blogpost, I discussed in detail how the odd spy satellite USA 276 (2017-022A) was set to make a peculiarly close approach to the International Space Station ISS on 3 June 2017. The spy satellite was recently launched for the NRO as NROL-76 by SpaceX, on 1 May 2017.

With the close approach moment now in history and post-approach observations of USA 276 available (as well as an orbit for ISS based on tracking data, rather than an orbital prognosis), I present my final analysis of the situation in the current post.

With the new data included, we can establish the moment of closest approach as 3 June 2017, 14:01:52 UT. It happened over the southern Atlantic north of the Falklands, near 43o.75 S, 45o.45 W, with a miss distance of only 6.4 ± 2 km (the  ± 2 km stems from the fact that TLE predicted positions have a typical positional accuracy of no more than 1 km at epoch).

The latter is significantly closer than the approach distances calculated before the approach (which were in the order of 17-20 km, see my earlier post). Ted Molczan also analyzed the situation and he finds an even closer nominal distance of 4.5 km (but within uncertainty intervals our results overlap).

For the ISS, I used elset  17154.48611204. For USA 276, I used the elset below which I calculated based on amateur observations including my own:

USA 276
1 42689U 17022A   17155.88026473 0.00004763  00000-0  65979-4 0    01
2 42689  50.0047 103.5284 0014136 110.9138 249.3345 15.56256291    00

rms     0.020                             arc May 31.92 - Jun 4.90 UT

For detailed purposes like this, the orbit determination is a bit sensitive to what observer data are included. I restricted myself to observers with known high accuracy in the orbital solution above.

click image to enlarge

click image to enlarge

Below is an updated animation of the situation:

A table of all close approach moments with distances smaller than 500 km:

DATE       UT         km 
3 JUN 2017 02:28:52   478.5 
3 JUN 2017 03:13:37   464.4 
3 JUN 2017 04:01:17   413.2 
3 JUN 2017 04:46:14   398.9 
3 JUN 2017 05:33:41   347.8 
3 JUN 2017 06:18:50   333.3 
3 JUN 2017 07:06:04   282.4 
3 JUN 2017 07:51:26   267.7 
3 JUN 2017 08:38:28   217.1 
3 JUN 2017 09:24:03   202.2 
3 JUN 2017 10:10:52   151.9 
3 JUN 2017 10:56:39   136.6 
3 JUN 2017 11:43:15    87.1 
3 JUN 2017 12:29:16    71.0
3 JUN 2017 13:15:38    26.3 
3 JUN 2017 14:01:52     6.4  **
3 JUN 2017 14:48:01    48.8 
3 JUN 2017 15:34:28    60.5 
3 JUN 2017 16:20:24   112.5 
3 JUN 2017 17:07:05   126.1 
3 JUN 2017 17:52:46   177.5 
3 JUN 2017 18:39:41   191.7 
3 JUN 2017 19:25:09   242.9 
3 JUN 2017 20:12:18   257.4 
3 JUN 2017 20:57:31   308.3 
3 JUN 2017 21:44:54   323.1 
3 JUN 2017 22:29:53   373.7 
3 JUN 2017 23:17:30   388.8 
4 JUN 2017 00:02:15   439.2 
4 JUN 2017 00:50:07   454.5

Note: as positions from TLE's have an intrinsic uncertainty (about 1 km at epoch time), the values in the table above have an uncertainty of about 2 kilometer.

The distance variation around close approach in diagram form:
click diagram to enlarge

click diagram to enlarge

The variation in orbital altitude of both objects around the time of close approach (actual geoid heights):

click diagram to enlarge
As can be seen, USA 276 was a few km (nominally 3.65 km) above the ISS at closest approach. It was nominally also a little bit over 5 km behind the ISS.

In the following diagram, nominal distances in km in X, Y and Z of USA 276 are measured with respect to the ISS. The X is in the direction of movement of the ISS, Y is perpendicular (lateral) to it, Z is the zenith-nadir direction:

click diagram to enlarge

[UPDATE 7 Jun 2017, 15:45 UT, revised 21:14 UT] The variation in position of USA 276 with respect to the ISS was such that it effectively circled the ISS at close approaches, both laterally (cross-track) as wel as along-track, as can be seen in these diagrams below. Please note that, to get a more clear diagram, the axes of the first diagram (crosstrack circling) are not to scale. The second diagram is the same figure, but with axes to scale. The third diagram (along track circling) is also to scale:

click diagram to enlarge
click diagram to enlarge
click diagram to enlarge

A collision avoidance manoeuvre is usually evaluated if an object comes within a box of 4 x 4 x 10 km of the ISS.

If upon further evaluation the chance of collision is larger than 1:10000, an avoidance manoeuvre is done, if circumstances allow this.

USA 276 remained just outside the 4 x 4 x 10 km box at closest approach, as can be seen in the illustration below (red box, the situation shown is for the moment of closest approach). The box represents a collision risk in the order of 1 in 100 000.

USA 276 relative to the ISS proximity safety box . Click image to enlarge  (image made with STK)

I remain agnostic on the question whether this close approach was intentional or not (see discussion in my previous post regarding some possible goals would the approach  have been intentional).

Ted Molczan published a discussion of pro and contra arguments on the question whether the approach was on purpose or not on the Seesat-L list on June 3. While Ted argues that the April 16 and April 30 postponements of the launch indicate a non-planar preference of the orbit (which argues against intention), this also means that this close approach could have been avoided by picking another launch moment.

While USA 276 remained just outside the safety concern box, it is weird to have your just launched classified payload pass so close (6.4 ± 2 km) to a high profile, crewed object like the ISS.

I can and do not believe for a moment that the NRO was not aware that the launch on May 1 would lead to the close ISS approach a month later. It would be extremely sloppy of them, from a Space Situational Awareness viewpoint, if they were not aware, especially given how close the orbital parameters are to that of the ISS.

So I am struggling to understand why the NRO allowed this close approach to happen, if it was not intentional. This event was bound to attract attention and that harms the classified character of the mission. USA 276 is relatively brigh and the approach was bound to be noted by independent observers. Indeed, some space enthusiasts in Europe unaware of the issue who were out to spot DRAGON CRS-11 and Cygnus OA-7 close to the ISS on June 4, did accidentally spot USA 276 passing some 3 minutes in front of it.

It is also an extremely sloppy thing to do because this close an approach to a high profile object like ISS is politically risky. As the ISS is an international cooperation which includes two parties (the United States and the Russian Federation) that are currently geopolitically on an uneasy footing, sending your military payload so close to the ISS as one party is eyebrow raising.

This, and the timing (the close coincidence with the Dragon CRS-11 arrival at the ISS [edit: this refers to the originally planned date of arrival at June 4, later postponed by one day]) was bound to generate questions and suspicions (as it did). What the NRO did with USA 276 in the last few days was therefore really weird.

But then, the current administration of the USA is doing very weird things, and perhaps someone in the new administration signed off on this without fully understanding the depths of it. The Trump administration after all is not quite the posterchild for competence.

(the video below shows a USA 276 pass I filmed in evening twilight of June 4, at low elevation)

Monday, 5 June 2017

Cygnus OA-7 and Dragon CRS-11 chasing the ISS in a twilight sky

ISS and Cygnus OA-7. Click to enlarge

June 3, the launch date of SpaceX's Dragon CRS-11 cargo spacecraft to the International Space Station (ISS), was clouded out in Leiden, much to my frustration.

But yesterday evening was (sort of) clear, albeit with cirrus in the sky and a moon that was quite a nuisance. It allowed me to observe the ISS, the Dragon CRS-11, and Orbital ATK's Cygnus OA-7, which had de-coupled from the ISS a few hours earlier, making a low elevation pass (less than 35 degrees elevation) in the southern sky.

The image above shows the ISS (the bright object near the tree) and, as a faint trail, the Cygnus OA-7 (upper right corner, in the cirrus), descending towards the SE horizon.

Below is a better picture of Cygnus OA-7, shot 25 seconds later (ISS is already behind the tree here):

Cygnus OA-7. Click image to enlarge

Cygnus OA-7 passed ~25 seconds after the ISS. One minute later, ~1m 25s behind the ISS and on a slightly lower elevation track came another object: Dragon CRS-11:

Dragon CRS-11. Click image to enlarge

I did not expect the Dragon to be behind the ISS: I expected it somewhat in front of it. So initially I was miffed that I missed it (see below, this evening did not go quite well): to be surprised by it appearing behind the ISS!

This evening did initially not go well, but in a weird way eventually turned out fine.

A number of objects would pass in a short timespan of a few minutes: USA 276, the Dragon solar panel covers, Dragon, ISS, and somewhere nearby the ISS also Cygnus OA-7.

There were no post-ISS-release elements for the Cygnus yet, so its position would be a guess, although I reckoned it probably still was close to the ISS. Cygnus are usually faint (this time too) and only naked eye objects under favourable circumstances (usually, as this time, close to shadow ingress).

For Dragon, only a day old elements were available. These placed Dragon a few minutes in front of the ISS. As it no doubt would have manoeuvered during that day, I expected it to be closer to the ISS in reality, but that it was behind the ISS, that was a bit unanticipated.

The passes occurred in twilight (sun about 10 deg below the horizon). As obtaining new astrometric data on USA 276 (see story here for as to why) was important, I had set up the WATEC video camera to capture it, from the loft window (the only spot in my house where I can view that low south). That took  me longer than expected, as I initially had some trouble finding the target area in the video view (it was still deep twilight).

When I finally had found the target starfield through which USA 276 should pass, I discovered to my dismay that the pass was already imminent within minutes. As I could not visually observe through the same loft window, nor photograph, I had to be outside for that, at the city moat near my house which offers a view low south. So I grabbed my photo gear and ran outside. Arrived at the observing spot, I found that I already missed the opportunity to visually see and photograph USA 276 (luckily, the video camera in the loft window did film it). I also feared I had missed Dragon CRS-11, as I already could see the ISS approaching in the southwest. So I said a few strong words...

As ISS had passed the moon (which was a bloody nuisance, smack in the middle of the trajectory line) and was descending into the trees low in the south-southeast, I spotted a second, not too bright object chasing it (see first two images above). As I was photographing it and it descended into the trees, I re-aimed my camera hoping to catch it in a gap on the other (left) side of the tree.

Then I saw yet another object descend into the right side of the tree, and realised this was either Dragon or Cygnus. I initially thought, to my dismay, that it would be just outside my camera FOV. Luckily, back home later it turned out it still was in the FOV (I used a 35 mm lens).

The first, faint object on the same trajectory as the ISS some 25 seconds behind it I for this moment identify as Cygnus OA-7. The second, brighter one, on a trajectory just south of that of the ISS some 1m 25s behind it, I for the moment identify as the Dragon CRS-11.

Thursday, 1 June 2017

The Plot Thickens (Ball Aerospace, USA 276, RAVEN and the ISS)

(I acknowledge that what I write below is, again, matter of a highly speculative nature, and should be treated as such)

In a previous post, which is currently gaining media traction (e.g. here for a serious article on CNet, and here for a raunchy UK tabloid version, which is also NSFW by the way), I wrote in detail about the curious situation with the recently launched US spy satellite USA 276 (launched as NROL-76 on May 1). It appears to be moving towards a series of surreptitious very close approaches with the International Space Station (ISS). For more details see my post here.

While browsing the website of Ball Aerospace, the company that built USA 276, I found that they also have built RAVEN, an instrument delivered to and installed on the outside of the ISS in February this year.

RAVEN. Image: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Chris Gunn

As Ball Aerospace writes about RAVEN on their website:

"RAVEN is a technology demonstration mission that aims to advance the state-of-the art in rendezvous, proximity operations and docking. Raven includes visible cameras, an infrared camera and a flash LIDAR, called the Vision Navigation Sensor (VNS). In building and designing the VNS, Ball has provided Raven with its “eyes,” which will watch vehicles approach and depart the ISS."

So, let that sink in: Ball Aerospace, the company that built USA 276, a spacecraft that appears to be secretly moving towards a  series of clandestine very close approaches to the ISS, also built RAVEN, an experiment installed on the ISS to monitor close approaching spacecraft. 

NROL-76 is said to have been part of a "delivery to orbit" contract: e.g. the spacecraft and its launch is the responsibility of the builder (Ball Aerospace, who hired SpaceX for the launch), who hands over the spacecraft to the customer (the NRO) once in operational orbit. The question now is, is USA 276 at this stage still operated by Ball Aerospace, or has it been handed over to the NRO already?

(even if it isn't, I cannot believe that the NRO would have been kept in the dark about these ISS approaches. It would, however, create 'plausible deniability').

RAVEN was built by Ball Aerospace for NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. It is a possibility that it was jointly funded by NASA and the NRO (but that is pure speculation). Still, to use the ISS in this way is quite brazen, to say the least.

Note that while NASA participates in the ISS, the ISS is not owned by NASA: it is an international partnership that besides NASA includes ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), Roscosmos (Russia) and Canada, who would probably reject the idea of the ISS being made part of a classified US military experiment (certainly the Russians would).

Of course, this is all, and I emphasize this, pure speculation. But it is curious, to say the least, how Ball Aerospace and close approach monitoring come together here, from multiple angles (pun not intended). The plot thickens....

UPDATE, 3 June 13:15 UT:

A good summary of the pro's and con's on whether the ISS-USA 276 conjunction is coincidence or not, and whether there is a connection to RAVEN , by Ted Molczan is on the SeeSat-L list.

Tuesday, 30 May 2017

[UPDATED] USA 276 (the NROL-76 payload) and the ISS near DRAGON CRS-11 berthing.

click image to enlarge

>> UPDATES to this story with new observational data, updated calculations and new visualizations ARE AT THE END OF THE POST, below the main story <<

(NOTE: this post contains matter of a *very* speculative nature. I am the first to admitt this...and you are forwarned) 

Five days ago I wrote about the odd NROL-76 payload, USA 276, which was launched as NROL-76 for the NRO by SpaceX on 1 May 2017. In that post  I pointed out that its orbit was peculiarly close to that of the International Space Station ISS.

I have prepared two animations to show the extend of this, and what will happen in the first week of June if USA 276 does not change its orbit before that date (this is an important caveat!).

This is what will happen on June 3, when USA 276 would make a couple of very close approaches to the ISS, perhaps to distances as close as 20 km (!) near 14:48 UT (3 June 2017):

Note how the satellite is effectively circling around the ISS, at close range.

If the DRAGON CRS-10 history is to go by, and CRS-11 is launched on-time, the latter will be close to the ISS as well (although perhaps not as close as in the animation). [UPDATE June 2: the launch of CRS-11 was postponed to June 3 due to the weather]

The next day, June 4 near 15:30 UT, the DRAGON CRS-11 supply ship will berth to the ISS if launch goes as planned. This is the situation around the time of berthing [UPDATE June 2: the launch of CRS-11 was postponed to June 3 due to the weather] :

Again, and I can't say this enough: this will be the approximate situation if USA 276 stays in the orbit we currently have for this satellite, and does not manoeuvre.

In terms of the closest approaches, these happen the day before the CRS-11 berthing.

I calculate these close approach moments, from a USA 276 orbit that is a week old by the time these events happen (the ISS orbit used is the planned orbit for that date available here). The table provides the times for approaches closer than 500 km to the ISS [edit June 2: SEE UPDATES of table in the updates at the bottom of  this post):

3 JUN 2017 03:13:34   476.5 
3 JUN 2017 04:01:30   443.3 
3 JUN 2017 04:46:11   411.8 
3 JUN 2017 05:33:53   378.8 
3 JUN 2017 06:18:48   347.1 
3 JUN 2017 07:06:16   314.3 
3 JUN 2017 07:51:25   282.5 
3 JUN 2017 08:38:39   249.9 
3 JUN 2017 09:24:02   217.8 
3 JUN 2017 10:11:02   185.6 
3 JUN 2017 10:56:39   153.1 
3 JUN 2017 11:43:25   121.5 
3 JUN 2017 12:29:16   88.5 
3 JUN 2017 13:15:47   58.5 
3 JUN 2017 14:01:53   24.1 
3 JUN 2017 14:48:10   20.3 
3 JUN 2017 15:34:31   41.3 
3 JUN 2017 16:20:32   75.7 
3 JUN 2017 17:07:08   105.8 
3 JUN 2017 17:52:55   139.2 
3 JUN 2017 18:39:45   170.4 
3 JUN 2017 19:25:17   203.4 
3 JUN 2017 20:12:22   235.1 
3 JUN 2017 20:57:39   267.7 
3 JUN 2017 21:44:59   299.7 
3 JUN 2017 22:30:01   332.0
3 JUN 2017 23:17:36   364.3 
4 JUN 2017 00:02:23   396.4 
4 JUN 2017 00:50:14   428.9 
4 JUN 2017 01:34:45   460.8 
4 JUN 2017 02:22:51   493.5

Note that the calculated distances in the table have quite some uncertainty, perhaps by a factor of 2 or more. Likewise, the times listed have uncertainties of at least several seconds. And then there is the possibility that USA 276 manoeuvres into another orbit between now and June 3....

The planned moment of CRS-11 berthing to the ISS, around 4 June 15:30 UT, coincides with another close approach of USA 276, although not as close as the previous day: about 1040 km:

4 JUN 2017 15:25:53   1039.5

I am still not sure what to think of this all. Is this coincidence? You would almost start to think that USA 276 is a demonstrator for technology to closely monitor third party space berthings....

While I admittedly go out on a limb here, this idea does not come out of the blue. China and Russia have been busy practising such berthings and (very) close approaches in space with dedicated satellites disguised as space debris the past 10 years, which has the US military worried. Is the technology demonstrated by USA 276 perhaps meant to test whether such events can be observed (either optically, with radar, lidar, or whatever technology) from close by, to determine in detail what is going on?

It would be incredible (and politically sensitive) to use the International Space Station as a test subject in this way, which is why I and others are hesitant to accept this idea.

On the other hand, the ISS is there and you get frequent dockings and berthings of DRAGON's, PROGRESS, SOYUZ and HTV to watch for free, objects you don't have to launch yourself (saving development and launch costs and time. Launching a bunch of satellites for this purpose also atttracts attention, as the story with the Russian satellites shows).

I still don't know what to think of this all. Are these figments of my imagination or is there really something going on here? I am at a loss. Opinions are welcome.

Postscript, 30 May 2017, 21:15 UT :
I used the following TLE for USA 276, based on amateur tracking of the satellite between May 24 and May 27:

USA 276
1 42689U 17022A   17147.01934012 0.00004742  00000-0  65889-4 0    01
2 42689  50.0000 149.4666 0015489  97.4973 262.7756 15.56150729    04

The positions of DRAGON CRS-11 in the animations are based on elsets of DRAGON CRS-10 relative to those of ISS at the time, and (for the 3 June animation) are less certain than the ISS and USA 276 orbital positions.

UPDATES  (newest at the bottom):

UPDATE 1:  31 May 2017, 8:55 UT

The issue of launch windows and orbital plane shifts was rightfully raised on e.g. the NASA Spaceflight forum. It is true that the launch time needed to target the ISS orbital plane shifts by ~20 minutes each day. The crubbed launch on April 30 targetted 11:15 UT, the same time as the eventual launch a day later. Curiously enough, the Area Warning given out before the launch does open 20 minutes earlier, at 10:55 UT. Very confusing (and I initially goofed with that in a comment on the NASA Spaceflight forum).

It should be noted that USA 276 of course isn't in the exact plane of ISS (there is a 1.6 degree inclination difference anyway). A small difference in RAAN does not matter that much in this situation, it transpires.

I have looked into the effect would NROL-76 have actually been launched at 11:15 UT on April 30, when the launch was scrubbed.

The effects of a fixed launch time at 11:15 UT rather than a daily launch time shift to match the plane crossing time are actually not that large, it turns out. To investigate the effect, I adjusted the RAAN of the current orbit accordingly to match launch on 30 April, 11:15 UT..

USA 276 actually then would have made even somewhat closer passes to the ISS (to minimum distances less than 15 km on June 3 near 18:44 UT), but with the approach times  some 4 hours shifted compared to those for the actual launch date.

 During CRS-11 berthing on June 4, it would actually have been somewhat closer too, although with all other parameters of the orbit kept equal the time of approach would not match so neatly with berthing. These are not things that cannot be solved by a small manoeuvre however.

UPDATE 2: 1 June 2017, 10:30 UT

After updating the orbit of USA 276 with observations from last night, the time of closest approach has shifted a bit to an earlier approach instance (14:01:53 UT, June 3) and to a slightly smaller nominal distance (~18 km). The overall scenario remains the same, its details that change.

USA 276
1 82689U 17022A   17151.89933357 0.00004751  00000-0  65887-4 0    01
2 82689  50.0016 124.1750 0015094 116.7818 243.4697 15.56210183    01

Distance of USA 276 with regard to ISS in diagram form, from June 2.0 to June 5.0 (x-axis is in decimal days, e.g. 3.50 = 3 June 12:00):

click diagram to enlarge
click diagram to enlarge

This is the new updated list of close approach times:

3 JUN 2017 01:40:58   503.4 
3 JUN 2017 02:28:57   468.5 
3 JUN 2017 03:13:35   438.3 
3 JUN 2017 04:01:20   403.6 
3 JUN 2017 04:46:12   373.3 
3 JUN 2017 05:33:43   338.7 
3 JUN 2017 06:18:49   308.2 
3 JUN 2017 07:06:06   273.9 
3 JUN 2017 07:51:25   243.1 
3 JUN 2017 08:38:29   209.1 
3 JUN 2017 09:24:02   178.1 
3 JUN 2017 10:10:52   144.6 
3 JUN 2017 10:56:39   113.1 
3 JUN 2017 11:43:15   80.6 
3 JUN 2017 12:29:16   48.2 
3 JUN 2017 13:15:38   22.6 
3 JUN 2017 14:01:53   17.7   * closest
3 JUN 2017 14:48:00   54.4 
3 JUN 2017 15:34:30   82.3 
3 JUN 2017 16:20:23   117.6 
3 JUN 2017 17:07:07   147.3 
3 JUN 2017 17:52:45   182.0
3 JUN 2017 18:39:44   212.3 
3 JUN 2017 19:25:07   246.6 
3 JUN 2017 20:12:21   277.3 
3 JUN 2017 20:57:29   311.3 
3 JUN 2017 21:44:58   342.2 
3 JUN 2017 22:29:51   376.1 
3 JUN 2017 23:17:35   407.2 
4 JUN 2017 00:02:13   440.8 
4 JUN 2017 00:50:12   472.2 
4 JUN 2017 01:34:34   505.6 
4 JUN 2017 02:22:49   537.1 
4 JUN 2017 03:06:56   570.3 
4 JUN 2017 03:55:26   602.1 
4 JUN 2017 04:39:17   635.0
4 JUN 2017 05:28:04   667.0
4 JUN 2017 06:11:38   699.7 
4 JUN 2017 07:00:41   731.9 
4 JUN 2017 07:43:59   764.4 
4 JUN 2017 08:33:18   796.7 
4 JUN 2017 09:16:20   829.1 
4 JUN 2017 10:05:55   861.6 
4 JUN 2017 10:48:41   893.7 
4 JUN 2017 11:38:32   926.4 
4 JUN 2017 12:21:01   958.3 
4 JUN 2017 13:11:09   991.2 
4 JUN 2017 13:53:21   1022.9 
4 JUN 2017 14:43:46   1055.9 
4 JUN 2017 15:25:41   1087.4  * CRS-11 berthing
4 JUN 2017 16:16:23   1120.6

Here is a photograph of last night's pass of USA 276 over my house:

click image to enlarge

I also captured part of the pass on video:

UPDATE 3:  2 June 2017, 12:45 UT

Updated orbital elements based on observations from June 1:

USA 276                                                  389 x 408 km
1 42689U 17022A   17152.86247082 0.00004757  00000-0  65966-4 0    06
2 42689  50.0043 119.1561 0014209 109.6377 250.6127 15.56228316    08

USA 276 appears to have been making small manoeuvers over the past days. The current schedule for close approaches to the ISS, based on the elements above, is:

DATE           UT    DISTANCE (KM) 
3 JUNE 2017 01:41:01   503.2 
3 JUNE 2017 02:28:55   460.1 
3 JUNE 2017 03:13:38   437.9 
3 JUNE 2017 04:01:19   395.0
3 JUNE 2017 04:46:14   372.6 
3 JUNE 2017 05:33:42   329.9 
3 JUNE 2017 06:18:51   307.3 
3 JUNE 2017 07:06:05   264.8
3 JUNE 2017 07:51:28   242.1 
3 JUNE 2017 08:38:29   199.8 
3 JUNE 2017 09:24:05   176.8 
3 JUNE 2017 10:10:52   135.1 
3 JUNE 2017 10:56:41   111.5 
3 JUNE 2017 11:43:15   71.0
3 JUNE 2017 12:29:18   46.3 
3 JUNE 2017 13:15:37   18.1 **
3 JUNE 2017 14:01:55   19.6 **
3 JUNE 2017 14:48:00   64.1 
3 JUNE 2017 15:34:32   84.6 
3 JUNE 2017 16:20:22   128.0
3 JUNE 2017 17:07:08   149.8 
3 JUNE 2017 17:52:45   192.7 
3 JUNE 2017 18:39:45   215.0
3 JUNE 2017 19:25:07   257.6 
3 JUNE 2017 20:12:22   280.3 
3 JUNE 2017 20:57:28   322.6 
3 JUNE 2017 21:44:59   345.5 
3 JUNE 2017 22:29:50   387.6 
3 JUNE 2017 23:17:35   410.7 
4 JUNE 2017 00:02:12   452.6 
4 JUNE 2017 00:50:12   475.9 
4 JUNE 2017 01:34:33   517.5 
4 JUNE 2017 02:22:49   541.1 
4 JUNE 2017 03:06:54   582.5 
4 JUNE 2017 03:55:26   606.3 
4 JUNE 2017 04:39:15   647.5 
4 JUNE 2017 05:28:03   671.5 
4 JUNE 2017 06:11:36   712.4 
4 JUNE 2017 07:00:39   736.6 
4 JUNE 2017 07:43:56   777.3 
4 JUNE 2017 08:33:16   801.7 
4 JUNE 2017 09:16:17   842.2 
4 JUNE 2017 10:05:53   866.8 
4 JUNE 2017 10:48:37   907.1 
4 JUNE 2017 11:38:30   931.8 
4 JUNE 2017 12:20:57   971.9 
4 JUNE 2017 13:11:07   996.8 
4 JUNE 2017 13:53:16   1036.7 
4 JUNE 2017 14:43:43   1061.8 
4 JUNE 2017 15:25:35   1101.5 
4 JUNE 2017 16:16:20   1126.8 
4 JUNE 2017 16:57:54   1166.2 
4 JUNE 2017 17:48:57   1191.7 
4 JUNE 2017 18:30:13   1230.9 
4 JUNE 2017 19:21:34   1256.6 
4 JUNE 2017 20:02:32   1295.6 
4 JUNE 2017 20:54:10   1321.5 
4 JUNE 2017 21:34:50   1360.2 
4 JUNE 2017 22:26:47   1386.3 
4 JUNE 2017 23:07:07   1424.8 
4 JUNE 2017 23:59:24   1451.1

Distance variation over time in diagram form:
click diagram to enlarge
click diagram to enlarge
It will be interesting to see whether the schedule will change with new orbit updates, now the launch of DRAGON CRS-11 has been postponed to June 3.

Update 4, 3 June 13:15 UT:

In a post on SeeSat-L, Ted Molczan has summed up the pro's and con's of the  conjunction between ISS and USA 276 being coincidental or not. Like me, he does not really know what to think of it.

Update 5, 3 June  14:00 UT:

Updated elements based on adding observations from June 2:

USA 276                                                  388 x 408 km
1 42689U 17022A   17153.82560337 0.00004761  00000-0  65966-4 0    09
2 42689  50.0075 114.1658 0015063 110.3625 249.8963 15.56237668    07

Updated list with times and distances of close approaches to the ISS:

DATE          UT       DISTANCE (km)
3 JUN 2017 01:40:57   505.7 
3 JUN 2017 02:28:57   460.2 
3 JUN 2017 03:13:35   440.4 
3 JUN 2017 04:01:20   395.1 
3 JUN 2017 04:46:12   375.1 
3 JUN 2017 05:33:43   330.0
3 JUN 2017 06:18:49   309.8 
3 JUN 2017 07:06:06   265.0
3 JUN 2017 07:51:26   244.5 
3 JUN 2017 08:38:29   200.0
3 JUN 2017 09:24:03   179.3 
3 JUN 2017 10:10:52   135.3 
3 JUN 2017 10:56:40   114.0
3 JUN 2017 11:43:14    71.2 
3 JUN 2017 12:29:17    48.8 
3 JUN 2017 13:15:37    18.7 **
3 JUN 2017 14:01:54    17.4 **
3 JUN 2017 14:47:59    64.1 
3 JUN 2017 15:34:31    82.1 
3 JUN 2017 16:20:21   127.9 
3 JUN 2017 17:07:08   147.3 
3 JUN 2017 17:52:43   192.5 
3 JUN 2017 18:39:46   212.5 
3 JUN 2017 19:25:04   257.4 
3 JUN 2017 20:12:23   277.8 
3 JUN 2017 20:57:26   322.3 
3 JUN 2017 21:45:00   343.0
3 JUN 2017 22:29:47   387.3 
3 JUN 2017 23:17:37   408.2 
4 JUN 2017 00:02:08   452.3 
4 JUN 2017 00:50:14   473.4 
4 JUN 2017 01:34:29   517.3

Distance to the ISS with time in diagram form:
click diagram to enlarge

UPDATE 6, 6 June 15:25 UT:

A new blog post with a detailed post-event analysis of the close approach can be read here

Monday, 29 May 2017

Analysis: The re-entry of the CZ-4B r/b 2014-049C observed by a Dutch pilot on May 27

click to enlarge. Image (c) Christiaan van Heijst, used with permission
click to enlarge. Image (c) Christiaan van Heijst, used with permission

The beautiful, spectacular images of a rocket stage re-entry above were made by the Dutch aviation photographer and pilot Christiaan van Heijst,  the co-pilot of a Cargolux freight aircraft (flight CV760, a Boeing 747-8 with registration LX-VCC) en route to Brazil on May 27, 2017.

While cruising at FL 340, 34 000 feet (10.360 km) over the mid-Atlantic, Christiaan noted a group of 7 to 10 bright yellow, very slow fireballs appearing in the corner of his eye. Here is the story as told by Christiaan on his facebook page:

Suddenly I noticed something in the corner of my eye. I looked to my right and to my own surprise I saw a huge group 7-10 of bright yellow lights move parallel to our track with a much faster speed and very high altitude. This was not an airplane, nor was it a meteorite. Where shooting stars / meteorites often leave a bright trail, they move with very high speed and burn up quickly. This cluster of lights moved far too slow to be a meteorite and its light was far too constant to be an ordinary meteorite. 

Immediately, a lot of excited chatter in Portuguese and other (African) languages I could not identify. was opening up on the frequency we had tuned in. Apparently lots of pilots were seeing the same lights, which is not surprising with such a high and bright appearance. All in all, the lights appeared abeam our aircraft and disappeared on the horizon in roughly two minutes time, keeping their intensity and appearance along the way.

Evidently, what Christiaan and his colleagues were witnessing was a spectacular re-entry of space debris, with the re-entering object breaking up in multiple pieces while it was plunging through the atmosphere. The time of this re-entry event was around 23:18 UT on May 27, 2017, while the aircraft was over the mid-Atlantic near 11o.93 N, 33o.28 E (see also later in this post).

In this blog post, I identify the object responsible and provide some model results for this re-entry.

click map to enlarge
Christiaan van Heijst initially thought that this re-entry event was related to a NOTAM issued mid-May, a warning for the splash-down of a Soyuz 2nd stage during the SES-15 launch from Kourou. This launch however had already happened 10 days earlier, on May 18, so evidently was no explanation for this event. Christiaan next posted his story on Facebook, hoping that someone could identify the object responsible.

I was allerted to Christiaan's Facebook post by one of my Twitter followers, Theo Dekkers and could quickly identify the event as the re-entry of 2014-049C, a Chinese Chang Zheng (Long March) 4B (CZ-4B) upper stage from the launch of the Chinese Gaofeng 2 and Polish Heweliusz satellites in August 2014. Time, location, and movement of the witnessed event agree extremely well.

Two days before the sighting, JSpOC had started issuing TIP (Tracking and Impact Prediction) messages for this object via their Space-Track portal. The final TIP message, issued after the actual re-entry, lists the re-entry time as 27 May 23:17 +- 1 min UT, near 15o.7 N, 34o W (by the way: we actually believe that such times accurate to 1 minute originate from infrared observations of the re-entry fireball by US SBIRS early warning satellites).

click to enlarge

This time and position closely agrees with the observations of the aircraft crew and the aircraft position. Christiaan van Heijst provided me with a photo of the aircraft flight instruments taken about one minute after the event. It shows the time of that moment, 23:20:43 UT, and the aircraft's GPS coordinates and altitude: 11o 56.1' N (11.935 N), 33o 17.3 W (33.288 W) at a flight level of 34 000 ft (10.360 km). [edit: the altimeter in the image above says 33 960 feet but Christiaan informed me that it has a small error and they were flying at FL 340]. The aircraft was heading towards a magnetic bearing of 219 deg, which corresponds to a true bearing of 204 degrees (towards the S-SW).

The time and position are very close to that of the TIP: a difference of about 425 km between the TIP re-entry location and the location of the aircraft, and 1-2 minutes in time.

The sky track of the re-entering space debris that can be seen on the photographs also agrees well with the predicted sky track of 2014-049C for the aircraft's location. Below is the predicted track for 2014-049C for the location of the aircraft based on a propagated version of the last available orbital element set for the object. The blue line is the predicted track in the sky, the yellow arrow the approximate trajectory for the brightest fragment visible on Christiaan's photographs:

click to enlarge

There is a discrepancy, in that the observed trajectory is some 11 degrees lower in the sky than the predicted trajectory, with a time lag as well. However, this is what you expect. The track shown is for the pre- re-entry orbital altitude (about 134 km). During the re-entry phase, the altitude of the object however quickly drops, and as a result the observed track will be located significantly lower in the sky. As the object is slowed down by increasing drag of the atmosphere, it starts to lag behind predictions in time as well. At the time of the re-entry, the object was already below 80 km altitude,  40% or more below its orbital altitude.

To gain insight into the positions and altitude of  the re-entering debris over time relative to the aircraft, I have modelled the re-entry event. I propagated the last five known orbital element sets (TLE) for 2014-049C to its last ascending node passage before re-entry, using SatAna and SatEvo. The resulting, final ,pre- re-entry TLE was next used as the starting point for a ballistic simulation in GMAT, using the MSISE90 model atmosphere and current Space Weather data. With this input, I had GMAT calculate positions and altitudes of the re-entering object over time.

Such modelling always is an approximation only. There are a number of unknowns, one of which is the spatial orientation of the major axis of the re-entering rocket stage with regard to its flight direction. This adds uncertainty to modelling the atmospheric drag experienced by the re-entering rocket stage, which introduces uncertainties in the position and altitude of the stage for a certain time. A CZ-4B 3rd stage is a tube measuring 6.24 x 2.90 meter with a dry mass of about 1 metric ton. The drag experienced depends on whether its longest dimension is facing the flight direction, its narrow end, or whether it tumbles. For the modelling, I choose to use a drag surface that is 50% of the maximum drag surface possible. Breakup of the rocket body, which is evidently happening (see the copious fragmentation in the photographs) adds more uncertainty, as fragmentation drastically alters the drag surface and surface-to-mass ratio. As the images show, the trajectories of individual fragments clearly start to diverge as a result of this. The model, however, treats the re-entering body as one single body with no mass loss.

So, Caveat Lector. But let us look at the results. Mapping the GMAT results along with the position and bearing of the aircraft a minute after the event, yields this positional map and this altitude versus time profile:

click map to enlarge
click diagram to enlarge

For the reasons mentioned above, the altitudes versus time in the diagram are approximations only, with a possible uncertainty of perhaps 25% for a given time instance.

Compared to the JSpOC TIP data, the resulting trajectory I modelled seems to be slightly on the 'early' side, in that it passes the JSpOC location about a minute too early. On the other hand, the time in the TIP is given with an accuracy of no better than 1 minute, and an unspecified inaccuracy in the coordinates of the geographic location as well. What we can conclude from the modelled positions relative to the aircraft, is that the sighting definitely matches the 2014-049C re-entry data closely.

If my modelling is somewhat correct, the re-entering debris was moving from altitudes of ~95 km at the start of the sighting to below 50 km near the end. It is uncertain whether anything survived to sea level c.q. aircraft flight level. Usually, most materials have burned up before they could reach the surface: it is however not impossible that some pieces nevertheless survived and splashed down in the Atlantic. Notably the pressure spheres of rocket engines tend to survive. If anything, the modelling shows that any surviving debris was well ahead of the aircraft once it reached the flight level of the aircraft.

Ted Molczan has done a similar modelling with similar results. The differences that do exist between Ted's analysis and my results, are due to the choice of slightly different starting parameters for the model.

The final spectacular demise of 2014-049C was the result of a long drop that started short after launch. Below I have mapped the evolution of the orbital altitude of the rocket booster over the past years, starting just after launch:

click diagram to enlarge

The quick decay of (notably) the apogee altitude, but also perigee, can be clearly seen. Early 2017, the drop in altitude starts to increase exponentially. At 23:17 UT on 27 May 2017, after 15772 revolutions around the planet since launch, it was the final end for 2014-049C.

Christiaan asked me why there was no NOTAM issued for this re-entry. NOTAMS or Area Warnings are however generally only issued for controlled de-orbits, and first and second stage splashdowns during launches. Reasonably accurate locations can be predicted in advance for these. For uncontrolled re-entries, such as this event, this is not the case. There are so many uncertainties that anything approaching an accurate prediction can only be issued during the last hour or so before re-entry.

(note: for some Frequently Asked Questions about re-entries, see an earlier post here)

Acknowledgement: I thank Christiaan van Heijst ( for providing extra information and for his permission to use his photographs. I thank Theo Dekkers for pointing me to Heijst's observations.