Stranded ORBCOMM Satellite Re-enters Atmosphere

Comments

Fort Lee, NJ, October 11, 2012 (ORBCOMM PR) – ORBCOMM Inc., a global satellite data communications company focused on two-way Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communications, today announced that the single prototype of its second generation of satellites (OG2), launched as a secondary mission payload on the Cargo Re-Supply Services (CRS-1) mission of October 7, 2012, verified various functionality checkouts prior to its deorbit.

The OG2 prototype was deployed into a lower orbit as the result of a pre-imposed safety check required by NASA. The safety check was designed to protect the International Space Station and its crew. Had ORBCOMM been the primary payload on this mission, as planned for the upcoming launches, we believe the OG2 prototype would have reached the desired orbit.
Notwithstanding the shortened life of the OG2 prototype, the OG2 program engineering teams from ORBCOMM, Sierra Nevada Corporation and Boeing made significant strides in testing various hardware components. After telemetry and command capability was established, several critical system verifications were performed. The solar array and communications payload antenna deployments were successful, along with verifying the performance of various components of both the OG2 satellite bus and the communications payload. The OG2 satellite bus systems including power, attitude control, thermal and data handling were also tested to verify proper operation. The unique communications payload, which incorporates a highly reprogrammable software radio with common hardware for both gateway and subscriber messaging, also functioned as expected.

These verification successes achieved from the single prototype satellite validate that the innovative OG2 satellite technology operates as designed before launching the full constellation of OG2 satellites. With this verification data, ORBCOMM can focus on completing and launching the OG2 satellites as the primary mission payloads on two planned Falcon 9 launches, the first in mid-2013 and the second in 2014, directly into their operational orbit.

“We appreciate the complexity and work that SpaceX put into this launch,” stated Marc Eisenberg, ORBCOMM’s CEO. “SpaceX has been a supportive partner, and we are highly confident in their team and technology.”

The Company has filed a notice of claim under its launch insurance policy for a total loss of the OG2 prototype. The maximum amount covered by the policy is $10 million, which would largely offset the expected cost of the OG2 prototype and associated launch services and launch insurance.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://cosmic.lifeform.org Thomas Lee Elifritz

    Well that, as they say, is that. At least they got something out of the deal. Given this press release, though, it will be interesting to see how the insurance company responds to their claim of complete loss, and it would be interesting to see how exactly the policy was written. With the space station and its ongoing orbital debris problems safety is paramount, I guess, and it sounds to me that they have only minutes to make the call to abort the burn and deploy the craft.

  • http://www.parabolicarc.com Doug Messier

    It’s a sad story. ORBCOMM signed up with SpaceX in September 2009 with the intent of launching 18 of these things gradually on Falcon 1e’s “as early as” fourth quarter 2010 and ending in 2014. Then what happens? No Falcon 1e. Everything gets shifted to the still under development Falcon 9, which has NASA payloads to launch first.

    Three years later, SpaceX launches one satellite that ends up staying in space all of three days. The rest are clustered on Falcon 9s set for launch in 2013 and 2014. And they’ve been sitting in clean rooms for a while taking up space and costing money.

    Instead of being able to gradually upgrade its on-orbit fleet, improve their services, and work out any technical issues, they’ve got to wait years to launch clusters of these things and hope nothing else more serious goes wrong. You lose one satellite on a Falcon 1e or as a secondary payload, you can deal with that loss. Lose 8 or 10 at once on a Falcon 9, that’s going to be a serious problem. For ORBCOMM and SpaceX.

    They’re saying all the right things in the press releases, but I can’t imagine that ORBCOMM is too pleased with how things progressed. They signed up for one thing, got another. I’m hoping they’re getting pretty big discounts from SpaceX for the delays.

    The other thing is that SpaceX has a lot of deposits for launches, but if they have a significant number of failures, then those go away and it becomes harder to sign up new clients. That could cause a serious problem.

  • http:cosmic.lifeform.org Thomas Lee Elifritz

    I still think the Falcon 1e would be a great launcher even without the reusability features, and I wish they hadn’t cancelled it and would consider redoing it. The smaller launcher would be a great gap filler for missions and upsets like this, and would provide a marvelous and vastly cheaper method of testing new concepts.

  • http://www.jabe.com jb

    doug,
    is it the business model of Spacex that is the problem? Being able to launch on same mission to ISS saves tonnes for Spacex..but with the concerns for ISS’s Safety is it a good model? Risk reward issue i guess. Is it worth the cheaper launch for the risk of not being able to do the 2nd burn? Curious how close it would have been to the expected orbit if they did do the burn. if with engine out they still get the satellite to attended orbit all would have been well..
    joys of growing pains i guess.
    jb