The Client Attempted Their Own Retrieval Four Times Before Calling ORC. We Are Not Judging This.
ORC DISPATCH · MISSION REPORT · ORC-2024-192 · CLEARED FOR EXTERNAL PUBLICATION · CLIENT: INFORMED · CLIENT: “FAIR”
MISSION REF / ORC-2024-192 · FILED 14 AUG 2024 · PUBLISHED 23 MAY 2026
The Client Attempted Their Own Retrieval Four Times Before Calling ORC. We Are Not Judging This.
LEO Standard Retrieval · S-01 · ORC-V4 “Patience” · Jul–Aug 2024 · Client self-attempts: 4
APPROVED: M. HARGREAVES · LEGAL: L. SANDHU · NOTE: THE CLIENT IS A SOPHISTICATED OPERATOR IN THEIR OWN FIELD. ORBITAL RETRIEVAL IS NOT THEIR FIELD. THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM. IT IS AN OBSERVATION. IT IS ALSO THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF ORC.
CLIENT SELF-RETRIEVAL ATTEMPT LOG · ATTEMPTS 1–4 · THEN ORC · CLICK TO EXPAND
4 ATTEMPTS · 0 SUCCESSES · 1 ESCALATION
ATTEMPT 1
Feb 2024
Feb 2024
Client deploys own proximity vehicle. Vehicle reaches correct altitude. Vehicle does not find the object.
UNSUCCESSFUL
The client operates a small constellation and has a proximity operations capability developed for on-orbit servicing of their own satellites. They deployed this vehicle — which ORC understands to be a capable and well-engineered platform — on 14 February 2024. The vehicle reached the correct orbital altitude and commenced a search pattern. The search pattern was based on TLE data that was, at the time of the attempt, three months old. The object had drifted. The proximity vehicle searched for eleven days and did not locate the object. The vehicle was recalled.
ORC note (provided to client when engaged): The search pattern used in attempt 1 was geometrically sound but based on stale data. The object had drifted approximately 34km from the predicted position. Fresh TLE data was available. The client was unaware that fresh TLE data was available. This is the kind of thing that ORC knows and that is, partly, why ORC exists.
ATTEMPT 2
Mar 2024
Mar 2024
Client deploys vehicle again with updated TLE data. Vehicle finds the object. Vehicle cannot capture the object.
UNSUCCESSFUL
Armed with fresh TLE data — which they had obtained, correctly, from a commercial tracking provider — the client deployed the proximity vehicle for a second time on 08 March 2024. The vehicle located the object on day 4. The client notified their team with, in the words of the internal message we were later shown, “three exclamation marks and a thumbs-up emoji.” The vehicle approached to within 12 metres. At 12 metres, the client discovered that their proximity vehicle’s capture system — designed for their own satellite form factor — was not compatible with the target object’s geometry. The object was tumbling at 1.4 rpm. The capture arms closed on nothing three times. The vehicle was recalled.
ORC note: The client’s capture system is rated for their own satellite bus, which is a 50cm × 50cm × 80cm form factor. The target object was a 2.4m cylindrical body tumbling at 1.4 rpm. Capture compatibility is one of the first things ORC assesses during characterisation. It was not assessed during attempts 1 or 2.
ATTEMPT 3
May 2024
May 2024
Client modifies capture system. Vehicle reaches object. Arrests tumble. Makes contact. Contact ends badly.
UNSUCCESSFUL
Between March and May, the client’s engineering team adapted the proximity vehicle’s capture mechanism with extended arms rated for a larger target profile. They also added a tumble arrest capability. This was, from an engineering standpoint, genuinely impressive. The vehicle was redeployed on 22 May. It found the object — which had drifted again, but the client now had a process for fresh TLE data. It arrested the tumble successfully. It made capture contact with the object. At this point, the extended capture arm exerted approximately 40 Newtons of lateral force on the target object, which — the client’s engineering team had not accounted for — imparted a new rotation to the object in a different axis. The object began tumbling again, in a different direction, at 2.2 rpm. The client’s vehicle, now entangled with the object, [REDACTED].
ORC note: Tumble arrest and capture are not the same operation. When contact is made with a tumbling object, the contact force must be controlled to avoid re-imparting rotation. This requires specific software and hardware integration. ORC’s capture systems have this integration. Attempt 3 was, nonetheless, the most technically sophisticated client self-attempt ORC has reviewed.
ATTEMPT 4
Jun 2024
Jun 2024
Client contacts a third-party robotics firm. Firm confirms they can help. Firm is not available until Q1 2025. Client calls ORC.
REDIRECTED TO ORC
Following the events of May, the client made the decision not to attempt a fifth self-retrieval. Instead, they engaged a specialist robotics firm with space proximity experience to design a bespoke capture system. The robotics firm confirmed they could deliver a system that would work. The robotics firm quoted a 28-week development timeline and a delivery date of Q1 2025. The client thanked the robotics firm and said they would think about it. The object had now been tumbling at 2.2 rpm in a conjunction-risk orbit for three months. The client called ORC on 18 June 2024. The client said, and we are quoting directly: [REDACTED].
ORC note: We have noted this as “Attempt 4” in this log. It was not, strictly speaking, an attempt. It was a referral. We include it because the 28-week timeline quote from the robotics firm is relevant context. ORC’s S-01 lead time from engagement to launch is 6–8 weeks.
ORC
Jul–Aug 2024
Jul–Aug 2024
ORC deployed Patience. Patience arrested the tumble. Patience captured the object. Mission complete in 23 days.
SUCCESS
ORC-V4 “Patience” was deployed on 10 July 2024. P. Patel calculated the approach using fresh TLE data sourced on 09 July. The object was located on day 4. The tumble — now 2.2 rpm across two axes — was arrested using Patience’s dual-arm capture system in 2 hours and 14 minutes. Capture was achieved cleanly on the first attempt. The object was deorbited on 01 August 2024. Re-entry confirmed over the South Pacific. Mission duration: 23 days from deployment to re-entry confirmation.
ORC note: We mention that this is what S-01 is for. It is not a criticism of the client’s four attempts. Four attempts is, in this context, a reasonable amount of effort. We appreciate the effort. We do this so that you don’t have to. That is the arrangement.
- The client’s engineering team completed a genuinely sophisticated proximity vehicle adaptation between attempts 2 and 3. ORC has noted the team’s capabilities in the client file. The capture contact force calculation was the gap. ORC has offered to share its approach methodology for the client’s future reference. The client has accepted this offer.
- The TLE data currency issue in attempt 1 is the most common single-point failure in client self-retrieval. ORC includes a mandatory TLE refresh in its pre-launch procedure, sourced no more than 72 hours before deployment. This procedure exists because of cases like attempt 1. ORC has shared the procedure with the client.
- The client has since enquired about a framework agreement covering future decommission events. ORC has provided a framework agreement. The framework agreement includes a provision that the client will contact ORC before attempting self-retrieval. The provision was the client’s suggestion. We respect this.
- The robotics firm quoted 28 weeks. ORC completed the mission in 23 days. We have included this comparison in the framework agreement proposal, in a footnote, in a measured tone.
S-01 NOTE
ORC’s S-01 Standard Retrieval service includes fresh TLE sourcing, full characterisation review, tumble arrest capability, and a capture system rated for a wide range of object geometries. Lead time: 6–8 weeks from engagement. We mention this not as a sales point but because it is, based on this report, relevant information for anyone currently on attempt two of something.
END OF REPORT · ORC-2024-192 · CLIENT ATTEMPTS: 4 · CLIENT SUCCESSES: 0 · ORC ATTEMPTS: 1 · ORC SUCCESSES: 1 · WE ARE NOT JUDGING THIS