The day NASA's Fermi dodged a 1.5-ton bullet (w/ video)

May 01, 2013 by Francis Reddy
Credit: NASA

(Phys.org) —NASA scientists don't often learn that their spacecraft is at risk of crashing into another satellite. But when Julie McEnery, the project scientist for NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, checked her email on March 29, 2012, she found herself facing this precise situation.

While Fermi is in fine shape today, continuing its mission to map the highest-energy light in the universe, the story of how it sidestepped a potential disaster offers a glimpse at an underappreciated aspect of managing a : orbital traffic control.

As McEnery worked through her inbox, an automatically generated report arrived from NASA's Robotic Conjunction Assessment (CARA) team based at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. On scanning the document, she discovered that Fermi was just one week away from an unusually close encounter with Cosmos 1805, a defunct dating back to the Cold War.

The two objects, speeding around Earth at thousands of miles an hour in nearly perpendicular orbits, were expected to miss each other by a mere 700 feet.

"My immediate reaction was, 'Whoa, this is different from anything we've seen before!'" McEnery recalled.

Although the forecast indicated a close call, have learned the hard way that they can't be too careful. The uncertainties in predicting spacecraft positions a week into the future can be much larger than the distances forecast for their closest approach.

This was most dramatically demonstrated on Feb. 10, 2009, when a study revealed that Cosmos 2251, a dead Russian communications satellite, would pass about 1,900 feet from the functioning Iridium 33 communications satellite later in the day. At the predicted time of closest approach, all contact with Iridium 33 was lost. Radar revealed clouds of debris traveling along the orbits of both spacecraft, confirming the first known satellite-to-satellite collision.

That crash generated thousands of fragments large enough to be tracked and many smaller pieces that evade detection. Much of the wreckage remains a hazard to operating spacecraft because only about 20 percent of the trackable pieces have reentered the atmosphere.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
On March 29, 2012, the science team for NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope learned that a defunct Cold-War spy satellite would pass too close for comfort on April 4. The two spacecraft were expected to occupy the same point in space within 30 milliseconds of each other, which meant that Fermi had to get out of the way. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

With a speed relative to Fermi of 27,000 mph, a direct hit by the 3,100-pound Cosmos 1805 would release as much energy as two and a half tons of high explosives, destroying both spacecraft.

Despite the apparent crowding in Earth orbit, there's usually a vast amount of space between individual objects. Close approaches—also known as conjunctions—with fragments, rocket bodies and active payloads remain infrequent events. Moreover, few of the potential conjunctions identified a week into the future will actually materialize.

"It's similar to forecasting rain at a specific time and place a week in advance," said Goddard's Eric Stoneking, the attitude control lead engineer for Fermi. "As the date approaches, uncertainties in the prediction decrease and the initial picture may change dramatically."

Twice before, the Fermi team had been alerted to potential conjunctions, and on both occasions the threats evaporated. It was possible the Cosmos 1805 encounter would vanish as well, and the spacecraft's observations could continue without interruption.

But the update on Friday, March 30, indicated otherwise. The satellites would occupy the same point in space within 30 milliseconds of each other.

"It was clear we had to be ready to move Fermi out of the way, and that's when I alerted our Flight Dynamics Team that we were planning a maneuver," McEnery said.

The only way to accomplish this was by firing thrusters designed to ensure that Fermi would never pose a threat to another satellite. Intended for use at the end of Fermi's operating life, the thrusters were designed to take it out of orbit and allow it burn up in the atmosphere.

Because a failure of this system, such as a propellant leak or an explosion, could have ended Fermi's mission prematurely, the thrusters had never been tested, adding a new source of anxiety for McEnery.

"You can't help but be nervous thinking about highly flammable fluids heading down pipes they'd never flowed down before," she said. "But having done this, we now know the system works as designed, and it gives us confidence should we need to maneuver again in the future."

The Goddard CARA team determined how big a push Fermi would need to mitigate the threat. Working with the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, CARA scientists also checked that the projected new orbit wouldn't put Fermi on course for a conjunction with another object. The Flight Operations Team selected possible times for the primary maneuver and, just in case, up to three additional ones.

Over the weekend, the radar and optical sensors of the U.S. Space Surveillance Network continued keeping tabs on Cosmos 1805 and every other artificial object larger than 4 inches across in Earth . Of the 17,000 objects currently tracked, only about 7 percent are active satellites.

Once each day, JSpOC analyzes the updated orbits, looks for possible conjunctions a week or more into the future, and notifies the Goddard CARA team of any events involving NASA's robotic missions. Another group at NASA's Johnson Space Flight Center in Houston performs the same function for all spacecraft carrying astronauts, including the International Space Station.

By Tuesday, April 3, the threat still had not receded and all plans were in place for firing Fermi's thrusters.

Shortly after noon EDT, the spacecraft stopped scanning the sky and oriented itself along its direction of travel. It then parked its solar panels and tucked away its high-gain antenna to protect them from the thruster exhaust.

"The maneuver, which was performed by the spacecraft itself based on procedures we developed a long time ago, was very simple, just firing all thrusters for one second," Stoneking explained. "There was a lot of suspense and tension leading up to it, but once it was over, we just sighed with relief that it all went well."

By 1 p.m., Fermi was back to doing science. A few hours later, the various teams met to evaluate the results of the maneuver and determine if another would be required. When the two spacecraft reached their long-awaited conjunction the following day, they would miss by a comfortable margin of 6 miles, with no further actions needed.

"A huge weight was lifted," McEnery said. "I felt like I'd lost 20 pounds."

Last year, the Goddard CARA team participated in collision-avoidance maneuvers for seven other missions. A month before the conjunction came to light, Landsat 7 dodged pieces of Fengyun-1C, a Chinese weather satellite deliberately destroyed in 2007 as part of a military test. And in May and October, respectively, NASA's Aura and CALIPSO Earth-observing satellites took steps to avoid fragments from Cosmos 2251.

Explore further: SDO captures images of two mid-level flares

Related Stories

Sophisticated weather satellite rockets into orbit

Jun 28, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The latest Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite, GOES-O, soared into space today after a successful launch from Space Launch Complex 37 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station ...

Space debris a growing problem

Jun 28, 2011

A scare triggered by orbital debris that on Tuesday came within a couple of hundred metres (yards) of the International Space Station (ISS) sheds light on an acutely worsening problem. ...

GOES-O satellite reaches orbit, renamed GOES-14

Jul 10, 2009

On June 27, 2009, the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite, GOES-O, soared into space during a spectacular launch from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. GOES-O has now been renamed ...

Recommended for you

SDO captures images of two mid-level flares

Dec 19, 2014

The sun emitted a mid-level flare on Dec. 18, 2014, at 4:58 p.m. EST. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, which watches the sun constantly, captured an image of the event. Solar flares are powerful bursts ...

Why is Venus so horrible?

Dec 19, 2014

Venus sucks. Seriously, it's the worst. The global temperature is as hot as an oven, the atmospheric pressure is 90 times Earth, and it rains sulfuric acid. Every part of the surface of Venus would kill you ...

Image: Christmas wrapping the Sentinel-3A antenna

Dec 19, 2014

The moment a team of technicians, gowned like hospital surgeons, wraps the Sentinel-3A radar altimeter in multilayer insulation to protect it from the temperature extremes found in Earth orbit.

Video: Flying over Becquerel

Dec 19, 2014

This latest release from the camera on ESA's Mars Express is a simulated flight over the Becquerel crater, showing large-scale deposits of sedimentary material.

Spinning up a dust devil on Mars

Dec 19, 2014

Spinning up a dust devil in the thin air of Mars requires a stronger updraft than is needed to create a similar vortex on Earth, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JustChris
not rated yet May 01, 2013
"We had to find which of the disasters is worse: using the propulsion system or the collision."
I don't see why using the propulsion subsystem is a disaster! It was designed to operate. If the fuel tanks aren't empty, and the the primary or redundant latch valve work, along with the manual thruster firing procedure, why would that ever be a disaster?!
Not to mention that this procedure has been most likely tested a tremendous amount of times during "Day in the Life" simulations in the operations center and, more importantly, during the design of the procedures both by the manufacturer and the operator.

Seems to me like they tried to make a big deal out of something which was tested, retested (and probably flight proven on previous buses). To me, it's like saying "OMG I'm going to use my car brakes for the first time to avoid a collision with this lamp post."
barakn
4 / 5 (3) May 01, 2013
The collision wasn't certain. Keep in mind that the updated forecast was for them being at the same spot within 30 milliseconds at a relative velocity of 27,000 mph, which works out to a distance of 1188 feet. What should have been stated was they had to weigh the probability of a collision versus the probabilities of:
1. The propulsion system blowing up
2. A bad burn placing it in the wrong orbit
3. Problems with the solar panel or high-gain antenna parking making them undeployable afterwards
4. reduced fuel preventing it from dodging danger in the future or into a parking orbit at end-of-life
5. Acceleration or vibration damaging internal mechanisms or circuits.
6. Acceleration or vibration loosening external debris that contaminates sensors.
7. Rocket exhaust contaminating sensors.
8. Other stuff I haven't even considered.
It's not nearly as easy a decision as you make it out to be.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2013
To me, it's like saying "OMG I'm going to use my car brakes for the first time to avoid a collision with this lamp post."


Think of using a parachute that was put together by hand, by a bunch of different people that you don't know, then stored in a closet that is exposed to micrometeorites for a while. So if you think the plane might crash, you must decide whether to use it or not. There's no way to just use it a little and see if it works; it's all or nothing.
baudrunner
2 / 5 (5) May 01, 2013
Both Barkan and JustChris misunderstood the comment. She was saying that, based on their previous experience, the precision of their calculations was such that in firing their thrusters, they could actually cause their satellite to collide with the other. The author's words on reliability of the equipment were probably his/her own words. Reading comprehension not taught well in American schools?
alfie_null
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2013
Both Barkan and JustChris misunderstood the comment. She was saying that, based on their previous experience, the precision of their calculations was such that in firing their thrusters, they could actually cause their satellite to collide with the other. The author's words on reliability of the equipment were probably his/her own words.

Umm - no.

"You can't help but be nervous thinking about highly flammable fluids heading down pipes they'd never flowed down before," she [McEnery] said.

The (re)read the paragraph that follows carefully. Nowhere was the concern that a burn might _cause_ the collision voiced. Merely that a single burn might not be sufficient.

Reading comprehension not taught well in American schools?

I don't know they are from the United States.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.