The robot NASA hired to lift a orbital telescope is tumbling out of control
NASA has confirmed that a robotic spacecraft hired to raise the ageing Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory to a higher orbit is now tumbling out of control shortly after reaching space. The mission, run by private company Katalyst Space, marked the first time NASA had contracted a commercial firm to boost one of its orbital telescopes to extend its working life, making the malfunction a significant setback for the emerging satellite-servicing industry.
The LINK spacecraft launched on 3 July aboard a Northrop Grumman Pegasus rocket and was undergoing systems checks ahead of a planned rendezvous with Swift, a telescope launched in 2004 that has gradually drifted closer to Earth. Over the weekend it began spinning uncontrollably after two of its three reaction wheels failed alongside problems with a thruster system, hampering communications as its antenna swings away from Earth. Flight controllers are attempting to stabilise the craft using a separate set of thrusters and report early signs of success. Katalyst's chief engineer had previously acknowledged the mission's rushed development was risky, and the company, which raised $12 million in June and has also secured US military funding, now faces the challenge of recovering the spacecraft before Swift's orbit decays further.
- NASA-contracted robot spacecraft is tumbling out of control after launch
- Two of three reaction wheels and a thruster system have failed
- Mission aimed to boost the Swift telescope's orbit; controllers now trying recovery
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of NASA's commercial-partnership approach would argue that fostering a competitive satellite-servicing industry is essential to extending the life of expensive orbital assets at a fraction of the cost of government-built missions, and that early-stage risk is an unavoidable part of pioneering a new capability. They would point out that Katalyst's engineers were transparent about the schedule pressures involved, that flight controllers are already showing early signs of stabilising the craft, and that setbacks in first-of-a-kind missions are how the wider industry learns and matures, much as early rocket reuse and cargo-resupply efforts also suffered initial failures before becoming reliable.
The case against
Sceptics of rushing such contracts would argue that entrusting a scientifically valuable, irreplaceable observatory like Swift to a young, thinly resourced company on a compressed development timeline was an avoidable gamble, especially once the chief engineer himself acknowledged the risks involved. They would contend that NASA has a duty of care over decades of public investment in its space assets, and that when a $12 million-funded start-up's spacecraft loses two of three reaction wheels and thruster control within days of reaching orbit, it raises legitimate questions about whether commercial servicing providers are being held to sufficiently rigorous engineering and testing standards before being trusted with critical missions.