News DMSP Flight 13 Satellite Explodes in Orbit

[Thunder Chicken]

A Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Block 5D satellite, DMSP 5D-2/F13, exploded in orbit on February 3rd.

http://spacenews.com/20-year-old-military-weather-satellite-apparently-exploded-in-orbit/

It apparently failed around 1715 UTC, which would have put it over the Americas somewhere.

 

[Urwumpe]

It apparently failed around 1715 UTC, which would have put it over the Americas somewhere.

As if that location matters.... how about the Gabbard plot of the debris, how bad is it?

 

[Thunder Chicken]

As if that location matters.... how about the Gabbard plot of the debris, how bad is it?

That location is probably incorrect anyway. Just am curious to know if it was observable.

They are apparently tracking 43 pieces of debris, not sure what spread. Orbit was 835 km by 845 km, 98 degree inclination.

http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.aspx?satid=23533&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT

That might make life on the ISS interesting.

 

[Urwumpe]

That might make life on the ISS interesting.

Depends on the DV relative to the original orbit, that is why I asked for the Gabbard plot... could also be possible that the fragments will need some years before sparsely contributing to the ISS orbit hazards.

 

[Admiral_Ritt]

I had no Idea a "weather" Satellite had so much explosive capacity.
I assume that a substantial portion of the total mass was Binary Hypergolic Fuel?
Is it possible for software to be rewritten to CAUSE such a failure ?
Which reminds me, where is the origin of the hardware components,
I would be worried if it was Taiwan. It would be incomprehensible if it was
from a PRC source.

 

[Urwumpe]

I had no Idea a "weather" Satellite had so much explosive capacity.

Could also just be the batteries, which have also a lot of explosive capacity.

Also fuel tanks of old satellites and rocket stages does not explode because of the remaining fuel inside them, but because the pressurant gas inside got simply heated by sunlight until the pressure inside the tank exceeded the structural limits. Some fuel can also decompose at higher temperatures and contribute to heating and pressure, but that's not needed.

 

[ISProgram]

I had no Idea a "weather" Satellite had so much explosive capacity.
I assume that a substantial portion of the total mass was Binary Hypergolic Fuel?

A similar satellite, DMPS-F11, exploded in April 2004. Suprisingly, it had been passivated and was non-operative. The only source for the energy aboard that caused the event was (just) 6 kg of hydrazine.

It does not take a lot to make a satellite shed chunks. Those things are fragile.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I had no Idea a "weather" Satellite had so much explosive capacity.
I assume that a substantial portion of the total mass was Binary Hypergolic Fuel?
Is it possible for software to be rewritten to CAUSE such a failure ?
Which reminds me, where is the origin of the hardware components,
I would be worried if it was Taiwan. It would be incomprehensible if it was
from a PRC source.

Since it's a DoD bird, I highly doubt it would use foreign components, for exactly that reason.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Could also just be the batteries, which have also a lot of explosive capacity.

Also fuel tanks of old satellites and rocket stages does not explode because of the remaining fuel inside them, but because the pressurant gas inside got simply heated by sunlight until the pressure inside the tank exceeded the structural limits. Some fuel can also decompose at higher temperatures and contribute to heating and pressure, but that's not needed.

Especially since these are solar synchronous satellites. They are exposed to solar radiation all the time so they need to reflect/re-radiate all of that heat, plus any produced by the electronics. If the reflective coverings degrade, things can get dangerously hot very quickly.

 

[Hlynkacg]

A similar satellite, DMPS-F11, exploded in April 2004. Suprisingly, it had been passivated and was non-operative. The only source for the energy aboard that caused the event was (just) 6 kg of hydrazine.

Why do people always ignore the batteries?

An electrical fire/overheat almost always poses a greater risk of explosion than unburned fuel does.

 

[ISProgram]

Why do people always ignore the batteries?

An electrical fire/overheat almost always poses a greater risk of explosion than unburned fuel does.

They weren't ignored. :lol:

Can't find the article to link it like I should've done earlier, but the batteries on F11 WERE discharged; that's why the ONLY source of energy onboard was the residual hydrazine.

I'm more interested in how they determined it was 6 kg of that stuff. Ether they knew beforehand, or they figured out how much was still onboard. The former might mean they left that residual inside the satellite's tank and didn't (or couldn't) vent it.

EDIT: found it.

 

[Messierhunter]

Well, whatever the cause of the explosion, I tracked the main body of the satellite this morning. It appears to be rotating at a cadence of about once every 30 seconds judging by the initial interval of the "satellite flares" in brightness that I observed, so about 12 degrees per second rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBYyTKew1y0

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Well, whatever the cause of the explosion, I tracked the main body of the satellite this morning. It appears to be rotating at a cadence of about once every 30 seconds judging by the initial interval of the "satellite flares" in brightness that I observed, so about 12 degrees per second rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBYyTKew1y0

And folks, *this* is why I come to OrbiterForum for my spaceflight information!

Very cool MessierHunter!

 

[ISProgram]

The investigation is narrowing down the cause of the explosion; it seems likely the battery is the culprit.

 

[boogabooga]

As if that location matters.... how about the Gabbard plot of the debris, how bad is it?

Not so bad.

I gave this a try based on 46 pieces being tracked now and searchable on the Heavens-Above database. This is what I came up with:



Looks like a fairly low energy event with the vast majority of debris staying in a similar orbit as the satellite at just above 800 km.

Here is the Excel file I used to calculate for those interested:

 

[Urwumpe]

Not so bad.

I gave this a try based on 46 pieces being tracked now and searchable on the Heavens-Above database. This is what I came up with:

Yeah, that looks like a rather weak fragmentation event, much different than for example a collision of two satellites or a fuel tank explosion.

 

[boogabooga]

It looks like NOAA 16 has just suffered the same fate:
http://spacenews.com/noaa-weather-satellite-suffers-in-orbit-breakup/

This makes two breakups in less than a year for Lockheed-Martin built weather satellites. NOAA 16 seems to have had the same battery charge assembly as DMSP, so we have a good guess as to the cause.

I hope they fix the design for future satellites.

 

[Andy44]

It looks like NOAA 16 has just suffered the same fate:
http://spacenews.com/noaa-weather-satellite-suffers-in-orbit-breakup/

This makes two breakups in less than a year for Lockheed-Martin built weather satellites. NOAA 16 seems to have had the same battery charge assembly as DMSP, so we have a good guess as to the cause.

I hope they fix the design for future satellites.

I wonder which vendor built the batteries.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

A U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite retired in 2014 has suffered an apparent breakup.

Tough break. It might be more difficult for retired satellites to find the right match, but they definitely should keep looking. It's a quality of life issue.

 

[boogabooga]

Troubles with the DMSP satellites continue:

http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-forces-youngest-dmsp-satellite-has-stopped-obeying-commands/