The Client Said It Was Decommissioned. On Approach, It Became Clear That It Was Not Decommissioned.
ORC DISPATCH · MISSION REPORT · ORC-2023-451 · CLEARED FOR EXTERNAL PUBLICATION · CLIENT: AWARE · CLIENT: SORRY · ORC: NOTES THIS
MISSION REF / ORC-2023-451 · FILED 29 NOV 2023 · PUBLISHED 23 MAY 2026
The Client Said It Was Decommissioned. On Approach, It Became Clear That It Was Not Decommissioned.
LEO Retrieval · S-01 (suspended and resumed) · ORC-V2 “Reg” · Oct–Nov 2023
APPROVED: M. HARGREAVES · LEGAL: L. SANDHU · NOTE: THE CLIENT IS A LONGSTANDING AND OTHERWISE EXCELLENT CLIENT. WHAT HAPPENED WAS NOT MALICIOUS. IT WAS, AS THE CLIENT THEMSELVES DESCRIBED IT, “A GENUINELY EMBARRASSING ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.” ORC HAS ACCEPTED THIS CHARACTERISATION. WE ARE PUBLISHING THIS REPORT ANYWAY.
APPROACH TELEMETRY LOG · SELECTED READINGS · CLICK EACH ENTRY
Reg reached proximity range on day 11. The following readings were returned between initial proximity detection and the mission suspension decision. All readings were reviewed in real time by P. Patel. P. Patel’s operational notes are included below each entry.
DAY 11 · 09:14
Initial proximity radar contact. Object at stated position. Mass reading consistent with characterisation data. Standard approach commences.
NOMINAL
Everything normal. Object located exactly where the client said it would be. Mass consistent. Attitude state consistent with a stable, passive, decommissioned object. P. Patel marked the approach as standard and continued closing. This is the last entirely normal entry in the log.
P. PATEL NOTEStandard approach. Object where expected. No anomalies. Continuing.
DAY 11 · 09:41
Optical sensors return surface reflection pattern inconsistent with expected degradation profile. Solar panels appear intact and unfogged.
NOTE
The characterisation data indicated a 2016 satellite with seven years of LEO exposure. In that environment, solar panels typically show significant UV degradation. The panels on this object appeared, from Reg’s optical sensors, to be in considerably better condition than expected. P. Patel noted this. She attributed it, at this stage, to a possible coating technology that might have preserved the panels better than the standard degradation model predicted.
P. PATEL NOTEPanels look very clean. Better than the age suggests. Could be the coating. Continuing approach.
DAY 11 · 10:03
Thermal sensors detect active heat signature from main bus compartment. Magnitude inconsistent with passive thermal residual. Reg holding at 180m.
QUERY
An active heat signature from the main bus compartment indicates that electronics are generating heat — which implies they are running. Decommissioned satellites do not, as a rule, have running electronics. P. Patel called the ground station and asked Dr. Chen to review the thermal readings. Dr. Chen reviewed them. Dr. Chen said: [REDACTED]
P. PATEL NOTEHolding at 180m. Thermal readings don’t match a passive object. Waiting for guidance.
DAY 11 · 10:19
RF scanner detects active transmission signal. Frequency: [LOGGED]. Object is transmitting. Object is receiving. Periodic signal pattern.
ANOMALY
The object was broadcasting on a standard telemetry frequency and receiving what appeared to be uplink commands. A decommissioned satellite should not be doing either of these things. A. Kowalski notified M. Hargreaves. M. Hargreaves notified L. Sandhu. L. Sandhu, who had been on a call about an unrelated matter, said: [REDACTED]
P. PATEL NOTEIt’s talking to someone. Holding. Not touching.
DAY 11 · 10:31
Object performs autonomous attitude correction manoeuvre. 3.4-degree rotation. Attitude control system: active.
ANOMALY
While Reg held at 180m and L. Sandhu was attempting to reach the client, the object autonomously adjusted its attitude by 3.4 degrees — a controlled, precise manoeuvre consistent with an active attitude control system responding to a ground command or onboard programming. Dr. Chen watched this happen on the telemetry display. Dr. Chen said: [REDACTED]
P. PATEL NOTEIt moved. On its own. At 180m from Reg. I am very still.
DAY 11 · 11:08
L. Sandhu reaches client. Client response received. Mission suspended pending clarification.
SUSPENDED
L. Sandhu reached the client at 11:04. The client’s response, summarised: the satellite had not actually been decommissioned. The satellite had been scheduled for decommission, the order had been prepared, and the client believed it had been executed. It had not been executed. There had been an internal miscommunication. The satellite was, at the moment Reg approached it from 180 metres away, still fully operational and receiving routine commands from the client’s ground station. The client was, in their own words, [REDACTED]
P. PATEL NOTEStill holding at 180m. Object still active. We’re waiting.
DAY 13 · 14:22
Client confirms decommission executed. Object passive. RF signals ceased. Thermal signature declining. Mission resumed.
RESUMED
Forty-eight hours after suspension, the client confirmed that the satellite had been formally decommissioned. The RF signals had ceased. The thermal signature was declining toward passive ambient. The attitude control system was no longer responding. The solar panels — which had appeared clean because they were, in fact, clean and functional — would now begin the normal degradation process. The object was now what it was supposed to have been when ORC was first commissioned. Mission resumed. Capture was completed on day 18. Re-entry confirmed on 14 November 2023.
P. PATEL NOTEIt stopped. We’re going in. Capture on approach 1. Clean. It’s done.
The client’s satellite operations team had prepared a decommission instruction in January 2023. The instruction was approved. The instruction was then — due to an internal process gap that the client has since described as “a genuinely embarrassing administrative error” — filed rather than executed. The satellite continued operating normally. The client’s procurement team, operating separately from operations, commissioned ORC in October 2023 using data from the decommission record, which showed the satellite as decommissioned. Both teams were correct in their own understanding of the situation. The left hand and the right hand were very much not speaking to each other.
The client sent a formal written apology to ORC on 16 November 2023. The apology was three pages long. M. Hargreaves responded with two paragraphs. The relevant paragraph read: [REDACTED]
- ★Form 3-Q now contains a decommission confirmation checkbox. The checkbox is labelled “Decommission status: EXECUTED (not scheduled, not approved, not intended, not imminent — executed).” The label is longer than standard. It is intentionally longer than standard.
- ★P. Patel held Reg at 180 metres for 48 hours while the situation was resolved. P. Patel remained at her station for the full 48-hour suspension period. P. Patel has received an additional holiday entitlement day as a result. P. Patel described the hold as “fine, professionally, but a bit odd personally.” We agree with this assessment.
- ★The 48-hour hold cost the client an additional standby fee. The fee is in the standard terms. The client paid it without query. The client described it as “entirely fair.” ORC notes that “entirely fair” is the correct response to an additional standby fee incurred as a result of the client’s satellite not being decommissioned.
- ★The client has since commissioned ORC twice more. On both occasions, the Form 3-Q decommission checkbox was completed with commendable thoroughness, including a supporting note from the client’s operations director confirming execution. We consider this a satisfactory resolution.
FORM 3-Q NOTE
ORC requires confirmation that decommission has been executed prior to mission commencement. “Approved,” “scheduled,” “intended,” “imminent,” and “basically done” are not the same as “executed.” The checkbox on Form 3-Q exists for this reason. Please use it carefully. P. Patel would appreciate it.
END OF REPORT · ORC-2023-451 · OBJECT: DECOMMISSIONED (EVENTUALLY) · HOLD: 48 HOURS · P. PATEL: FINE · CLIENT: MORTIFIED · FORM 3-Q: UPDATED