ORC Received A Formal Written Complaint About This Mission. The Complaint Was Specific Enough That Whoever Wrote It Was Watching.
ORC DISPATCH · MISSION REPORT · ORC-2023-178 · CLEARED FOR EXTERNAL PUBLICATION · COMPLAINT RECEIVED · COMPLAINT: ADDRESSED · RELATIONSHIP: ONGOING
MISSION REF / ORC-2023-178 · FILED 22 JUN 2023 · PUBLISHED 23 MAY 2026
ORC Received A Formal Written Complaint About This Mission. The Complaint Was Specific Enough That Whoever Wrote It Was Watching.
LEO Standard Retrieval · S-01 · ORC-V2 “Reg” · May–Jun 2023 · Complaint received: 15 Jun 2023
APPROVED: M. HARGREAVES · LEGAL: L. SANDHU (EXTENSIVE) · NOTE: THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. THE COMPLAINT WAS SENT BY RECORDED DELIVERY TO ORC’S REGISTERED ADDRESS. IT WAS SIGNED “A CONCERNED THIRD PARTY.” ORC HAS RESPONDED TO EACH POINT. THE RESPONSE IS BELOW. THE COMPLAINANT HAS NOT REPLIED. WE ARE PUBLISHING BOTH.
BACKGROUNDREQUIRED
ORC-2023-178 was a standard S-01 LEO retrieval at 521 km. ORC-V2 “Reg” was deployed on 08 May 2023. The object was located, captured, and deorbited on 04 June 2023. The mission was operationally unremarkable. The mission generated a formal written complaint, delivered to ORC HQ by recorded delivery post on 15 June 2023, eleven days after re-entry confirmation.
The complaint contained eight specific points. Several points referenced approach angles, timing, and operational details that are not publicly available. The complainant either had access to monitoring data, was involved in the operation of the target object, or was in the vicinity in some capacity. ORC has not been able to establish which. The complainant signed the letter “A Concerned Third Party.” The handwriting was, according to A. Kowalski, “very neat.”
Click each complaint point to read the full complaint text and ORC’s formal response.
FORMAL COMPLAINT · REF: ORC/COMP/2023/004 · 8 POINTS · CLICK EACH
2 UPHELD · 4 NOT UPHELD · 2 NOTED
Complaint received 15 June 2023. ORC response drafted by L. Sandhu, reviewed by M. Hargreaves, signed by M. Hargreaves. Response sent by recorded delivery 23 June 2023. No acknowledgement received.
POINT 1
“The approach velocity on day 12 was excessive and unnecessarily aggressive.”
NOT UPHELD
COMPLAINT TEXTThe approach velocity on day 12 was excessive and unnecessarily aggressive for an object of this mass. A standard debris retrieval should not approach at more than 0.2 m/s within the 5-metre proximity zone. The recorded approach velocity was 0.31 m/s. This is outside accepted best practice.
ORC RESPONSEORC notes the complaint. The approach velocity of 0.31 m/s at the 5-metre proximity threshold is within ORC’s operational parameters for the object’s mass class (412 kg) and attitude state (0.08 rpm residual tumble). The IADC guideline of 0.2 m/s applies to objects below 200 kg. For objects above 400 kg, ORC applies a mass-adjusted approach protocol. The velocity was appropriate. We note that the complainant is aware of our approach velocity to within 0.01 m/s. We have not commented on how they know this.
POINT 2
“The tumble arrest manoeuvre on day 12 at 14:22 UTC applied lateral force in the wrong direction, briefly increasing the tumble rate.”
UPHELD
COMPLAINT TEXTThe tumble arrest manoeuvre initiated at 14:22 UTC on day 12 applied lateral force in a direction that briefly increased the object’s tumble rate from 0.08 rpm to 0.14 rpm before the correct arrest direction was established. This is an operational error. A competent operator should anticipate the correct arrest vector before initiating contact.
ORC RESPONSEORC upholds this point. The arrest initiation on day 12 at 14:22 UTC did result in a brief increase in tumble rate before the correct vector was established. P. Patel identified the error within 38 seconds and corrected the approach. The arrest was completed successfully. The error was noted in ORC’s internal mission log. The error was not disclosed to the client as it had no operational impact on the outcome. The complainant’s knowledge of the specific timing and effect of the error indicates monitoring capability that ORC has noted. ORC has reviewed the arrest protocol as a result of this point. An amendment has been implemented.
POINT 3
“ORC did not notify the relevant parties that the object’s propellant tanks contained residual pressurant.”
NOTED
COMPLAINT TEXTThe decommissioned object contained residual pressurant in its propellant tanks. This is a known hazard during proximity operations. ORC did not disclose its awareness of this in the pre-mission communications. Relevant monitoring parties were not informed.
ORC RESPONSEORC is aware of the residual pressurant. It is documented in the mission characterisation file, the approach protocol, and the capture procedure. ORC did not disclose this information in pre-mission communications because ORC’s pre-mission communications are with the commissioning client, not with third parties. ORC notes the implied suggestion that there are parties who should have been notified. ORC would welcome clarification on who the complainant believes those parties to be, and on what basis they believe they should receive ORC operational briefings. No such clarification has been provided.
POINT 4
“The deorbit burn trajectory passed within 14km of a currently operational asset. This proximity was not communicated in advance.”
NOT UPHELD
COMPLAINT TEXTThe deorbit burn trajectory on 04 June 2023 passed within 14km of an operational asset in the same orbital shell. ORC did not communicate this proximity to the asset operator. 14km is within the standard conjunction notification threshold.
ORC RESPONSEORC does not uphold this point. The 14km conjunction threshold applies to objects travelling in similar orbital planes with closing velocities above 25 m/s. The relevant asset was in a substantially different orbital plane, reducing the conjunction risk to a level that did not meet notification thresholds. Dr. Chen reviewed the trajectory against the ESA conjunction database prior to the burn. No notifications were required. We note that the complainant is aware of the specific 14km figure and of the identity of the “operational asset.” They have not named the asset. We have not named it either.
POINT 5
“The choice of re-entry corridor was suboptimal. The selected corridor increased atmospheric crossing time by approximately 8 seconds.”
NOT UPHELD
COMPLAINT TEXTThe re-entry corridor selected by ORC resulted in an atmospheric crossing time approximately 8 seconds longer than the optimal trajectory. This increased the fragmentation dispersion area. An optimal trajectory was available and was not selected.
ORC RESPONSEORC does not uphold this point. The corridor was selected in accordance with ORC’s re-entry protocol, which prioritises uninhabited zone targeting over atmospheric crossing time minimisation. The corridor the complainant appears to be referencing as “optimal” would have reduced crossing time by 8 seconds but would have shifted the fragmentation zone approximately 340km toward the Tristan da Cunha exclusion area. ORC does not consider this optimal. The complainant’s knowledge of the specific 8-second difference suggests access to trajectory modelling. ORC notes this.
POINT 6
“ORC’s vehicle approached the object from below rather than from above. This is not standard.”
NOT UPHELD
COMPLAINT TEXTORC’s vehicle approached the target object from below (from a lower orbital altitude) rather than from above. Standard proximity approach protocols recommend nadir-side approach for passive debris objects to minimise conjunction risk to the capture vehicle. ORC deviated from this standard without explanation.
ORC RESPONSEORC does not uphold this point. The approach direction is determined by the object’s attitude state, the capture system geometry, and the local debris environment. In this case, a nadir-side approach was contraindicated by the debris field distribution in the 521 km shell, which presented a higher conjunction risk from below than from above at the mission epoch. Dr. Chen’s approach protocol selected the zenith-side approach as the safer option. ORC welcomes discussion of approach methodology with parties who have relevant expertise. The complainant appears to have relevant expertise. We again note that they have not identified themselves.
POINT 7
“The communications frequency used for ground-to-vehicle telemetry during approach overlapped with a frequency in use by a third party.”
UPHELD
COMPLAINT TEXTThe telemetry uplink frequency used by ORC during the approach phase on days 11 and 12 overlapped with a frequency allocation held by a third party. This overlap caused intermittent interference. The third party did not consent to this overlap and was not informed. This is a regulatory matter.
ORC RESPONSEORC upholds this point. A frequency allocation review conducted following receipt of this complaint confirmed that ORC’s telemetry uplink on days 11 and 12 did overlap with a registered frequency allocation. The overlap was unintentional and resulted from an outdated frequency register used by ORC’s operations team. The overlap has been corrected in ORC’s frequency planning system. ORC apologises for the interference. We would note that the complainant’s knowledge of the specific frequency overlap and its effect confirms that they either hold the frequency allocation in question or have direct access to the party who does. We are interested in who that is. We have not been told.
POINT 8
“In summary, ORC’s operation was conducted with adequate but not exemplary professionalism. We expected better. We will be monitoring future ORC operations.”
NOTED
COMPLAINT TEXTIn summary, ORC’s operation was conducted with adequate but not exemplary professionalism. We expected better. We will be monitoring future ORC operations and reserve the right to submit further complaints if standards are not met. Signed: A Concerned Third Party.
ORC RESPONSEORC notes this point. ORC also notes the phrase “we expected better,” which implies prior knowledge of ORC and expectations formed from previous observation. ORC notes the phrase “we will be monitoring future ORC operations,” which implies ongoing capability. ORC has not received a further complaint from this party since June 2023. ORC considers this encouraging. ORC would welcome direct contact from the complainant if they have concerns about future operations. Our contact details are publicly available. They appear to already have our address.
ORC has not identified the complainant. The complaint was sent from a PO box address that is registered to a [REDACTED].
Dr. Chen reviewed the eight points and their technical specificity. His assessment was that whoever wrote the complaint had access to: real-time approach telemetry (points 1 and 2), pressurant data from the object itself (point 3), conjunction modelling software (points 4 and 5), approach geometry data (point 6), and the affected frequency allocation (point 7). Dr. Chen said: [REDACTED].
No further complaint has been received. ORC-2023-178 was, on the whole, a successful mission. Two legitimate procedural issues were identified and corrected. We consider that a reasonable outcome from a very unusual letter.
COMPLAINTS POLICY
ORC accepts formal complaints and responds to all points in writing within 14 working days. Complaints should include contact information. ORC cannot respond to anonymous parties directly. ORC can, and will, investigate the substantive points. If “A Concerned Third Party” is reading this report, we have implemented the changes arising from points 2 and 7. Our contact page is available. We would like to speak.
END OF REPORT · ORC-2023-178 · COMPLAINT POINTS: 8 · UPHELD: 2 · COMPLAINANT: UNIDENTIFIED · DR. CHEN: STILL CURIOUS · CHANGES: IMPLEMENTED