Two companies to study ways for extending the life of the Gehrels Swift space telescope
NASA yesterday announced that it has awarded two companies, Cambrian Works in Virginia and Katalyst Space Technologies in Arizona, each $150K study contracts for reviewing whether it makes sense to send a robotic servicing mission to Gehrels Swift space telescope to raise its orbit and extend its life.
Since its launch in 2004, NASA’s Swift mission has led the agency’s fleet of space telescopes in investigating changes in the high-energy universe. The spacecraft’s low Earth orbit has been decaying gradually, which happens to most satellites over time. Because of recent increases in the Sun’s activity, however, Swift is experiencing additional atmospheric drag, speeding up its orbital decay. This lowering orbit presents an opportunity for NASA to advance a U.S. industry capability, while potentially extending the science lifetime of the Swift mission. The concept studies will help determine whether extending Swift’s critical scientific capabilities would be more cost-effective than replacing those capabilities with a new observatory.
According to this paper [pdf], the telescope’s orbit will decay before the end of 2029, so speed is of the essence. Why NASA is thus spending time and money on a “study” contract from companies that don’t do orbital servicing or have orbital tugs is very curious. Wouldn’t make more sense to request bids from the many orbital servicing and tug companies that now exist (D-Orbit, Astroscale, Northrop Grumman, Firefly, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, Impulse) to see if any can do the job at a reasonable cost and are willing?
Gehrels Swift has proven to be one of the most valuable and useful high energy space telescopes ever launched. First of all its cost was relatively low. Second, it is designed to quickly observe a gamma ray burst (GRB) location in multiple other wavelengths (optical especially). That ability helped solve the mystery of GRBs, as well as numerous other high energy events. It would be a tragedy to lose it.
It would also be far more expensive to build a replacement.
NASA yesterday announced that it has awarded two companies, Cambrian Works in Virginia and Katalyst Space Technologies in Arizona, each $150K study contracts for reviewing whether it makes sense to send a robotic servicing mission to Gehrels Swift space telescope to raise its orbit and extend its life.
Since its launch in 2004, NASA’s Swift mission has led the agency’s fleet of space telescopes in investigating changes in the high-energy universe. The spacecraft’s low Earth orbit has been decaying gradually, which happens to most satellites over time. Because of recent increases in the Sun’s activity, however, Swift is experiencing additional atmospheric drag, speeding up its orbital decay. This lowering orbit presents an opportunity for NASA to advance a U.S. industry capability, while potentially extending the science lifetime of the Swift mission. The concept studies will help determine whether extending Swift’s critical scientific capabilities would be more cost-effective than replacing those capabilities with a new observatory.
According to this paper [pdf], the telescope’s orbit will decay before the end of 2029, so speed is of the essence. Why NASA is thus spending time and money on a “study” contract from companies that don’t do orbital servicing or have orbital tugs is very curious. Wouldn’t make more sense to request bids from the many orbital servicing and tug companies that now exist (D-Orbit, Astroscale, Northrop Grumman, Firefly, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, Impulse) to see if any can do the job at a reasonable cost and are willing?
Gehrels Swift has proven to be one of the most valuable and useful high energy space telescopes ever launched. First of all its cost was relatively low. Second, it is designed to quickly observe a gamma ray burst (GRB) location in multiple other wavelengths (optical especially). That ability helped solve the mystery of GRBs, as well as numerous other high energy events. It would be a tragedy to lose it.
It would also be far more expensive to build a replacement.