News: 1659544215

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

ESA declares the Sentinel-1B mission over after payload resuscitation ends

(2022/08/03)


ESA has admitted defeat and declared the mission of its Sentinel-1B spacecraft is at an end after attempts to deal with a borked power bus ended in failure.

[1]The issue was an unwelcome Christmas gift from orbit for controllers and resulted in the payload of the Sentinel-1B being inoperative since December 23, 2021.

The Sentinel-1 mission consists of two polar-orbiting satellites which provide continuous radar mapping of the Earth. The constellation was expected to transmit data for at least seven years and had enough fuel onboard for twelve years.

[2]

Sentinel-1A was launched in 2014 and has had an eventful life with debris encounters and the odd swift manoeuvre [3]to dodge space junk . Sentinel-1B went up on a [4]Soyuz in 2016 . Both are part of the Copernicus program.

[5]

[6]

However, the power issue that befell Sentinel-1B left its C-band Synthetic Aperture Radar inoperative, thus somewhat defeating the point of the spacecraft. In an exhaustive [7]anomaly summary report [PDF] , engineers documented efforts to recover the payload (as well as ensuring the same thing would not happen to Sentinel-1A) before the towel was reluctantly thrown in.

As for what caused the issue with the C-SAR Antenna Power Supply (CPAS) 28V regulated bus, "The most probable common cause," wrote ESA, "is the soldering process used to repair a ceramic capacitor on both the main and the redundant CAPS 28V regulator boards."

[8]

That said, without a look at the spacecraft or more telemetry than is available, something else might have happened. Either way, modifications have been made to Sentinel-1C (due for launch on a Vega-C in 2023) and will be implemented on Sentinel-1D to improve robustness and reliability.

[9]SpaceX upgrades Starlink to reflect less light, can't launch without its Starship

[10]CAPSTONE mission is Moon-bound, after less rocketry than expected

[11]SpaceX demonstrates that it too can shower the Earth with debris

[12]Preparing for Skylab: The separate 1972 experimental mission that never left the ground

All of which leaves ESA with a spacecraft that is pretty much fully functional aside from its payload. Though it seems a shame, a safe disposal is the most likely option, once Sentinel-1C is safely in orbit. "Due to manpower operational constraints," explained ESA, "the execution of the Sentinel-1B disposal cannot take place in parallel to the Sentinel-1A operations and to the Sentinel-1C related activities."

One of the engineers responsible for flying the spacecraft told The Register there was a certain inevitability regarding the end of mission after the failure of all the resuscitation attempts. While he noted "it definitely will be disposed because we need to meet our space debris obligations," he added that "some people have already started concocting ideas about what we could do with it."

"The risk is low," he went on, "but there's always the threat of an Enivsat-like catastrophic failure that would limit our ability to deorbit. That would of course expose us to justifiable criticism about why we didn't deorbit the dead spacecraft earlier."

Since the deorbit process will be a lengthy one, there is also the opportunity for some tests "on the way down."

[13]

ESA has a long history of keeping spacecraft going way past their expiration date. However, with the payload of Sentinel-1B declared inoperative the agency is taking a responsible stance regarding disposal and debris. Certain other [14]operators would do well to take note.

We'll leave the last word to engineer Thomas Ormston. ®

Still though…my [15]#Sentinel1 B mood can best be summed up as 🥺: [16]pic.twitter.com/l11rU9SzGw — Thomas Ormston (@ThomasOrmston) [17]August 3, 2022

Get our [18]Tech Resources



[1] https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-1/Mission_ends_for_Copernicus_Sentinel-1B_satellite

[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YurwFbTHWtirb@Gv3EG-lgAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[3] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/04/sentinel_1a/

[4] https://www.theregister.com/2016/04/21/sentinel_1b_launch/

[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YurwFbTHWtirb@Gv3EG-lgAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YurwFbTHWtirb@Gv3EG-lgAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[7] https://sentinel.esa.int/documents/247904/4819394/Sentinel-1B+In-Flight+Anomaly+Summary+Report.pdf

[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YurwFbTHWtirb@Gv3EG-lgAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/01/spacex_satellite_brightness/

[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/05/capstone_orbit_success/

[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/03/spacex_debris/

[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/29/smeat_at_50/

[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YurwFbTHWtirb@Gv3EG-lgAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[14] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/02/china_rocket_splashdown/

[15] https://twitter.com/hashtag/Sentinel1?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[16] https://t.co/l11rU9SzGw

[17] https://twitter.com/ThomasOrmston/status/1554777586768744449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/



Doctor Syntax

The most probable common cause,is the soldering process used to repair a ceramic capacitor on both the main and the redundant CAPS 28V regulator boards."

Repair? They launched a spacecraft with less than pristine components?

Tom Chiverton 1

The PDF notes this is no longer allowed, so they'd already realised the mistake but the kit was already on orbit

cray74

Repair? They launched a spacecraft with less than pristine components?

Very tight aerospace requirements are going to generate lots of quality failures during manufacturing. Repairs are one of several ways of addressing such failures. It's just part of the industry.

Common means of fixing defects include Repair, which (in my facility) means fixing something so that it works as required, even if it doesn't look exactly like the blueprint. Rework: fixing something so that it works and matches the blueprint. Scrap: give engineers a conversation piece for their desks. Not a Defect: the quality control inspector was being too uptight and imagined the problem.

Capacitor blew during a test of a $50,000 circuit board? Remove and replace (rework). Solder has more voids than tolerated? Resolder it to print (rework) or, if that risks damaging the board, put a dab of sealant on it and notify the client of the blueprint deviation (repair). Platinum-cured silicone RTV didn't cure because someone used a wooden stick to mix it? Clean off the dripping goop, scrub the bonding area, apply correctly-mixed silicone per print, update work instructions and remove wooden mixing sticks from work area (rework). New aluminum parts don't have the golden sheen of hexavalent chromium chemical conversion coat (Iridite or Alodine)? Not a defect: engineering changed the part to use new eco-friendly, transparent trivalent chromium chem film so Erin Brocovich didn't sue the company but didn't warn the factory that the parts would look different, like bare aluminum.

You're never going to get everything right the first time during manufacturing, but with good quality control checks and final product testing then you can be sure that you deliver hardware that works to spec.

Of course, some perfectly sensible repairs don't cause problems for years. Apollo 13's explosion was caused by a repair: a dropped liquid oxygen tank was replaced with an older spare. The spare had internal damage that wasn't apparent until Kevin Bacon stirred the cryotanks. Sentinel 1B worked fine for 5 years with that soldering repair.

Doctor Syntax

"Capacitor blew during a test of a $50,000 circuit board?"

Cheap when compared with the launch costs.

BristolBachelor

I would say the approximate cost of an assembled, tested PCB is off by about 4× (as in more like $200k), but i don't know this Leonardo unit.

The ceramic capacitors in question are probably type-II ceramic chip capacitors that previously could have the solder joints reflowed in case they weren't perfect. Now they have to be thrown in the bin and a new one fitted. On top of that, the qualification of the mounting and the soldering process of type-II capacitors is now done for all types of soldering (various automatic/manual) and per size and per manufacturer.

Speaking of perfect; there have been some comments about how everything should be perfect. I've seen solder joints that have been rejected, and until you see them under ×20 or ×40 magnification binocular microscope, it's impossible to see that it isn't perfect.

Your love life will be... interesting.