[Updated] You Only Die Twice: the confusing end of the Russian Kosmos 2495 Kobalt-M spy satellite mission

Update 15:00 UT, Sep 11: a very brief update confirming the object was artificial is provided at the end of this post

Introduction: a spectacular fireball over the USA on September 2-3

In the evening of September 2 (in local time: early September 3 in UT), 2014, a spectacular event was seen and filmed in the skies over the southwestern States of the USA. A very slow fireball crossed the skies, seen by many casual eyewitnesses in several US States who reported their observations to the American Meteor Society (AMS). It was also captured by a number of all-sky video stations. A very nice compilation of images and what is known and what is still debated, has been made by Spaceflight101 on their website. Below is imagery of the event by Thomas Ashcraft from near Lamy, New Mexico:

video footage  by Thomas Ashcraft, New Mexico, USA

The event happened on September 3, 2014, between 4:31-4:33 UT (the evening of September 2 in local time) and was seen from Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico. A very slow fireball, with a duration of at least 40 seconds and variable in brightness in what looks like a semi-regular pattern, moved across almost 180 degrees of sky. It penetrated deeply into the atmosphere, leaving a debris cloud at low altitude lingering for 30 minutes, detected by Doppler weather radar.

Lingering debris cloud on Doppler radar after the event (image: Rob Matson)

Initially seen as a meteor event, it was somewhat ignored by the amateur satellite community until brought to their attention a few days later.

Suspicion of a satellite re-entry

The suspicion arose that this was in fact a satellite re-entry, with the prime candidate being Kosmos 2495 (2014-025A), a Russian Kobalt-M/Yantar 4K2M photoreturn spy satellite. This is a satellite that uses analogue film rather than electronic image sensors. The exposed film is returned to earth in three recoverable return capsules, the last of which also returns the camera (for re-use).

In terms of duration, the September 2-3 event is a borderline case: with a duration of at least 40 seconds but possibly a minute or more, both a very slow 11.8 km/s meteoric fireball of asteroidal origin, or the decay of an artificial satellite are possibilities. [but see update at the end of this post: NASA camera data show it was not a meteor but an object entering from Low Earth Orbit, i.e. a satellite]

Timing and path over the sky however closely match predictions for Kosmos 2495. The observed object passed only ~3 minutes earlier than the predicted pass of the satellite, in a very similar trajectory. This actually fits with a decay, as in a lower orbit the object starts to slightly speed ahead of an object in a similar but higher orbit. The slight eastern displacement of the sky track also fits with this: in a few minutes time, the earth rotates under the orbital plane slightly, displacing the sky track westwards.

Predicted Kosmos 2495 sky trajectory for Thomas Ashcraft's site in Lamy, New Mexico. Note remarks in text about slightly eastward displacement of trajectory for a slightly earlier passing object in the same orbital plane, relative to the sky trajectory shown here

(click image to enlarge)

As this satellite should have been in earth shadow at that time of the event and hence not illuminated by the sun, it is immediately clear that if this was Kosmos 2495, it was in the act of re-entering and already producing a plasma envelope (a fireball).

[paragraph slightly rewritten 12:10 UT, Sep 11]
But why? The last known orbital element set for the satellite with epoch 2 Sep 17:12 UT show it at an orbital altitude too high for an imminent natural decay.

JSpOC however issued an "administrative decay" for the satellite early on September 3, an indication that it has been deliberately de-orbited.

Yet it was unlikely that the Russian military intended this satellite to re-enter over the USA  instead of over Russia itself, or over the Pacific.

So, if this was Kosmos 2495, did something go wrong? It initially looked like it.

Then came the confusion

Then came the confusion. On the Seesat-list, Ted Molczan reported having received reports of sightings of a re-entry earlier that same day, near 18:14 UT on September 2, seen over southwest Kazachstan. A number of video's exist of this event and show a glowing object followed at some distance by a cloud of glowing fragments.

footage from Kazachstan

The location of these observations, timing and general direction fits well with an object on a trajectory to Orenburg in Russia, the designated touchdown locality of the Kobalt-M re-entry capsules. Indeed, the timing of the observations (~18:14 UT) matches a pass of Kosmos 2495 over the area, and the trajectory of the latter indeed brings it over Orenburg near that same time.

So if this was the Kosmos 2495 re-entry over southwest Kazachstan and the Kaspian sea, then what was it that re-entered over the USA 10 hours later?

In denial

Next, the Russian military weighed in and flatly denied that anything went wrong with Kosmos 2495, implicitly suggesting that the object decaying over the USA was not their satellite (spoiler: it nevertheless likely were parts of the satellite, see below).

Multiple parts

For a solution of this confusion, we have to look at the construction of a Kobalt-M satellite, and previous Kobalt-M missions. An excellent and detailed description of the Yantar/Kobalt satellites translated from a Russian publication can be found here on Sven Grahns website.

We have to realize that the Kobalt-M satellites are made up of multiple modules:

1) The Equipment Module (AO) that contains the main power and propulsion systems;
2) The Instrument Module (PO) that contains electronic equipment necessary for the control and functioning of the satellite;
3) The camera re-entry vehicle (OSA), containing the camera and the last batch of film. This is a true re-entry vehicle, designed to survive re-entry through the atmosphere for recovery of the camera and film. The target area for these re-entry vehicles is near the Russian town of Orenburg;
4) a 2.5 meter sun shade with additional antennae and sensors on the tip of the OSA, that is presumably jettisoned at re-entry.

The satellite also has two additional small re-entry and landing capsules for the recovery of film mounted on the side of the OSA: these are jettisoned for re-entry at 1/3rd and 2/3rd into the mission, so should no longer have been present on Kosmos 2495 on September 2.

Of importance is that the OSA re-entry module eventually separates from the satellite for re-entry. This potentially leaves satellite parts in orbit after the OSA re-entry, even though it is generally believed that the AO and PO go down with the OSA, with the AO providing the retrofire burn for the de-orbit of the OSA.

Re-entry of the Kosmos 2495 OSA return vehicle observed over Kazachstan towards Orenburg at 18:14 UT, Sep 2

The event seen from Kazachstan was, given the location and timing, most likely the OSA return vehicle with the camera and film re-entering the atmosphere for recovery at Orenburg. The single object in front visible in the videos is likely the returning OSA itself. The cloud of fragments at some distance behind it, might be the jettisoned sun shade disintegrating in the atmosphere. It could also be the AO (propulsion) module, the PO module, or both (it is believed by analysts that the AO (propulsion) module is providing the retrofire boost necessary for the de-orbit of the OSA re-entry vehicle. It is believed that the OSA does not have its own retrofire rocket).

Additional Kosmos 2495 parts surviving until re-entry over the USA at 4:30 UT, Sep 3

How does this fit in with the observations over the USA 10 hours later?

A clue is provided by previous Kobalt-M missions. At the end of five of these (Kosmos 2410, Kosmos 2420, Kosmos 2427, Kosmos 2445 and Kosmos 2462) pieces of debris were detected and catalogued by US tracking facilities that survived for several hours after the OSA re-entry vehicle touched down at Orenburg. In four of the five cases, it concerns two debris pieces (the fifth case, Kosmos 2462, produced three pieces). These debris pieces had the following SSC catalogue numbers and usually Cospar sub-designations C and D, or D and E:

For Kosmos 2410: 28501 and 28502
For Kosmos 2420: 29258 and 29259
For Kosmos 2427: 32048 and 32049
For Kosmos 2445: 33969 and 33970
For Kosmos 2462: 36821, 36822 and 36823

 
Of interest is that these debris pieces are only detected at the very end of the Kobalt-M mission, around the time of the OSA return vehicle re-entry at Orenburg. They hence seem to have to do with alterations to the satellite in preparation for the OSA separation and re-entry. As it happened on at least five of the missions, it seems a normal element of these missions. In fact it might have happened on all missions, but not all might have been detected: most of the objects above have only one or two element sets released indicating short detection spans. Their lifetimes typically are no more than a few hours to a day, so they can be missed.

From the catalogued orbits of these debris pieces, there are suggestions that the separation of these objects from the original satellite body actually happens a few hours before the OSA re-entry. For Kosmos 2410, this is very clear as the debris pieces were first detected some 16 hours before the OSA re-entry, and while the A-object (presumably containing the OSA) was still being tracked.

The likely re-entry seen from Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico 10 hours after the OSA re-entry vehicle return over Orenburg, could very well concern similar debris pieces generated by Kosmos 2495. Analogues from another Kobalt-M mission suggests this is a realistic option.

The Kosmos 2445 analogue

Kosmos 2445 (2008-058A), another Kobalt-M mission from 2009, provides a very nice analogue. On its last day of existence it produced two debris pieces with catalogue numbers 33969 and 33970, that survived for several hours after the OSA re-entry. The OSA return occured on 23 Feb 2009 at 16:15 UT. We know this because this OSA re-entry was observed, as reported by Lissov. The last available tracking data for the two Kosmos 2445 debris pieces have an epoch near midnight of Feb 23-24, 2009, indicating survival for at least 8 hours after the Kosmos 2445 OSA return at Orenburg.

I have used Alan Pickup's SatEvo software to further analyse the likely decay time for these debris pieces: the analysis suggests decay near 1:30-1:40 UT on 24 Feb, 2009. This is 9.5 hours after the OSA return.

This 9.5 hours survival time of the Kosmos 2445 debris pieces is similar to the time difference between the Sep 2, 18:14 UT Kosmos 2495 OSA return observed from Kazakhstan, and the possible decay event observed over the USA at Sep 3, 4:30 UT. The time difference between these is about 10 hours, which is not much different from the ~9.5 hours for the Kosmos 2445 debris in 2009.

During their last few orbits in February 2009, the Kosmos 2445 debris pieces C and D moved somewhat in front of where the A-object (the part including the OSA re-entry module) would have been had it not been de-orbitted. The difference in pass time was a few minutes.

Relative position of Kosmos 2445 C and D debris pieces a few minutes in front of where the A-body would have been, just before decay early Feb 24, 2009 (movement is top to bottom)

(click image to enlarge)

This again provides a nice analogue to the September 2-3 event over the USA: the decaying object observed from the USA moved along the Kosmos 2495 A-object trajectory, but passing 2-3 minutes earlier than the predicted A-object passage (i.e., it was moving slightly in front of where the A-object would have been had it not been de-orbitted over Orenburg). Also note the slight westward displacement of the A object (red) trajectory.

So: likely Kosmos 2495 debris re-entering over the USA after all!

I feel that this all justifies to conclude that what was seen from the USA on the evening of September 2-3, indeed were parts of Kosmos 2495 re-entering. The close agreement of the observed fireball track with the predicted trajectory and predicted pass times for Kosmos 2495 is too good to be likely coincidence. The whole event moreover fits patterns of previous Kobalt-M missions, notably that of Kosmos 2445 in 2009: debris pieces surviving for a few hours after the OSA return vehicle re-entry, decaying ~ half a day later.

So while it was not the return capsule with the camera and film that re-entered over the USA, it were nevertheless almost certainly parts of Kosmos 2495.

Remember that denial (see another version here) by the Russian military? Read it carefully. What they actually deny is that Kosmos 2495 exploded, and they say "that nothing out of the ordinary happened".

That is true. The return capsule separated successfully and presumably landed safely at Orenburg near 18:14 UT, as observed from Kazachstan. And Kosmos 2496 did not explode over the USA: debris parts left after the OSA separation decayed over the USA. Generation of such debris pieces seems to be normal for a Kobalt-M mission. So yes, "nothing out of the ordinary happened". It is all a clever word game.

On the nature of those debris pieces

What the nature of those debris pieces generated at the end of most (if not all) Kobalt-M missions and probably seen decaying over the US exactly is remains unclear. Behind the scenes, several independent analysts including me have had e-mail discussions about this the past 24 hours. Separation of the Kosmos into three modules (AO, PO and OSA), one of which (the OSA) makes a controlled re-entry over Orenburg for recovery, would make you think the remaining two debris pieces are these two other modules, the OA and PO. However, it is generally believed that the AO/PO combination provides the retrofire necessary for the OSA de-orbit and hence goes down with the OSA.  It is believed that the OSA module itself has no retrofire capacity (if it would have, it would separate from the other modules and then fire its own retrorocket, leaving the other two modules in orbit).

So analysts have proposed that the debris pieces instead are satellite parts like solar panels (which are 6 meters in lenght each)  and antennae shed somewhat before the OSA re-entry. That idea is more likely yet in itself not entirely unproblematic either. In the case of Kosmos 2410 in 2005, the debris pieces were generated at least 16 hours (if not more) before the OSA reentry. It seems somewhat unlikely that you shed power sources (solar panels) and communication equipment (antennae) so many hours before the OSA re-entry.

The observations from the USA on September 2-3 suggest a seizable object. This is not small debris, but definitely a large object.

So that part of the story remains a bit of a mystery.


UPDATE 1, 11 Sep 2014, 15:00 UT:

Dr Bill Cooke of the Meteoroid Environments Office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center informed me (and this information is posted here with his kind permission) that their camera systems catched the event from New Mexico. From the data they determined that the object entered with a speed of  7.69 +/- 0.07 km/s.

That is too slow for an object in heliocentric orbit (a meteor), but the typical speed of an object entering from Low Earth Orbit. Basically, this confirms that the event over the USA was the decay from orbit of (a part of) an artificial satellite.

I thank Dr Cooke for communicating this vital piece of information.

UPDATE 2, 15 Sep 2014, 15:30 UT: 

Ted Molczan has published an excellent analysis into the area-to-mass ratio's of past Kobalt-M debris, which compares favourable to the area-to-mass ratio needed for Kosmos 2465 debris shed at OSA separation to decay over the US at 4:33 UT.

Acknowledgement: I thank Ted Molczan, Jon Mikkel and Jonathan McDowell for the exchange of ideas. Igor Lissov provided valuable data on the Kazakhstan sightings and earlier sightings of Kobalt-M OSA re-entries from that region on Seesat.

[updated] The bright fireball over Germany of 31 March 2014, 22:34 CEST: an earthgrazing meteor, not a satellite re-entry

[updated 20:55 UT (1/4/2014) to reflect revised fireball duration]

Yesterday evening German astronomical internet fora and my Twitter timeline erupted in a frenzy about a very bright, magnitude -10, west to east moving, very long duration fireball seen over southern Germany near 20:34 UT (22:34 CEST, March 31).

The fireball was widely seen by eye witnesses and captured by a video all-sky station near Ulm. The very spectacular image, by Thomas Tuchan, can be seen here (scroll down in the message list) on the AKM message forum.

As usual, it was science writer Daniel Fischer who was the first to knock on my digital door for an opinion. The question that had popped up, as it does with every long duration slow fireball, was whether this was a meteoric fireball or perhaps a satellite re-entry? In most cases, it is not, although there are exceptions.

My first check in such cases always is with JSpOC to see whether there was a suitable re-entry candidate in the TIP-messages. There was not. This while a re-entering artificial object of this brightness must be a very big object, for which you expect a TIP message.

Next more information came available on the fireball length and duration, notably through Thomas Tuchan's all-sky video image. It shows an almost horizon to horizon event, with a duration of 16 33 seconds. It starts at approximately 15 degrees elevation in Perseus, culminates at 60 degrees North, and ends low on the opposite horizon, at an elevation of about 12 degrees. A span of some 150 degrees!

[Update 20:55 UT: the duration was later revised to 33 seconds]

The very long 150 degree trajectory with a duration of 16 seconds rules out the re-entry of an artificial object. It shows that this was a meteoric fireball, and one that entered the atmosphere at a very shallow angle: a so called Earthgrazing meteor. There are even some examples (most famous one the Grand Tetons fireball of 1972) where such Earthgrazing fireballs left the Earth's atmosphere again!

Satellite re-entries take place between 150 and 50 km altitude. At such altitudes, an earth-orbiting object has a speed of 7.5-7.8 km/s and the resulting apparent angular velocity is about 3 degrees/second for 100 km, and about 5 degrees/seconds for 50 km altitude: but only in the zenith. Lower above the horizon, the angular speed is much less.

I constructed an artificial set of orbital elements for an orbital altitude of 90 km (re-entry in progress) as a test: it takes such an object 1 minute 15 seconds to move from 15 degrees elevation above the western horizon to 15 degrees elevation on the opposite horizon. By contrast, it took the German fireball only 16 33 seconds: i.e. almost a factor two-and-a-half faster.

[Update: the duration was first reported as 16 seconds, later revised to 33 seconds]

All this makes very clear that the German fireball of March 31 was not the re-entry of an artificial object, but a meteoric fireball, most likely an Earth-grazing object of asteroidal origin..

Fireball seen over Eastern Australia, 13 June 2013 6:05 pm AEST, was NOT the decay of Molniya 3-53

On June 13, 2013, near 6:05 pm local time (AEST - corresponding to 10:05 UTC), many people in Eastern Australia observed a bright fast light falling down in the sky. It was even recorded by one of those new-fangled dashboard-cams (one of these days, I must get me one for my bike).

The Australian news website "The Chronicle" claims it was a satellite decay - more exactly, that of the Russian Molniya platform Molniya 3-53 (2003-029A).

It was however most definitely not a satellite decay.

All descriptions talk about a fast object. The dashcam video shows a pretty fast fireball indeed.

It is much too fast to be a decaying satellite. The latter move at relatively slow speeds - 8.5 km/s. At that speed, it takes them several minutes to traverse your sky, not just a few seconds. As low over the horizon as the dashcam video shows it, it would have been very, very slow, taking several tens of seconds to traverse the distance it does in the video.

In addition to it being too fast to be a satellite decay, the proposed connection to Molniya 3-53 can be rejected right away.

First: Molniya 3-53 did not decay on June 13. Orbital data by Strategic Space Command ("NORAD") show it was still in orbit in the early hours of June 15 - two days after the Australian fireball. At the moment of writing (12 UTC, June 15), the last available orbit is for epoch 13166.42726929 ( = 15 June 2013, 10:15 UTC). The moment of decay is currently predicted as 15 June 14:04 UTC, with an uncertainty of 2 hours. [Update 22/6: SSC's final TIP-message issued 15 June 15:30 UTC gives 15 June, 14:10 UTC +/- 26 minutes for the moment of decay)

Now, given that the apogee of the satellite was at a very low altitude already, could it have been the case that it briefly started to burn but survived after it passed perigee?

The answer is "no" in this case and brings us to a second point against the identification with this satellite: Molniya 3-53 was not over Australia at June 13, 10:05 UTC. It was at very high altitude over Northern Europe at that time (see map below). It would not pass over (central) Australia untill 10:55 UTC (6:55 pm AEST), i.e. a full hour later than the fireball sighting.

So what was it then? Given the speed, it is very clear this was a meteoric fireball, a small piece of cosmic rock or ice (debris from a comet or an asteroid) entering the atmosphere.

[updated] HUGE fireball over Russia this morning! Not 2012 DA14 related.

A HUGE fireball has appeared over Chelyabinsk, Russia, this morning. And with HUGE I mean: HUGE. Apparent brightness rivalling the sun, and very strong sonic booms leading to glass damage and people being wounded by flying glass. This must have been a seizable object entering the atmosphere.

Phil Plait, the "Bad Astronomer" has very good coverage including some amazing videos here, so I will refer to him for imagery and the general story (apart from two I include below: one showing the meteor, the other one the arrival of the shock wave).





Below, I will briefly explain why this fireball cannot have been a fragment of 2012 DA14, the ~50 meter wide asteroid that will pass very close to earth coming evening (Feb 15, 2013).

First of all (and Phil Plait points this out as well), the fireball in Russia came from the wrong direction. Several of the videos show it appearing in the east near the rising sun, coming from a N-NE direction. That is the wrong direction: fragments of 2012 DA14 are on a south-north trajectory.

What is even more important: fragments of 2012 DA14 could never enter the atmosphere as far north as latitude 55 N (Chelyabinsk). Fragments in orbits similar to that of the asteroid, have a theoretical geocentric radiant at declination -81 degrees, i.e. almost at the southern celestial pole. They hence approach earth from due south. This means that the northern hemisphere is out of reach of these fragments: the northern hemisphere represents (as seen from these approaching fragments) the "far side" of the earth.

[video added 18/02/2013]


[added 18/02/2013] In the above video I explain this more visually, with the help of an orange. In reality, it is slightly more complicated than I present it in the video, as objects grazing the earth's limb are actually slightly attracted by earths gravity and can end up a little bit over the line between "front" and "far" side of the earth. Ending up at latitude 55 N is nevertheless out of the question.

The funny thing is that the latitude of Chelyabinsk and the approach direction of 2012 DA14 (and fragments in a swarm around it) are well established facts, even if the trajectory of the Russian fireball is less so at the moment. So it is quite nice that from the encounter geometry with the 2012 DA14 orbit and the latitude of the Russian meteor alone, we can actualy already exclude a connection between the two with a quite strong certainty.

Fragments in 2012 DA14-like orbits and the Russian fireball itself are also too fast to be temporarily captured in earth-orbit, so that is no explanation either.

This fireball was not man-made space junk either. Besides coming from an unlikely direction, it is too fast and much too bright for that.

These are amazing times: the reentry of a Russian rocket stage seen from NW Europe on the evening of the 13th, then this hughe meteoric fireball over Russia this morning, and a close pass of asteroid 2012 DA14 tonight. Wow!

Fireball over NW Europe of the evening of 13 February 2013: Re-entry of a Soyuz r/b

Reports are pouring in of a very long duration, bright fireball near 22:15 CET (21:15 GMT) seen from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Reports indicate 30-40 seconds visibility, and an "explosion" halfway, and some reports indicate sonic booms.

This fireball was with a high degree of certainty the re-entry of a Russian Soyuz 3rd stage, #39083 (2013-007B), the 3rd stage from the Soyuz that launched the Progress cargoship Progress-M 18M towards the ISS on February 11th.

USSTRATCOM issued a TIP message indicating decay at 21:15 +/- 1 m UTC near 49N, 13 E.

Below is a quick map (made using Orbitron) of the trajectory and approximate position of the re-entry.

click map to enlarge

Time, general description and reentry data all fit quite well.

[UPDATED] The 21 September fireball: a small Aten asteroid?

-- edited/corrected 25/9 15:25 UT. I initially made a small error in the used trajectory azimuth (not properly taking into account effects of a spherical earth). That is corrected, but the conclusions do not alter. --

In my previous post I presented clear evidence that the splendid fireball seen over NW Europe on September 21st, 2012, was a meteoric fireball. I also presented a first, very preliminary idea of its trajectory.

Based on that trajectory, I can now present some very first, very cautious conclusions about the heliocentric orbit of this meteoroid.The solutions strongly favour an identification as an Aten asteroid.

The entry azimuth of the fireball from the reconstructed preliminary trajectory is around 80 95 degrees. Based on observations by Ramon van der Hilst who observed the fireball from Bussloo, the estimated entry angle for the fireball is about 5 degrees only: a very shallow, earthgrazing angle which explains the long trajectory. (I asked Ramon to estimate the angle of the fireball with respect to the horizontal at the moment Ramon was looking roughly perpendicular to the preliminary trajectory. That angle, about 5 degrees as Ramon reports, should be close to the entry angle)

I used these values and an 18-20 km speed estimate to compute a nominal heliocentric orbit: and then played around by widely varying the values for speed, entry angle, entry azimuth around these nominal values.

The interesting point is, that for all of these, I get an Aten orbit as a result. Aten asteroids are asteroids whose perihelion lies within the orbit of the earth and who's aphelion lies only just outside the orbit of the earth. They have a semi-major axis < 1.0 AU and aphelion (just) over 1 AU.

The aphelion values I get for the approximate fireball orbit, are in the range 1.0 - 1.15 1.05 AU, the semi-major axis values are in the range 0.9 to 0.6 AU. Solutions based on higher speeds (I varied between 12 km/s and 30 km/s in my calculations) favour the slightly larger aphelion values and shorter semi-major axis.

A wide variation in entry azimuth (I tried between 60 and 110 120 degrees) and entry angle (I tried for values between 5 and 45 degrees, the latter clearly a too large value by the way) does not alter this picture much: they all result in Aten orbits.

I need to alter the trajectory direction to values significantly larger than entry from a direction of  120 degrees (well past due east) to get aphelion values that start to get well beyond 1.15 AU and semi-major axis values > 1.0 AU.

For the current very preliminary nominal trajectory solution (entry azimuth ~82 ~95 degrees, entry angle ~5 degrees) I get these values when varying the assumed entry speed of the fireball:

[editted table 15:25 UT to reflect new calculations/correction of error]

Vini    q    Q     a     e     i

12.0   0.82  1.00  0.91  0.10  6.5
15.0   0.46  1.02  0.74  0.39  15.0
18.0   0.31  1.04  0.67  0.55  20.7
20.0   0.24  1.05  0.65  0.62  24.8
25.0   0.16  1.09  0.62  0.76  37.4
27.0   0.13  1.11  0.62  0.79  43.7
30.0   0.11  1.14  0.62  0.83  54.5

Vini is the initial speed (in km/s), q the perihelion distance (in AU), Q the aphelion distance (in AU), a the semi-major axis (in AU), e the eccentricity, i the inclination.

These values should be taken with caution and only as rough indications. There are (still) large uncertainties in the trajectory and entry angle, as well as the speed of the fireball. They do show however (as well as variations on the trajectory not listed here) that an Aten-orbit is the implied solution.

The Earth encountered the meteoroid close to the meteoroid's aphelion, when it was moving almost in parallel with the Earth.

-------------------------------
NOTE / UPDATE 26/09/2012, 19:25 UT: There is some confusion on the web regarding my analysis and the "retrograde"/ "prograde" character of this object.
The "retrograde"character is only true for an earth-centered orbit (i.e., an object orbiting the earth, such as an artificial satellite). An east-west movement in that case means it is "retrograde" (against the motion of the earth's rotation).
This is not necessarily the case for a sun-centered orbit however. An east-west moving object then can be (and is, in this case!) in a normal, "prograde" orbit (=moving in the same direction around the sun as the planets). The difference is the frame of reference: earth-centric versus sun-centric.
So beware: the "retrograde" orbit refers to what the orbit would be for an earth-orbiting satellite (which this object was not). The Aten heliocentric orbit presented here, is however prograde.

More on the 21 September 2012 fireball: why it definitely was a meteor

I should have done this analysis earlier but did not have the time available until now. What follows now is a quick and back-of-the-envelope kind of calculation, but in my (not so) humble opinion it is adequate to the question at hand.

It concerns, of course, the splendid slow fireball seen widely over NW Europe near 21:55 UT on 21 September 2012. I posted on it before, focussing on saying "no" to the suggestion that this could have concerned a satellite reentry. In the post that now follows, I further strengthen the conclusion that it was not a satellite reentry, but a genuine meteoric fireball.

The map above gives a quick (and not particularly accurate) back-of-the-envelope reconstruction of the fireball trajectory. It is based on trajectory descriptions from Bussloo in the Netherlands and Dublin in Ireland: by taking reported altitudes (with respect to stars) and general directions of reported start and endpoints, and an assumed altitude of 50 km, the trajectory above is what approximately results. (update 19:10 UT, 24 Sep: an updated version of the map is at the bottom of this post).

The resulting trajectory is some 1000-1200 km long. In what now follows, I have taken 1100 km as the distance travelled by this fireball.

Observers near the western and eastern ends of the trajectory would probably not see the complete trajectory. Observers approximately mid-way, in mid-Britain, would potentially see most if not all of the trajectory (from experience I know you can see bright fireballs from distances of 500 km).

Observers report durations between 20-60 seconds: most video's on the web suggest a 40+ seconds duration.

It would take a reentering satellite travelling at 8 km/s (the orbital speed at decay altitudes) about 138 seconds or roughly 2.25 minutes to travel this distance. While the reported fireball durations are long, none of the reports nor videos comes even remotely close to that value.

A meteoric fireball travelling at the lowest speed possible for such an object, 11.8 km/s, would take 93 seconds to travel that distance. This is still longer than almost all of the reports suggest, but clearly getting closer.

If we take an estimated duration of 60 seconds, the 1100 km trajectory length results in a speed of  approximately 18 km/s.

18 km/s is a very reasonable speed for a slow, asteroidal origin fireball.

(it is, let me repeat, also way too fast for a satellite reentry).

Meteorite dropping fireballs typically have speeds between 11.8 and 27 km/s. A speed near 18 km/s sits squarely in the middle of that speed interval.

(update: diagram added 14:45 UT, 24 Sep)

(click diagram to enlarge)

The 60 seconds probably represents the upper boundary value for the duration of the fireball. If we take a shorter duration of 40 seconds, the speed already increases to 27.5 km/s.

This quick back-of-the-envelope reconstruction therefore shows that this must have been a meteoric fireball, quite likely of asteroidal origin, and we definitely can exclude a satellite reentry.

The fragmentation described and filmed is not unusual for meteorite dropping fireballs (see the video's of the Peekskill meteorite fall in my previous post). The object probably entered the atmosphere under a very shallow angle, which together with the slow speed explains the unusually long duration of the event.

Meteors of this kind are rare, but they have been seen before. Think of the Peekskill meteorite fall, but also the famous 1972 daylight fireball over the Grand Tetons (that had a duration of over 100 seconds) and the Cyrilid Meteor Procession from 1913 (that lasted minutes).

Note: a previous post gives a number of other lines of evidence which likewise suggest this fireball was not man-made space debris.

UPDATE: a further update is given in a new post: a very cautious orbital solution suggests an Aten orbit.

Note 2: on how I made this quick and (emphasis) rough trajectory reconstruction. I took observations that contain clear sky locations: e.g. a sighting from Dublin stating it went "through the pan of the Big Dipper"; the description from Bussloo observatory in the Netherlands; and later adding a.o. a photo from Halifax, UK, showing it just above the tail of Ursa Major. These descriptions can be turned into directions and elevations. Next, I drew lines from these sighting points towards the indicated directions, marking distances roughly corresponding to 30, 50 and 80 km altitude as indicated by the observed elevation [ distance = altitude / tan(elevation) ]. Near the start of the trajectory I marked 50 and 80 km, for Britain and Ireland I marked 30 and 50 km. These points then provide you with a rough trajectory.
From Dublin the object passed through North towards west. From Bussloo the object started NE (azimuth 60 degrees): these are important points of information too as it shows that the object started at least as far east as the Dutch-German border (and more likely over Sleswig-Holstein in N-Germany) and had its endpoint at least as far west as the northern part of Ireland.

Above: Updated map version, 24 Sep 19:10 GMT , also showing the principle of how it was reconstructed for three sighting locations. With thanks to Ramon van der Hilst for providing more detailed information on sky trajectory as seen from Bussloo (NL) on request.

Fireball over N-Europe on 21 September 2012, 21:45 GMT was likely NOT a reentry

UPDATE (24/9/2012): more and definite arguments that this was not a reentering satellite, can be read here in my follow-up post from Sep 24th. This includes a first rough trajectory reconstruction for this fireball.

Reports are pouring in from The Netherlands, Britain, Ireland and other N-European countries about a very bright, extremely slow fragmenting fireball appearing around 21:45 - 21:55 GMT (23:45 -23:55 CEST) on the evening of 21 September 2012.

Various video's have been posted on Youtube, notably by observers from Britain (large parts of the Netherlands were clouded out, including the all-sky stations):





Because of the unusually long duration and slow movement, some people have suggested the possibility of a satellite reentry. For various reasons, this is however very unlikely.

Multiple reports make clear the object was moving from east to west. A report of observers from Bussloo Observatory, the Netherlands, for examples states that the fireball appeared in the north, moving from Perseus  to Bootes, almost horizontally from east to west. Similar reports (e.g. here and here) come from Ireland.

Almost all non-polar satellites move prograde,  from west to east (or north-south and v.v. for a polar orbit). An east to west movement would necessitate the object to have a retrograde orbit (meaning that it moves counter to the earth's direction of rotation). Such objects are extremely rare: they literally amount to only a handful of objects (including the US FIA Radar satellites, and the Israeli Ofeq/Shavit satellites/rb). For this reason, it is extremely unlikely that this fireball was a reentering satellite.

Update 24 Sep: in the comments to this blog post, the issue was raised of the potential reentry of a classified object. However, the larger classified pieces are tracked by us amateurs. We have no likely decay candidates among the retrograde objects that we track. We can account for and hence exclude the FIA's for example (the rocket bodies of that launch were deliberately de-orbitted right after launch so are no candidates either). The Israeli Ofeq/Shavit are no candidates as their orbital inclinations never take them over the Netherlands and the British Isles. And there are simply no other suitable retrograde objects -- end of update.

There are moreover no unclassified reentry candidates for this date listed by USSTRATCOM on their space-track portal. Given the brightness of the fireball, this should have been a seizable chunk of space debris, that really would have been tracked (and predicted). Again, this makes it very unlikely that this fireball was a satellite reentry.

While the duration of the fireball is unusual, it is not unprecedented. In many ways, the descriptions and video are reminiscent of the Peekskill fireball that dropped meteorites near Peekskill in 1992:

(below: two video's of Peekskill fireball, 1992)

It is therefore my opinion that the 21 September fireball was most likely of meteoric origin: a chunk of asteroid. Alas, any surviving remains appear to have splashed down in sea (update: or possibly Scotland - N. Ireland).

The duration of the event, though not unprecedented, is certainly unusual and for this reason, I am saying "most likely not" rather than "certainly not".

UPDATE (12:45 GMT, 22 Sep):  another bright fireball was widely seen from the US and Canada that same night near 20:30 GMT. There was at least one hour inbetween the two events, so they do not appear to be related (i.e. they do not concern the same fireball).

UPDATE 2 (13:30 GMT, 22 Sep): Suggestions that the fireball might be related to Chinese CZ-4 space debris, catalogue #26213, are plainly incorrect. That object (and any fragments of it) are in a 98 degree polar orbit. This is completely incompatible with the reported movement of the fireball. As seen from Bussloo in the Netherlands and Dublin in Ireland, the fireball moved perpendicular, not parallel, to the orbital plane of this Chinese space debris (and that of any related fragments).

 IMPORTANT UPDATE 3 (24/9/2012): more and definite arguments that this was not a reentering satellite, can be read here.

Further confusion on Saturday's Soyuz r/b reentry

I earlier wrote about the confusion reigning in the press concerning the sky event over Europe of last Saturday evening. Initial confusion was over wether it was a meteor, "comet" or (and that was the correct explanation, but many Dutch and German news outlets failed to properly pick that up): the reentry of  a Soyuz rocket.

Now a new confusion has arrisen: some news outlets and weblogs, e.g. that of Physorg, mistakenly link the event to last Friday's failed Russian launch of the Meridian satellite. Due to a rocket failure, this never reached earth orbit but crashed in Siberia within minutes after the launch.

As I wrote earlier, what reentered and was seen over France, Germany and the Netherlands last Saturday evening, was the 3rd stage of last Wednesday's Soyuz launch to the ISS.

The confusion probably comes from the fact that both launches used a Soyuz rocket. The failed launch that crashed in Siberia on Friday got some press attention because fragments hit a house in Russia (see a.o. here (English), with pictures of a recovered fuel tank here (Russian)).

But again: that failed launch had nothing to do with Saturdays sky event over Europe. The reentry over Europe was the 3rd stage of the earlier Wednesday launch to the ISS, that included Dutch astronaut Andre Kuipers.

(More on Last Saturday's Soyuz reentry over Europe: here and here)

[Updated] Breaking News: Decay of Soyuz r/b stage from André Kuipers' launch to ISS observed from the Netherlands!

UPDATE - the final TIP for Soyuz r/b 38037 / 2011-078B has been released by USSTRATCOM near 18h GMT and it indeed shows that this was the Soyuz r/b: reentry time is quoted as 16:25 +/- 1 minute GMT at 49 deg N, 7 deg E. This fits the observations well.

In the Dutch press, there meanwhile appears to be a lot of confusion. The Dutch National Police claims that they talked to "NASA" who apparently said it was a "meteor" (or "comet"). So THAT is widely claimed in the press now, to the point of calling the identification with the Soyuz 3rd stage "speculation". Which it is not: it is based on factual data and now clearly confirmed by the USSTRATCOM JSpOC TIP message. What more do you want?!

I have no idea to whom (or even where: NASA is big...) the Police spoke, but for all things it could have been the JPL janitor....

At any rate: appart from my analysis below (which is already clear), the USSTRATCOM TIP message mentioned above makes unambiguously clear that this was the Soyuz 3rd stage.

Note that to access the USSTRATCOM TIP message via the link above you need an approved account. USSTRATCOM is the US military Command responsible for tracking manmade objects in space, and perhaps better known under their former name NORAD.

- end of update

Multiple reports are coming in, among others by experienced Dutch meteor observers Carl Johannink (Gronau) and Arnold Tukkers (Denekamp), of a bright and very slow fragmenting object seen low in the west-southwest near Venus at 16:26 UTC, 24 December.

From the descriptions it clearly was a reentry of an artificial object (space junk), as the event was too long in duration and too slow to be a meteoric fireball.

And it was not "just" a random bit of space debris, it turns out:

The observations fit with 2011-078B (#38037), the last stage of the Soyuz rocket that brought Dutch astronaut Andre Kuipers up to the ISS earlier this week. It was already predicted to decay near this moment by USSTRATCOM.

Below is the  predicted trajectory of the Soyuz  3rd stage for the Gronau/Enschede area (and below that, the ground trajectory). It is based on an orbit with an epoch near noon of 24 December (epoch 11358.49032868. Source: USSTRATCOM), so a few hours old, which will introduce some minor discrepancies (a few seconds in time). But it fits the descriptions very well in terms of time and trajectory in the sky.

click images to enlarge

[UPDATE 7 October 2017]:

I recently modelled the re-entry of 2011-078B in GMAT, using the MSISE90 model atmosphere with actual Spaceweather of that time. Drag surface was set at 60% of the maximum drag surface for a Soyuz upper stage: this yields a decay position and decay time well in agreement with the JSpOC TIP position and is close to what the drag value for a tumbling, fragmenting object would be.

As seen from Gronau in Germany, it yields the following sky trajectory. Compare with Carl Johannink's description below: it matches his description well.

click map to enlarge

- end of update

- continuing original post:

Some quickly translated descriptions by two experienced Dutch meteor observers (compare to the sky trajectory map above for their area):

Arnold Tukkers, Denekamp (Netherlands):

At 17:26 CET (=16:26 UTC) I looked out of the window and saw a strange phenomena just above the rooftops behind us. It looked like a very, very slow meteor fragmented in several pieces. Like Peekskill but less bright.
Multiple fragments. Because it was so low in the sky, I walked upstairs and could still see the last part from the bedroom window. So it at least took 20 seconds. [...]
What a sight! Trajectory for me (did not see initial part) southwest-southeast. Altitude maximum 20 degrees. Colour brown-red.

Carl Johannink, Gronau (Germany):

Just was looking at Venus in evening twilight.
Left of it an object appeared from behind a cloud that I first thought to be an aircraft, but next I found something was not right. The thing sometimes brightened and became fuzzy, trailing a circa 8 degree long tail. Maximum brightness about -4.
The object roughly moved from SSW to SE at an elevation of about 15 degrees. The whole phenomena took over half a minute.

To see the second part of the trajectory I had to walk to a different room. Called in Elisabeth, together we saw the object fragment into pieces (each individual piece about mag. 0 to +1) and then fade out.

The whole event looked much alike to the New Years Eve satellite decay of 1978, albeit being somewhat less bright.

Update:
A number of video's from Germany have surfaced which likely show the event. Here are a few:
video 1
video 2
Video 3 (on the Bad Astronomer's blog)
Video 4
Video 5

FAQ

Read the answers to Frequently Asked Questions for this reentry case I published later here.

Wednesday's fireball over the US southwest was not UARS

A brilliant fireball was seen and filmed over the US southwest (Arizona, Nevada and California) last night. Some media suggest it could be connected to UARS, the US satellite about to plunge down in the atmosphere later this month.

It was definitely not UARS though. Not only was UARS still being tracked and hence in orbit after the fireball appeared (approx. 19:45 MST on the 14th, or 2:45 UTC on the 15th): but it was simply not passing over that part of the USA at that time. It was hence not UARS, or a piece of UARS.

Feb 15 Texas-Nebraska daylight fireball was NOT satellite debris

Sightings of a bright daylight fireball seen from Texas to Nebraska on February 15th, have been widely reported in the press.

Contrary to what the FAA appears to be stating, this was definitely NOT debris from the collision between the Iridium 33 and Kosmos 2251 satellites on February 10th.

Video footage of the fireball (see below) shows that it moved clearly too fast for that, and was of too short duration, to be decaying satellite debris. In stead it is in line with a meteoritic fireball (asteroidal debris).

There is a clear difference in speed between the two categories: asteroidal/cometary debris moves at at least 11 km/s (and usually much faster) and typically lasts only a few seconds (as this fireball did). Satellite debris decaying moves at 7.5 to 8 km/s, so clearly slower, and typically has a much longer duration (due to the slower speed, but also because it enters at shallow angles). The video footage is incompatible with the appearance of decaying satellite debris. It is completely compatible with a meteoric fireball (asteroidal debris).