GOCE below 200 km - now one week or less from reentry

Over the past 12 days I have been covering the demise of GOCE, ESA's Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer. Following the cut-off of its ion engine on October 21st, it is coming down, at an increasing speed. It is heading towards an uncontrolled re-entry later this month, perhaps even within a week from now.
 

 

click diagram to enlarge

The diagram above shows the increasing rate at which the orbital altitude is dropping since October 21st. As I write this, the drop rate has increased to about 4 km/day (from initially about 1.5 km/day on October 21st) and that rate is increasing exponentially, as can be seen in the diagram.

The average orbit of GOCE, at 227.5 km altitude before the engine cut off, has now dropped to below 200 km altitude. Perigee is already below 195 km. The Mean Motion (the number of orbital revolutions per day) of the satellite is increasing fast.

While it is still too early to provide really meaningful predictions, I currently have a nominal re-entry prediction for a window of a few days centered on November 10.7. It hence now seems possible that GOCE is within a week of plunging into the atmosphere.

The diagram below shows how predictions of the re-entry window have been evolving the past days (the grey line is the nominal prediction value, i.e. the center of the uncertainty window, and the dashed lines show the window of uncertainty on the prediction. The top three panels give observed and predicted solar flux; drag terms; and the orbital drop rate trend).

These predictions were made using two satellite orbital decay programs written by Alan Pickup, called SatAna and SatEvo. The program called SatAna analyses the orbital evolution over a number of recent orbit determinations and (taking into account the average solar flux for that period) fits a decay term that should be a bit more realistic than the decay terms from one single orbit only (which vary widely, see the second subwindow with B* values in the diagram above). The SatAna result and the predicted average solar flux for the next few days is next fed into SatEvo, a program that evolves the orbit into the future, up to re-entry.

The calculated moment of re-entry becomes more accurate based on orbital elements closer to decay. Currently, some 7 days before the prognosed moment of re-entry, the uncertainty window is still very large (several days), so giving an exact time at this moment is still meaningless. It is also still completely impossible to say where it will come down.

A lot can still happen the coming few days, that can drastically alter the picture. I have written about this before: e.g., if GOCE for some reason loses its current drag-reducing attitude (flight orientation) or is starting to shed bits and pieces at some point, the drag it experiences will significantly change, and with that the re-entry predictions will significantly change. Differences between the predicted solar activity for the upcoming days and real solar activity values the coming days, likewise can change the re-entry time.

(note: I thank Alan Pickup for making available SatAna and SatEvo)

About half-way: another short update on GOCE, 10 days after its engine cut off

Ten days ago the ion engine of GOCE, the European Space Agency's 1-tonne Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer scientific satellite (2009-013A), cut off after the satellite ran out of fuel.

Originally orbiting at an average orbital altitude of 227.5 km, it is since coming down (see earlier posts here and here and the first two diagrams below). Its perigee is now below 205 km and it is currently coming down at a rate of 2.7 km/day. That rate is increasing (see third diagram below): it is already a factor 3 larger than it was on October 21st just after the ion engine of GOCE cut off.

click diagrams to enlarge

As I wrote earlier, for various reasons it is still too early to provide reliable re-entry estimates. I nevertheless estimate that GOCE is now about half-way, in terms of days not altitude, from inception of its fall to re-entry.

After the latest orbital updates, the nominal re-entry date appears to slowly creep to an earlier date. Currently I have re-entry forecast for a several-day window around November 10.

That date can still (dramatically) shift if anything happens to GOCE, for example if it loses its current drag-reducing attitude (flight orientation - see also a previous post) or if we see a drastic change in solar activity.

The Sun has been very active the past few days, spewing several CME's. This solar activity has an influence on the density of the upper atmosphere, and this in turn has an influence on the magnitude of the atmospheric drag on GOCE, influencing how fast its orbit evolves.

I do expect the prognosed re-entry date to slowly creep to an earlier date over the coming few days. It therefore does seem that GOCE has less than two weeks, and possibly closer to a week, of lifetime left.

Tracking Prowler

Last week I imaged Prowler again, the classified spacecraft we amateur trackers indicate with the informal Cospar code 2009-097E. The object (no longer operational) is in a librating geosynchronous disposal orbit located over the eastern Pacific. It is hence not visible from the Netherlands. I therefore use a 'remote' telescope in the US to observe it.

Prowler is (or was) one of the most secret and enigmatic objects in existence. It was probably an experimental satellite for close covert inspection of Soviet geostationary satellites. I have posted on the background story of this object in more detail before. Clandestinely launched from Space Shuttle STS-38 in 1990, its launch and existence have never been acknowledged by the US government.

The images below were made on October 25 and 27, using the 61-cm F/10 Cassegrain of Sierra Stars Observatory in Markleebergville, California.

click image to enlarge

Both images have an exposure time of 30 seconds. The brightness difference between the two images is mostly due to a difference in phase angle.

A Space Buff Watches 'Gravity'

* WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS! *



Last Wednesday the GF and I went to the cinema to see Gravity, the latest Space-themed blockbuster movie starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. Emersing ourselves in the hyperrealistic 3D graphics, we were so captivated by it all that we went for a second screening last Saturday, and highly enjoyed that too.

I should ad that while I am acknowledged to be a space buff, my GF is not (I think she initially primarily went for Clooney). So my GF’s insistence that she wanted to see it a second time, says something about the impact this movie made on her. And on me, because I happily went along with the idea of going for a second screening!

In this blog post I will give a brief impression of the movie as I experienced it, and next provide some comments on the scientific reality and accuracy of it.

Don’t expect me to go all negative, bashing the movie for incorrect science. While I do have several things to comment on from the Space science point of view later in this review, such comments are basically nothing more than nitpicking in order to satisfy the inner Geek in me. It is fiction after all, not reality, and moviemakers, like all artists, have artistic license to alter reality if that suits their creative process. As one of my friends said: “if you want accuracy, you should watch a documentary, not a movie”.


PART I: the movie 

With regard to the movie as a whole: it is, in one word, FANTASTIC!

I can thoroughly recommend you to go and see it. You will be at the edge of your seat from the beginning to the end, and the 3D graphics are stunning.

This is also the first time that I really thought the 3D was worthwhile, adding to the movie experience. Movies in 3D until now did not quite captivate me. With most movies, I actually don’t see the extra value of it: in my opinion it is more a gimmick than that it really ads to the experience. But Gravity is a clear exception to this rule. With this very ‘spatial’ movie, the 3D really does ad to the experience. Maybe because it is so extremely well done and the storyline is so extremely suited to it. It sucks you really into the movie, making it life-like. For example, when the International Space Station started to disintegrate and fragments flew off all over the place, I was instinctively ducking and making avoidance manoeuvres in my seat. Wow!

One of the very cool things about this movie is actually how much (compared to many other disaster and space-themed movies) it gets right, certainly in the details of the space hardware. ISS, Soyuz; they look very realistic. While I am not sure they are correct down to the individual rivet so to speak, they truely do look like the real deal. The moviemakers have clearly documented themselves extremely well on this point. The graphics are moreover realistic to the point where you really can’t tell where real-life filming ends and CGI graphics take over. Rendered in amazing and highly realistic detail, you truely get the idea that you are watching real NASA or Roscosmos footage. It is all hyper realistic.

For an astronomy buff like me, it was also very fine to note that the starry backgrounds of space featured recognizable star patterns: I noted Aquila and the Arrow, Hydra, and Auriga with the Pleiades and Hyades for example. The only odd frowning moment was when in a certain scene the moon was rising from behind the limb of the Earth, apparently south of the head of Hydra (which is too much south of the ecliptic to be possible). It was the only potential gaffe I could discern in the astronomical rendering of the starry backgrounds.

The story of the movie is simple and the storyline can be summed up in one sentence: astronaut stranded in space under constant threat of disaster, tries to get home. That’s all there is to it. The story is not very complex: it runs on the action and superb Oscar-worthy 3D graphics, not on a great storyline.

And frankly it turns out that this is enough to make this a very captivating movie. I had a slight “Meh” reaction only twice, and that was when Bullock brings up her dead child in the conversation with Clooney, and later when she addresses his spirit on it again from the Soyuz.It was probably meant to ad to the general movie theme of “letting go” (except from letting go of life preservation instincts, in Bullocks case) but to me it was a bit cheesy. For the rest, the movie didn’t annoy for a moment.

There appears to be an attempt to put some symbolism into the movie every now and then. There is for example a sort of  'rebirth' scene where Ryan removes here spacesuit once inside the ISS and curls up in foetus position, with cables mimicking an umbilical cord.


Scenes that particularly impressed me, for either their action or their beauty:

- The opening scenes, with the Shuttle and docked Hubble slowly appearing into view. It sets the tone for the movie;

- The violent destruction of the ISS after a volley of space debris hits it (and the fire onboard causes an explosion?). This is one of the truely breath-taking action scenes in the movie, taking full advantage of the 3D effects;

- The Soyuz undocking from the Space Station, with the nice detail of the noise from the burning Space Station instantly ceasing. This is simply a beautiful scene, also in the way it introduces sudden tranquillity after mayhem (and then back to mayhem again only a short bit later);

- The re-entry scenes of the Tiangong space station, fragmenting into a stream of parallel moving ablating debris in the wake of Bullock’s Shenzou landing module. This was beautifully done.


Other noteworthy details:

- I noted there was an ATV (the European space cargo ship) docked to the ISS. Nice detail!

- There are some visual jokes every now and then: such as the table tennis bats floating about in the Chinese Space Station, and chess pieces (Russians are renowned chess players) floating in the Russian section of the ISS. There also is a small Marvin the Martian figurine floating in the Space Shuttle: and a Russian icon with Saint Christophoros in the ISS, as well as a Buddha in the Chinese Space Station. And of course there are the jokes by Kowalski about the Vodka stash of the Russians, although I bet it would be packed in small sacks rather than bottles as in the movie (but then, that was Bullock hallucinating through Oxygen deprivation, so needn’t be realistic anyway).


PART II: TAKING ON THE SCIENCE IN THE MOVIE 
* CONTAINS SPOILERS *

So what struck me in terms of scientific impossibilities or other oddities in the movie, but also things that neatly match reality?

I should note here first that I haven’t been particularly paying attention to other science reviews of the movie (except for Phil Plait’s review in Slate). I have no doubt others have commented on some of the issues I raise below too and I have no pretension to be original in my comments.

In a few cases below, I will do the actual math, so that might be different from more generalized reviews. In those cases the math is based on tables and equations from “Space Mission Analysis and Design” (Third Edition) by Wertz and Larson (eds.), Springer, New York, 1999.

Let’s start with a few things I noted:

- Above I already noted the potential gaffe of a moon located in Hydra;

 - The Shuttle: it bears the name “Explorer” and is identified as “STS-157”, i.e. 22 flights after the true last Shuttle flight, STS-135 in July 2011. The plot therefore necessitates a re-invigorated Shuttle program and a new Shuttle orbiter (hopefully without the inherent flaws of the older Shuttles) to have been built. There is no existing Space Shuttle “Explorer”. This all would seem to necessitate many years. In the past Shuttle schedule, launching 22 Shuttle flights took about 5 years, and there is the time needed to build the new Shuttle as well. So logic would place the events in the movie well into the future, i.e. multiple years from now.

- The Soyuz: the Soyuz that Bullock uses to get from the ISS to the Chinese Space Station Tiangong, is identified by her as Soyuz TMA-14M when she tries to contact Houston. TMA-14M is an existing Soyuz, on schedule to be launched carrying part of the ISS expedition 41 crew to the ISS in September 2014. It will return to Earth in March 2015. This would hence place the events in the movie between September 2014 and March 2015, i.e. in a not too far away future, contradicting the presence of a Shuttle (which is an anachronism anyway: the Shuttle program is history).

- The ATV: there is an ATV (the European Space Agency’s Automated Transfer Vehicle robotic space cargoship) docked to the ISS. The fifth and last ATV, ATV-5 George Lemaître, is scheduled to launch to the ISS in June 2014. As the ATV’s usually stay docked to the ISS for about half a year, this would place the events in the movie (assuming it is not the current ATV-4, which incidentally undocked yesterday) somewhere during the second half of 2014. This tallies with the presence of Soyuz TMA-14M. It doesn’t solve the riddle of the Shuttle.

- The Chinese Space Station Tiangong: Tiangong exists. It was launched in 2011 but is currently much smaller than it is portrayed to be in the movie (where it looks somewhat like the past Soviet Space Station MIR). So as with the Shuttle, the movie makers take some artistic liberty here.

- The Space suit: when Bullock does her EVA from the Soyuz in a Russian space suit to get rid of the parachute, she must be donning an Orlan suit. The suits used onboard a Soyuz normally would be Sokol suits, but these are not fit for an EVA. So how did she get hold of that Orlan suit? She certainly did not take it with her from the ISS when she fled from the fire, dashing into the Soyuz.

- The plot premise: the plot premise itself (an ASAT test creating a Kessler Syndrome in Low Earth Orbit) is clearly modelled after the ASAT test on the Fengyun 1C satellite done by the Chinese in January 2007, even if the latter did not lead to a Kessler Syndrome situation. Following all the critique on China after their 2007 test and all the problems with space debris it created, would Russia really risk to do an ASAT in low earth orbit at altitudes that would create debris at the orbital altitude of the ISS? I seriously doubt that they would be this reckless. They are not stupid, and have kosmonauts onboard the ISS themselves that they certainly would not want to endanger.

Frankly, given that movies often represent US sentiments of the time, I was surprised it were the Russians and not the North Koreans that were cast as the villains, certainly now North Korea has a proven launch capability and a reckless disregard of what the International world thinks of their actions. To pick the Russians instead appears to be a weird, somewhat anachronistic choice by the script writers. Maybe it originates in resentment about the fact that the US human spaceflight program is currently completely dependant on the Russians?

[note added: as Brian Weeden rightly remarks in a comment to this blogpost, a Kessler Syndrome takes a long time to develop. It is incommensurable with the timespan of events depicted in the movie]

- The lost communications: In the movie, communications with Houston are lost. This is because the communication satellites that do the relay from the spacecraft to the groundstation, are knocked out by the swarm of space debris, according to the movie plot.

This does not tally for various reasons. The debris is in Low Earth Orbit (the altitudes of Hubble, ISS, Tiangong). Communication relay satellites used by the Shuttle and ISS are however TDRS satellites, and these are in Geocentric Geostationary orbit, i.e. much higher than a debris stream in Low Earth Orbit. A Kessler Syndrome scenario in Low Earth Orbit would not lead to satellites being taken out at Geostationary altitudes. Communications would hence not be lost.

In addition, during parts of the orbit direct communications with groundstations in the US, Europe and Russia would be possible via FM during direct overflight (which gives about 10 minutes where communications are possible). Soyuz spacecraft frequently communicate directly with ground stations in Russia at 121.75 MHz FM and occasionally the ISS does as well via 143.625 MHz. It is also weird that Bullock would be able to receive and communicate with Aningaaq in Greenland, but not with groundstations in the US or Russia.

- Speaking about the radio contact with Aningaaq (1): what radio operator would not know what “Mayday” means?

- The radio contact with Aningaaq (2): Interestingly Soyuz voice (121.75 MHz) is FM, not AM, while Bullock says she receives Aningaaq in AM. The Space Shuttle voice modulation was AM (at 259.700 MHz). So perhaps someone advising the script writers confused the Soyuz and Shuttle radio modulation modes.

The airband emergency frequency (121.5 MHz) is close to the 121.75 MHz Soyuz frequency, so Bullock might have been using that for her Mayday call.

- The orbits (1): this is another point where reality notably had to be sacrificed to suit the plot. Apart from the Shuttle, three spacecraft play a role in the story: The Hubble Space Telescope; the International Space Station ISS; and the Chinese Space Station Tiangong. In the movie, these appear to be portrayed as being in quite similar orbits and constantly in relatively close proximity, with visibility to the astronauts. Tiangong for example is close to the ISS for the better part of the movie, with a multiple times referred to distance of “100 miles”. This is all far from reality.

To start with, the three objects are at quite different orbital altitudes: an average orbital altitude of 350 km for Tiangong; 420 km for the ISS; and 555 km for Hubble. As a result they will move at different speeds and hence not remain in close proximity for long. Hubble is moving at an orbital velocity of 7.58 km/s; ISS at 7.66 km/s; and Tiangong at 7.70 km/s.

In addition to this, their orbits are dissimilar in orbital inclination as well. Tiangong has an orbital inclination of 42.77 degrees: ISS of 51.65 degrees; and Hubble of 28.47 degrees. Their RAAN (Right Ascension of the Ascending Node) values are quite different most of the time too, although there are moments that the RAAN values of ISS and Tiangong almost coincide. Hence, they are never truely in close proximity. Most notably, they are moving in quite different orbital planes, apart from the different orbital altitudes.

Because of the inclination and altitude difference, Tiangong would never be in eyesight range of ISS for a prolonged time period and their mutual distance would rapidly change (and mostly be very large). The same is true for the ISS as seen from the Hubble orbit.

In order to get from Hubble to the ISS, Clooney (tugging Bullock on a tether) in his modest Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) would have to have lowered his orbital altitude by 135 km and changed the inclination of his MMU’s orbit by 23.18 degrees. He would likely also need to change the RAAN of his orbit, perhaps considerably. This cannot be done by a simple MMU. In fact, it even couldn’t be done by a Space Shuttle, which is why after the Columbia disaster, Shuttles were barred from flying to anything else than the ISS (because from another orbit they wouldn’t be able to get to the ISS for a safe retreat, if the tiles of their Shuttle would turn out to be damaged after launch). So Clooney is flying a Hell of an MMU there!

Let’s do some of the math (and I hope I am not making any mistakes here). In order to lower the perigee of his orbit from the altitude of the Hubble to the altitude of the ISS, a speed change delta V of about 38.3 m/s would be necessary. And this would need to be done at a carefully chosen moment, not a random moment, so that reaching perigee matches the ISS passing the same point in space. The maximum delta V capability on existing MMU’s such as employed on some Space Shuttle EVA’s was about 24.4 m/s: i.e. the MMU in the movie needs to have at least 1.6 times as much thrust as existing MMU’s. Assuming it is an improved version (the conversation between Houston and Kowalski in the start of the movie seems to imply that), that is perhaps possible.

Still, this concerns the difference in orbital altitude alone and does not solve the much more serious problem of the difference in orbital inclination, and any differences in RAAN. To change this would need quite some extra thrust. For the inclination change alone, a delta V of 3.077 km/s would be necessary, certainly impossible for an MMU. Changing RAAN is even more complex, and takes a lot of time.

Bullock flying the Soyuz to Tiangong with a single retrorocket fire is similarly problematic. She would have to change her orbital inclination by 8.88 degrees and lower her orbital altitude by 70 km, and likely change the RAAN of her orbit significantly as well. This is a complex manoeuvre. A single retrorocket fire would not do the trick. I doubt a Soyuz could even do this all with the main engine working.

- Failure to rescue Clooney: It is also somewhat silly that Clooney (after he let her slip, which was already unnecessary, see later) indicates to Bullock (who says she will fetch Clooney with the Soyuz) that he already has “too much of a head start”. Clooney’s MMU and the ISS and Soyuz are moving coplanar at that moment, at similar orbital altitudes, and in close proximity even if Clooney is slowly drifting away (as he should, his drag coefficient is different). So Clooney should be way more easy to reach for the Soyuz, than the Chinese Space Station Tiangong is. Compared to reaching Tiangong the needed velocity changes to reach Clooney are very small and necessary orbital plane changes are nihil. Not only did Clooney let go of Bullock in a way that was unnecessary: his insistence that she cannot use the Soyuz to fetch him is stupid, for she could! (that the Soyuz was out of fuel, Clooney did not know yet at that time).

- The orbits (2). Just as Bullock is reaching Tiangong and about to leave her Soyuz to try to rocket herself to Tiangong using a fire extinguisher as propulsion (!), we can see her passing over Scandinavia, north of Denmark (Jutland and Bornholm are recognizable, and the northern tip of Jutland is pointing to the spacecraft, so the Soyuz must be passing North of it). Slightly later the Polish coast is briefly visibly too. This is implying a pass at latitudes above 55 degrees north. Tiangong, with an orbital inclination of 42.8 degrees, in reality never comes higher in latitude than 42.8 degrees north. So a pass north of Denmark at 55+ North latitudes would be completely impossible. Bullock should have left the Soyuz for Tiangong over Southern France, not Scandinavia.

- The orbits (3): the swarm of space debris appears about every 90 minutes. As a ballpark figure that is right for the orbital altitude in question: at the altitude of the Hubble the orbital period for a circular orbit is about 95.5 minutes, at the orbital altitude of the ISS it is 92.5 minutes.

Yet the fact that the swarm of Space debris is still so concentrated that it appears only briefly every 90 minutes, does not tally with the implied Kessler Syndrome that is the premise of the movie plot. The Kessler Syndrome is only possible when debris starts to spread far and wide.

- Debris speeds are twice mentioned. Houston mentions “20 000 miles per hour” which is about 8.9 km/s if Statute miles are meant, or 10.29 km/s if Nautical miles were meant. The first value is somewhat correct, certainly if we regard the “20 000 miles per hour” as a ballpark figure only. Any debris orbiting in more or less circular (and prograde) orbits at the altitudes of the ISS and Hubble will move at about 7.6 km/s.

Later, Clooney (if I have heard it correctly) talks about “50 000 miles per hour”. The latter value translates to 22.35 km/s (Statute miles) or 25.7 km/s (Nautical miles) and are speeds impossible for debris in orbit around earth. At this speed they would fly off into interplanetary space.

[note added: as Brian Weeden correctly remarks in a comment to this blogpost, relative speeds between two objects can be higher than the mentioned orbital speed of 7.6 km/s: up to 15.2 km/s (7.6 + 7.6 km/s) if the objects move in opposite directions. So, was Houston talking about orbital speed, or relative speed? The speed Clooney seems to mention is clearly too high however]

- The orbits (4): As Bullock is holding on to Tiangong, the debris swarm approaches again. Tiangong is already starting to re-enter (more about that later) and starting to sport what looks like the beginning of a plasma tail (the “streamers”, looking like a sort of contrails – I have no idea what the movie-makers really meant to visualize here). In this part of the movie, one hence can infer the direction of movement of Tiangong in relation to that of the debris swarm. It appears that the debris swarm is coming from the exact opposite direction. That would only be possible if the debris is moving in a retrograde (east-west) orbit. This is highly unlikely as almost all satellite and space debris circling the earth is in a prograde (west-east) orbit.

 - Speed differences: on a related note, with speed differences up to several km/s, I doubt Clooney would be able to visually identify debris pieces as being part of a particular satellite type. Debris should have zipped by much faster than portrayed in the movie, unless it is in a very similar orbit as Clooney and Bullock are.

- The re-entry of Tiangong. Bullock almost reaches the Chinese Space Station Tiangong too late. It is about to re-enter into the atmosphere. It is not at all clear why, however. Space debris impacts would not make it re-enter early, certainly as the station appears to be still quite intact. From its current orbit with no orbit boosts, I calculate it would take Tiangong at least five months to come down to re-entry altitudes, not a mere few hours. Tiangong in the movie is much larger (and hence experiencing more drag) than the real Tiangong currently is, but still: it would take weeks to months to come down, not hours.

On another note, I doubt that the Shenzou reentry vehicle would have survived the kind of violent tumbling that the Shenzou displays at the start of the re-entry, already sporting prominent plasma phenomena. In this stage of the re-entry descent, it would have probably not been nice on the physiology of Bullock either.

After Bullock has landed in the lake and emerged from the sinking landing module on the lake surface, re-entering space debris appears in the sky. I assume this is meant to be the final demise of Tiangong. In reality, given the amount of time it takes the landing capsule to re-enter (during which it decellerates) and parachute down, any debris of Tiangong would already have decayed many minutes before.

 - Being peppered by space debris: I found it odd that in both ISS and Tiangong, as well as the Soyuz and Shenzou, the Space Stations and spacecraft were still pressurized despite having been peppered by space debris. One would expect damage, punctures, and hence loss of pressure, certainly given what happened to the much smaller Shuttle earlier. If I was Bullock, I would have kept a pressure suit on at all times. In fact, situations like this require that and I strongly doubt a trained astronaut would strip off her suit under these circumstances.

- I found it unrealistic that Kowalski (Clooney) would not know where his team member Ryan (Bullock) would live, nor that he would not know whether she was married or not. It is not that they would not have met, extensively trained together etcetera before the start of this mission. Astronauts, certainly those on the same mission team, would generally know each other’s personal life quite well.

- Why did Clooney let go? Phil Plait also remarked on this. Once the parachute ropes captured Bullock and Clooney tethered to her, there would have been no clear pull on the pair anymore. Clooney didn’t need to let go and die! And again: Bullock could in theory have used the Soyuz to fetch him.

- The fire in the ISS: With a fire of that magnitude, I would expect oxygen to get depleted very quickly. Bullock would have asphyxiated.


Concluding remarks

So far my science takedown. Now, does this all mean that the movie is rubbish? No, not at all: as I already mentioned, one of the very cool things about this movie is actually how much (compared to many other disaster and space-themed movies) it gets right, certainly in the details of the Space hardware.

This is a movie, and movies sometimes take shortcuts with reality. It is fiction, after all. In other space-themed movies, the science is usually much worse than it is in this movie. Violating the rules of orbital mechanics is a common theme in SciFi movies, where movies like Star Wars are much worse offenders than Gravity is.

In the end, the thruth is that the makers of Gravity have managed to produce a movie that is grabbing your attention from start to end, with visualizations that, if not always scientifically adequate, nevertheless appear superbly realistic to the eye in the way they are graphically visualized. Only a Sheldon Cooper would not appreciate this and focus on the scientific inadequacies only.

So my advise: just go and see and enjoy it. You won’t regret it!

(Note added later: ESA astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti has a Google+ post with more scientific and engineering inaccuracies in the movie here (pt. 1) and here (pt. 2), worth a read)

A short update on GOCE, five days after engine cut-off

It is now five days ago that the ion engine of GOCE, the European Space Agency's 1-tonne Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer scientific satellite (2009-013A), cut off after the satellite ran out of fuel. Originally orbiting at an average orbital altitude of 227.5 km, it is since coming down (see earlier post here). The diagrams below provide an update on the evolution of the orbit's apogee, perigee and Mean Motion (see also earlier post here for explanations) .

 click diagrams to enlarge

As I write this, the average orbital altitude has dropped over 8 km already since the ion engine shut down on October 21st. Yesterday afternoon (25 October) the average orbital altitude had already dropped below 220 km altitude, with the perigee now below 217 km (see first diagram above).

GOCE is currently losing altitude at a rate near 2 km per day. That rate will notably increase over the coming days, as GOCE will drop faster and faster.

It is too early yet to provide meaningful estimates of the re-entry date. My current prognosis (for which I used Alan Pickup's SatAna and SatEvo software) suggests a re-entry in the second week of November, but note that this date will probably shift to an earlier date over the coming week.

Currently, the satellite is still maintaining an attitude (orientation) that is optimizing for low drag. It does so using magnetic torques. At some point close to re-entry, that system will probably fail and GOCE will then lose attitude control. As it does so, drag will increase, which will seriously influence the re-entry date, shifting it to an earlier time. Meanwhile, the sun has been quite active the last few days, which speeds up the decay as well as the density of the Earth's outer atmosphere changes under the influence of solar activity. My very preliminary prognosis was made with an average forecast F10.7 cm solar flux of Fx=135 for the coming 20 days, but unexpected solar outbursts might alter the true picture.

I expect that several sources will start to provide re-entry estimates in the days before re-entry. The chief authoritive sources will be ESA itself, and the TIP-messages by USSTRATCOM on their  Space-Track portal (needs an account to access).  I expect that several independent analysts will provide re-entry estimates as well. The Aerospace Corporation provides re-entry estimates based on their own re-entry models, but is usually lagging behind. Their predictions sometimes strongly differ (up to several hours) from the final re-entry times and locations determined by USSTRATCOM (which I consider to be a more reliable and authoritive source).


(note: in the first diagram above, the values for perigee and apogee show some short-term fluctuation during the first 2-3 days after engine cut-off. These fluctuations are the result of errors in the orbit determinations, which easily occur (and are inevitable) when the data-arc used is still short and fitting error margins are hence wide. As the observational arc grows, the orbital determinations become more stable, which is indeed what we see over the last two days.
The apogee and perigee altitudes in the first diagram have been calculated from the values for Mean Motion and eccentricity using a fixed Earth radius of 6378 km, ignoring Earth's oblateness. Orbital elements are from USSTRATCOM (needs an account to access) with a secondary source (open access) here).

Note 31 Oct 2013: a new update here.

[Updated diagrams] GOCE is falling!

[diagrams updated 23 Oct 2013, 9:15 UT] 

GOCE, The European Space Agency's 1-tonne slick Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer scientific satellite (2009-013A), is now truely coming down.

During the night of October 17-18, fuel reserves became so low that the pressure in GOCE's ion engine fuel system dropped below a critical 2.5 bar.  Next, between October 21.12 and 21.54, the ion engine stopped functioning, and as a result GOCE is now clearly losing altitude.

click diagrams [updated 23 Oct 9:15 UT]  to enlarge 

The first orbital determinations after the engine cut-off on October 21 are still inaccurate and as a result they are fluctuating, as the observational arc is still very short. But in the diagrams above, it can be clearly seen that the Mean Motion (the number of orbital revolutions per day that the satellite makes, i.e. how many times it circles the earth each day) jumps to much higher values. More orbital revolutions per day means that the orbit is getting smaller. The orbit getting smaller means the satellite is coming down.

This can be seen in the second diagram too. The apogee (the highest point in GOCE's slightly elliptical orbit) is steadily coming down since yesterday. The perigee (the lowest point in GOCE's slightly elliptical orbit) is dropping too.

GOCE's ion engine, when still working, provided a force countering the drag that the satellite experienced from the outer layers of the atmosphere in its low ~225 km orbit. As a result the drag parameter Bstar fluctuated around zero. When the ion engine cut out, the satellite suddenly experienced the full force of atmospheric drag. This can be seen in the lowermost diagram, which shows that the drag parameter Bstar made a strong jump to high positive values. The drag slows down the satellite, and as a result it drops in orbital altitude.

Over the coming days GOCE will rapidly lose altitude. So shortly after ion engine cut-off it is still too early to provide an accurate prediction about when it will truely re-enter and largely burn up: but as a ballpark figure this will happen somewhere between 2 to 3 weeks from now, somewhere during the first two weeks of November. In the days before re-entry, I will update re-entry forecasts on this blog.

Most of GOCE's one-tonne mass will burn up on re-entry, but some 250 kg (in many small fragments) might survive re-entry. At this point, it is still impossible to predict where (and when) these fragments may come down as that is dependant on many contributing factors, some of which are difficult to predict (e.g. the effect of fluctuating solar activity on the density gradient of the atmosphere). It will only be possible to predict this with some confidence in the final hours directly before re-entry.

Although the satellite is now without propulsion, its scientific sensors are still working. GOCE will continue to gather important scientific data on the Earth's gravity field until very shortly before its final demise.

The satellite controllers at ESOC have told me they have put the satellite in Fine Pointing Mode: a series of magnetic torques which react to the Earth's magnetic field keep the satellite stable in attitude (orientation), preventing it from tumbling, even though it has lost propulsion.

Since 2009, the GOCE satellite has gathered highly detailed data on the Earth's gravitational field and ocean surface heights.

Note: the apogee and perigee altitudes in the 2nd diagram were calculated with a fixed Earth radius of 6378 km, ignoring Earth oblateness

My last view of GOCE, an image taken on 29 September 2013 during a twilight pass over Leiden (click image to enlarge)

Past and future of the KH-11 Keyhole/Evolved Enhanced CRYSTAL constellation (part 4)

In a number of previous posts from the last month (this one being the most pertinent one), I probed the changes to the KH-11 Keyhole/CRYSTAL optical reconnaissance satellite constellation over the past 8 years, aiming to predict what will happen now USA 245  has been added to the constellation on 28 August 2013 (launch NROL-65).

The previous analysis was focussed on the orbital planes of the satellites. In this fourth post in this series, I will take a look at other orbital parameters, such as apogee and perigee heights, eccentricity and mean motion.

West plane KeyHole/CRYSTAL satellites:

 USA 129: launched in 1996,
now in secondary West plane, 
probably soon to be de-orbited?

(imaged 28 Sep 2013)

 USA 186: launched in 2005,
soon to switch from primary West plane to 
secondary West plane?

(imaged  5 October 2013)

USA 245: launched 28 August 2013
into the primary West plane

(imaged 5 October 2013)

Let me first briefly summarize the previous analysis. In these I showed that the KH-11 constellation consists of two primary orbital planes separated by 48-50 degrees in RAAN. In addition, each primary orbital plane has an accompanying secondary orbital plane, 10 degrees more west for the West plane and 20 degrees more East for the East plane.

Satellites are initially launched into one of the primary planes, in their primary mission: after a couple of years, and after a replacement has been launched into the same orbital plane, they shift to the accompanying secondary plane, going from primary mission into secondary extended mission.

For example, USA 129 did this in 2006 after the launch of USA 186; and USA 161 did this in 2011 after the launch of USA 224. I pointed out that I expect USA 186 to do the same early 2014 following the recent launch of USA 245 into the West plane. I also expect USA 129 to be de-orbitted.

The graphic summaries given in that previous post, were these two images (see previous post for discussions):

Shifting from primary to secondary orbital planes is however not the only thing that happens. When we look at various orbital parameters, we can see other, accompanying patterns, notably in the apogee and perigee heights:

(click diagrams to enlarge)

(note: all the orbital parameters used in the diagrams above have been determined by Mike McCants from amateur observations, including mine).


New plane, lower apogee altitudes, and more circular orbit

For example: in the previous post on this topic it was discussed how USA 161 (2001-044A) in the East plane manoeuvred from the primary East plane to the secondary East plane late 2011 by changing its RAAN by 20 degrees (i.e., by rotating its line of apsides). This followed the launch of USA 224 (2011-002A) into the primary East plane, as a replacement for USA 161.

In the diagrams above, we can see that other orbital changes took effect as a result of the same series of manoeuvres. In addition to its orbital plane, USA 161 (blue dots in the diagrams) also changed its orbital eccentricity and its apogee and perigee heights. The apogee height was significantly lowered (which initially confused analysts at the time), from about 960 km to eventually about 390 km altitude. The perigee height was raised somewhat, from 310 km to 390 km altitude. The result is a much more circular orbit.

The inclination of the orbit was also changed, by about one degree. The reason for this can be seen in the lowermost diagram: with the changes in apogee and perigee altitudes, the orbital inclination had to be changed to make the resulting orbit sun-synchronous again.

In all, although much of this was accomplished within 6 months after the massive manoeuvre of late August 2011, it took USA 161 about a year to settle in its new orbit.


A repeat of an earlier case

Earlier, in 2006-2007, changes in the orbit of USA 129 (1996-072A) in the West plane can be seen to follow a somewhat similar pattern.

After the launch of USA 186 (2005-042A) into the primary West plane in 2005, USA 129, by that time already 10 years old and hence quite of age, moved to the secondary West plane by changing its RAAN by 10 degrees. Accompanying this move, is a change in perigee and apogee altitudes. The perigee is gently raised from about 280 km to eventually 310 km altitude. The apogee is lowered from about 1020-1030 km to eventually about 770 km altitude. The orbit becomes much more circular as a result.

With USA 129, this process took much longer than with USA 161 and the changes are less drastic. Yet the ideas behind them are clearly similar to what USA 161 did five years later: change orbital plane from primary to secondary plane, lower apogee significantly, raise perigee gently, and circularize the orbit (although not to the degree like USA 161 later did).

The more gentle approach taken by USA 129 in 2006-2007 compared to USA 161 in 2011-2012 might implicate either of these two scenarios:

(a) USA 129 had less fuel reserves left in 2006 than USA 161 had in 2011;

... or (and I prefer this explanation):

(b) it was anticipated in 2006 that the lifetime of  USA 129 needed to be prolonged untill well after the initial lifetime estimates, putting restrictions on fuel use for manoeuvres.

Remember: this is around the time the KH-11/CRYSTAL follow-up program, the FIA Optical program, entered delays and was next cancelled. So option (b) could well be the case.


What to expect?

Based on these past patterns, I expect USA 186 to do the following things by means of  a series of manoeuvres starting the first months of 2014:

1) change RAAN by 10 degrees (i.e. rotating its line of apsides), moving itself from the primary West plane into the secondary West plane (see previous post here);

2) drastically lower apogee (currently at about 1020 km) to about 390 km altitude;

3) gently raise perigee (currently at 260 km) to about 390 km altitude.;

4) circularize its orbit as a result of (2) and (3);

5) change inclination by about one degree to re-attain sun-synchronicity after the altered apogee and perigee altitudes.

These changes should take a few months and be completed towards the end of 2014. They will likely be initiated by a large manoeuvre early 2014 (in February or March likely).

As mentioned earlier I expect USA 129 to be de-orbited this winter or spring.


Why the apogee and perigee changes?

One question pertaining is: why these changes in perigee and notably apogee? Is a circular ~390 x 390 km orbit easier to maintain? Is there instead some operational reason behind this change in altitudes, in terms of desired track-repeat intervals or equipment performance (e.g. demands of image resolution)? If  so, why are similar changes not made to the orbits of the primary plane objects but only to the secondary plane, extended mission objects? I have no answers, and at best I can speculate from a few ideas I have. That is not for this blog, however.


This post benefitted from discussions with Ted Molczan and Cees Bassa. Interpretations and any errors theirin are mine.

A farewell to GOCE

In the past, I have observed ESA's gravity probe GOCE (2009-013A), the Gravity field and steady state Ocean Circulation Explorer, a number of times (e.g. here, here, here, here and here), usually as a rather faint object producing brighter specular flares near culmination.

 click image to enlarge

This weekend I tried again, spurred to do so by some people at ESA's ESOC in Darmstadt. The reason was that GOCE does not have much lifetime left. It's ion engine will run out of Xenon and cut-off somewhere mid- to end October, and the expectation is that the spacecraft will then re-enter and disintegrate in the atmosphere within 2 to 3 weeks. Some 250 kilo of the one-ton spacecraft might survive re-entry, divided over 50+ fragments.

The Goce orbit already had been brought down in November 2012: its orbital altitude currently is no  more than 225 km. As a result, it currently zips across the sky at high speed. Because of the low altitude, it is visible in twilight or very shortly after twilight only.

The image above shows GOCE over the roof of my home in Leiden center in deep evening twilight of  Sunday 29 September. It was visible with the naked eye, but only barely.

The image was shot with an EF 2.0/35mm lens and because of the bright twilight sky I used a short exposure of 2.5 seconds. The elevation of the spacecraft was around 40 degrees, passing east of me. The sky background shows stars in Andromeda: about halfway of the chimney and the GOCE trail you can see the fuzzy glow of M31, the Andromeda nebula.

I had also tried to image the spacecraft the evening before (Saturday the 28th), but Murphy struck. I was a bit late in checking for passes that day (in twilight already) and discovered that the only visible pass would happen within minutes of me checking for passes! So I ran outside, grabbed the camera, slammed it on the tripod, aimed it...and forgot to take off the lens-cap....

That particular pass, in a somewhat darker late-twilight sky and at a higher elevation through Cygnus, was a nice one, where GOCE was clearly visible to the naked eye. GOCE was racing through the sky, about the fastest you will ever see a satellite move in the sky. Quite apt for "the Ferrari among the satellites"!

This might have been my last view of GOCE ever: over the coming days the passes will become increasingly more unfavourable for my location.

It will be interesting to follow the satellite to decay once its engine has cut off. The ESOC people told me they will try to put it in a fine-pointing mode just before it does so, but there is a possibility that at one point it will lose attitude and will start tumbling.

ISS and Cygnus

On September 18, Orbital Science Corporation launched an Antares rocket from Wallops, with the Cygnus COTS demo as payload. Just like SpaceX-es Dragon, the Cygnus is a commercial cargoship built to bring cargo to the ISS as part of  the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) initiative. The September 28 launch is the inaugural demonstration flight of the Cygnus.

Initially Cygnus was to dock with the ISS on September 22nd, but a communication problem between the ISS and the Cygnus board computer caused a delay. Next the launch and docking of Soyuz TMA-10M bringing a new astronaut crew to the ISS on September 25 intervened, with the result that the Cygnus docking was rescheduled for September 29th.

click image to enlarge

In the early morning of September 29th, around 4:01 UT (6:01 am local time), ISS and the Cygnus COTS demo cargoship made a 40-degree pass in the southern sky as seen from Leiden. I had no idea how close the pair would be before actually observing the pass. It turned out to be close, the two spacecraft passing some 15 seconds after each other. The ISS was leading, Cygnus following.

Shortly after emerging from eclipse, the Cygnus was reasonably bright (mag. +3) and visible by the naked eye. But it quickly lost brightness, and by the time the pair entered the FOV of my camera, which I had aimed at Orion, Cygnus was no longer visible to the naked eye.

As a result, the image above (taken with an EF 2.0/35mm lens) is not the best: I had to pull a full suite of post-edit tricks to make the very faint trail of the Cygnus stand out a bit better. The image shows the pair traversing the area of Orion's belt and the Orion nebula.

Hanging out with Astronauts: ESA/DLR's SocialSpace Cologne, 22 September 2013

(note: click the images with this post to get larger versions)

It can be safely said that unless you work in the space industry, you won't meet an astronaut very often. So you can perhaps imagine how exciting it is to the average space buff like me, to meet seven of them in one day!

Now hold that thought, and imagine how surreal the moment becomes when an astronaut (Léopold Eyharts, pictured below) is sitting at your table, in the chair right next to you, casually discussing the merits of the Soyuz versus the Space Shuttle in the same way that others compare a Volkswagen to a Prius...

Astronaut Léopold Eyharts sitting next to me at SocialSpace Cologne, discussing the merits of Soyuz versus Shuttle

That certainly is not your average Sunday afternoon....

The scene I describe happened in the afternoon of  Sunday 22 September at the SocialSpace Cologne meeting organized by the European Space Agency ESA and the German Aerospace organisation DLR.  The meeting took place at the DLR complex near Cologne, Germany.

SocialSpace is ESA's new name for a Space Tweetup, the new name reflecting that they seek an audience from a wider scope of their social media followers than just Twitter.

Until a year ago, when I attended my first, the 'tweetup' phenomena was completely unknown to me. Readers of my report on the May 2012 AndréTweetup at ESTEC will remember how I was unsure what to expect, half of me fearing that I would be confronted with 70 Sheldon Coopers plus a handful of Wolowitzes, dressed up in trekkie costumes...

(incidentally, there was a trekkie among the SocialSpace attendants this time, dressed up as Mrs Spock. Yes, Mrs Spock...: in stockings, and complete with pointy ears).

In reality, these tweetups turn out to be interesting and fun, the people involved generally quite sane and very nice, and an occasion where you make new friends. Some of these I now met again, in the context of this SocialSpace Cologne event, and I discovered that this proces of meeting attendants you know from a previous tweetup, together with the fact that you make a bunch of new like-minded acquaintances, is an important part of the social process of this kind of meetings. For example, I met Eico and Alex Neumann again (@Travelholic and @4tuneQkie on Twitter), even though they did not participate in the actual tweetup SocialSpace this time. They were however present at the informal social gathering at Brauhaus Sion the evening before the event.

SpaceKoelschX the evening before SocialSpace: 40 Space tweeps, beer and schnitzels

This unofficial pre-gathering called SpaceKoelschX consisted of some 40 people gathering for Kölsch (local beer), schnitzel, bratwurst, bratkartoffeln and a general swell time on the evening before the SocialSpace event. Most of them were SocialSpace attendants, and some of the ESA social media people were there as well. But the group also included people from previous tweetups that were not selected to attend this time, but came to Cologne on their own volition to visit the German Aerospace Day, a huge event which attracts about 100 000 visitors.

The ESA/DLR SocialSpace event itself took place the next day in a large tent on the vast DLR grounds bordering the airfield near Cologne, in the context of the already mentioned bi-annual German Aerospace Day.

two fish-eye views into the SocialSpace tent

The 60 attendants were selected from a large group of active social media followers who applied to a call spread through the ESA/DLR social media accounts (i.e., Twitter and Facebook). These lucky ones selected, including yours truely, got treated to a special program of lectures, a VIP tour through the DLR and ESA facilities, as well as a meet-and-greet with a whole bunch of astronauts.

And when I say "a whole bunch", I truely mean: a whole bunch. At a certain moment our SocialSpace tent on the DLR grounds started to teem with blue flight suits, to the point where I started to mutter: "we must find the nest and destroy the eggs!".

The image below shows you, from left to right: Reinhold Ewald, Thomas Pesquet, André Kuipers, Alexander Gerst, Frank de Winne, Léopold Eyharts and Andreas Mogensen:

Part of the tweetup SocialSpace tradition seems to be the presence of a number of mascots. I have covered Hugh the bear before in my report on a previous tweetup: present this time were a host of other mascottes, ranging from a Space Barbie to a Pink Little Dragon to Camilla the Space chicken. I must admit, this is a part of the Space tweetup SocialSpace folklore that I still have to get used to...

Me posing with Pink Little Dragon and Camilla the Space chicken

@projmgr and Space Barbie

@4tuneQkie with Camilla the Space Chicken and Pink Little Dragon during the SpaceKoelschX

ESA's Daniel Scuka (right) and another ESA employee who's name I do not know DLR's Elke Heinemann with Paxi, ESA's kids mascott. A life-sized version of Paxi visited us later.

While this all might make an impression of Space oddities, there was serious business as well. We got treated to a fine series of lectures that day by several ESA and DLR scientists, astronauts and a test pilot.

After we were picked up at Porz-Wahn station and brought to the venue by bus, the traditional handing out of badges, T-shirts and goody bags took place. After brief general introductions by the organizing team of ESA and DLR, we all shortly introduced ourselves. One of the nice things of large ESA tweetups like this is the very international vibe. The attendants to this SocialSpace came from all over Europe and even beyond, including the US and Canada.

Next we all set up shop with our laptops and other devices, from which we started to Live tweet the event. After all, it is a tweetup, n'est ce pas? We did it so well that #SocialSpace became a trending topic for a while. Two of the attendants even established a live webcast of the event.

The series of lectures started with ESA's Robert Meissner lecturing about the use of satellites for remote sensing. Apart from breathtaking satellite imagery, his lecture provided a good overview of the kind of remote sensing observations satellites can perform, and their practical application. Keeping an eye on crop production and soil and biomass degradation are important applications, for example.

Apart from modern imagery and their application, Meissner also showed us the very grainy first image of earth ever taken by a satellite, over 50 years ago. With a jump to the future, he announced that the GMES/Copernicus data, an ambitious Remote Sensing program by ESA, will be Open Access.

Sometimes satellite images contain baffling things. In the image above, Meissner shows us a giant geoglyph of the Egyptian god Horus that is visible on satellite images of an area in the interior of Australia. It was probably created as a joke by the Oz Army Corps.

The next lecture by Jens Danzeglocke connected to the previous lecture by taking a detailed look at the role European spacecraft (amongst others) play in disaster crisis management. The information exchange network the spacecraft play a role in, helps local authorities to quickly assess damage from natural disasters and coordinate disaster relief efforts based on these results. Most of these activities (about half of them) concern flood disasters, and Danzeglocke told us that radar satellites play an important role in these, as flooding disasters tend to be accompanied by cloud cover. The international Space charter the European space agencies take part in covered over 400 disasters in 110 countries since  2000.

Next another Jens, biologist Jens Hauslagen, lectured about "food in space". This was an interesting lecture about research into the useful application of waste recycling for crop growing in a closed system (e.g. a Space Station). Did you know that one human produces 10 kg of urea, 110 kg of 'organic waste' (that is: poo) and 100 kg of left-over food each year? In a closed system, these have to be recycled, and Hauslagen works on a series of very intricate ways to do this, including all kinds of filters but also small bio-organisms and even fish. Not only does this reduce waste: by recycling it enables the growth of food in long duration missions. His work has a down-to-earth application too: for example, there is a Maroccan town that recycles leftover waste from its fruit- and vegetable markets with techniques developed by Hauslagen and his team.

DLR test pilot Steffen Gemsa

The next speaker was DLR test pilot Steffen Gemsa. This is one of the pilots who took off in a research aircraft to fly into the volcanic ash cloud during the April 2010 Icelandic volcano crisis. Yes, you read that right: all over Europe aircraft were grounded, and this guy deliberately flew into the ash cloud. It's part of his job, that also includes testing aircraft under specific conditions, and conducting research flights with scientific equipment. It was an interesting lecture, as a result of which I learned the interesting bit of trivia that there are only five (5) test pilot schools worldwide.

Following Gemsa, Manuel Mezt and Holger Krag of ESA and DLR talked us up to date on all matters concerning Space Debris, ways to detect them and ways to mitigate the dangers of them. This included some results of simulations, and visualizations of all space debris in orbit around the Earth. Which is 93% of all objects currently in orbit.

Manuel Metz visualizing all object in orbit

Krag told us that every day some satellites are hit by (very) small particles of space debris smaller than 0.1 mm. The number of particles has dramatically grown over the past years due to a Chinese ASAT test in 2007 and a collision between an old Russian rocket booster and the Iridium 33 satellite in 2010. Krag made clear that if we continue this way, spaceflight will soon become impossible. Hence, measures are necessary to reduce the amount of space debris.

One way to reduce space debris is by making objects decay faster. This can be done for example by fitting spent rocket boosters and decommissioned satellites with solar sails. These sails increase drag, reducing on-orbit lifetimes.

 Krag: fitting satellites with solar sails after decommision will speed up their decay

Incidentally, Dutch astronaut (ehrm, pardon: European astronaut of Dutch origin) André Kuipers would later tell us about his experience with space debris too: during his stay on the ISS in 2012, they had to do two diversion manoeuvres plus a retreat into the Soyuz capsule because of close encounters with larger space debris.

After I asked a question in the discussion, Manuel Metz came over to me at the start of lunch, and told me he actually reads my blog. Wow!

Lunchtime also served as an hour off to freely roam the DLR grounds. Together with @Susivic I made a short visit to the airfield to see some of the aircraft there, including a Eurofighter:

Eurofighter, the jet our government did not buy

Incidentally, this was also the moment we first glimpsed André Kuipers, whom would later visit us in the tent.

When we came back from our short stroll over the DLR Open Day, DLR chairman and ESA director Jan Wörner and Thomas Reiter briefly took the stage.Whenever you see suits on stage, you know they will talk politics. Space politics in this case, with a brief discussion of future plans and goals. Reiter made the interesting statement that "I can believe we will perhaps see humans return to the surface of the moon in the next decade".

Next came a series of lectures all connected to ESA's Rosetta sampling mission to comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The first lecture, a grand overview of this exciting mission to land on a comet (!), was by project PI Gerhard Schwehm, who was involved when the mission was conceived in 1985 (!) and now will see it completed just before his retirement. In the original plans comet Wirtanen was the target, but when the launch suffered a  delay, comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko was selected.

 Schwehm

After Schwehm, and as an intermezzo, the astronaut and my fellow countryman André Kuipers took the stage, as a replacement for Samantha Cristoforetti who at the last minute could not make it.

I decided that the Geek code in this case as a rare exception does allow for a selfie:

Selfie with astronaut in the background

André told various anecdotes from his PromISSe mission in 2012 (the longest ESA mission onboard the ISS), including the short-circuit in the solar panels, the temporary retreat into the Soyuz because of a dangerously close encounter with a large piece of space debris, and the fact that all three of them threw up after their Soyuz capsule landed in the Kazachstan steppe. He told us astronauts need half a year to recover from a spaceflight and that the bone loss suffered during a long ISS stay might actually never fully recover. The unknown long-term effects of cosmic radiation are also a concern.

Kuipers stated he welcomes commercial spaceflight as long as it is done safely, and he said he believes the SpaceX Dragon will one day fly astronauts.

Kuipers was one of the two astronauts grappling and hooking up the first DragonX capsule to the ISS. Later that day, when the astronauts present intermingled with the SocialSpace attendants, he would tell the story of docking the Dragon in more detail:

St Kuipers, retelling how he slew the SpaceX Dragon in an epic heavenly battle

Stephan Ulamec and Koen Geurts next lectured on details of the Philae lander that is part of the Rosetta mission effort. Ulamec told us that since no-one has ever landed on a comet before and we actually know very little of the make-up of the nucleus of the comet in terms of surface condition and density, it is a very tricky thing to do. Another challenge is the long-term operation of the spacecraft without RTG's to provide energy (Rosetta/Philae has solar panels only).

The lander is actually washmachine sized and the landing will involve a bit of Space Whaling: the probe will fire two harpoons into the cometary nucleaus and rope itself in. Its first act will then be to take a 360 degree panorama to see in what position it landed. Ulamec succinctly summed up the scientific importance of the project by stating: "If you want to get to the pristine material, you will have to land there" (with "there" being the comet, which is made up of pristine materials from the formation of our solar system).

After these highly interesting lectures, it was time for our VIP tour through the EAC facilities. We were divided up in two groups, each of which  was met by an astronaut (in my group's case, Thomas Pesquet) who would act as our guide. Pesquet did not spare us the gory details: at the Neutral Buoyancy Facility, he told us astronauts frequently lose a fingernail while practising in the suit in what I am apparently not allowed to characterize as a giant swimming pool.

Columbus module mock-up in the EAC Neutral Buoyancy Facility

Apart from the Neutral Buoyancy Facility, we also got a quick glance at the only existing life-size mock-up of the ATV, which made me realize how big the ATV's actually are. Next, Pesquet took us to a place rarely visited by outsiders: ESA's  Eurocom control room, where they monitor and control all kinds of European things going on in the International Space Station:

Eurocom

 Thomas Pesquet explaining things in the Eurocom control room to us

Geek humor in Eurocom

After this first truely Close Encounter with an alien astronaut, we went back to the SocialSpace tent where we got a very cool demonstration by ESA's  Advanced Concepts Team, who work on some very geeky stuff. They demonstrated a quadcopter drone controlled by an iPad app, simulating the ISS in a game environment. The app might one day actually help finetuning techniques so drones (or spacecraft) can automatically assess distance.

the drone

Then it was time for more astronauts again. Alexander Gerst who had elsewhere just completed a press conference where he revealed the name of his upcoming ISS mission, Blue Dot, and Thomas Pesquet who earlier was our guide at  the EAC tour, took the stage.

 Thomas Pesquet (left) and Alexander Gerst (right)

They turned out to be a golden comedy duo, with very witty retorts between the two. Thomas Pesquet next asked the audience for suggestions what to do in terms of social media activities when he is in the ISS, "since about everything already has been done by now...". May I suggest a weekly comedy show from space perhaps?

Then the moment came where the tent suddenly started to teem with an overload of astronauts. Seven of them took the stage, and next intermingled with us by sitting down among us at the tables, answering questions and relating experiences. At this point, we had a significant part of the European astronaut corps hanging out with us!

 Léopold Eyharts, who went to MIR in a Soyuz in1998 and to the ISS in a Space Shuttle in 2008, sat down next to me and told us the ride up is better on the Soyuz, but the journey down is much more comfortable on a Shuttle. One of the reasons which he mentioned for that verdict was the constant swinging of the Soyuz capsule under the parachute.

Apart from listening to Léopold Eyharts, I listened to André Kuipers and later had the opportunity (thanks to Suzanne Pieterse (@Susivic), who handled the camera) to have my picture taken with him. He also signed a folder of postcards for me and my SocialSpace badge. Which made me tweet, in a Sheldon Cooper moment: "Now I have his DNA!"

André Kuipers kindly posing with me

signed badge and postcard folder

With this, the day finally ended. Or more or less: there was an informal drink afterwards, which saw more opportunity to talk to astronauts, various ESA people and other attendants.

ESA's Social Media guy, Daniel Scuka, talking to two attendants

Around 18:45 I left for the station for the ICE journey back, but not after grabbing a quick bite with Lynn van Rooijen (@lynnvr) at the trainstation. I was knackered when I arrived home, well after midnight: but it had been worth it. This was a cool day with an overload of astronauts, a highly interesting lecture program, and lots of very nice people. I would not have wanted to miss it!

I warmly want to thank the ESA/DLR organizers, and specifically Daniel Scuka, for inviting me to this wonderful day and all the good care they took of us.


(Note: photographs with this report were taken with two cameras: my Canon, and a rather old and decidedly less quality iPhone. So apologies for the bad quality of some of them)