The Mission Was Estimated At 28 Days. It Took 8 Days. This Is Not Because ORC Was Particularly Efficient.
ORC was commissioned to retrieve a decommissioned Earth observation satellite at a stated orbital position of 548 km, 62.1° inclination. The TLE data provided by the client placed the object at this position. The estimate of 28 days was based on this position — the transit time to reach 548 km at 62.1° from ORC-V2 “Reg”’s standby orbit plus planned approach time.
On day 3, while in transit toward the stated position, Reg’s radar system detected an object at 511 km that matched the expected physical signature of the target. The object was 340 km from where the client said it would be, in a lower orbit, at a different inclination of 61.8°. Dr. Chen confirmed the match on day 3. The object IDs matched. It was the right object in the wrong place.
Reg captured it on day 7. Re-entry was confirmed on day 8. The client was called twice. Below are both calls.
A. Kowalski called the client to confirm re-entry. The call was brief. The client was pleased — “That’s incredible, it was supposed to take nearly a month” — and A. Kowalski agreed it had been quicker than expected. A. Kowalski did not explain why it had been quicker than expected. A. Kowalski had been briefed by M. Hargreaves that the second call would handle that. A. Kowalski remained professional and positive throughout. A. Kowalski confirmed documentation would follow within 14 working days. The client said it had been “brilliant.” A. Kowalski said ORC was glad to help.
The client asked if ORC did it so fast regularly. A. Kowalski said [REDACTED].
M. Hargreaves called the client at 15:44. M. Hargreaves confirmed the mission was complete and then explained the orbital position discrepancy. The client’s satellite had been at 511 km, 61.8° inclination — not the stated 548 km, 62.1°. The client was quiet for a moment. The client asked how far off that was. M. Hargreaves said approximately 340 kilometres lower and 0.3 degrees off inclination from the stated position. The client was quiet for a longer moment.
The client asked how the satellite had ended up there. M. Hargreaves said ORC was not in a position to answer that — it was the client’s satellite, and ORC had not had access to its operational history. The client said they would need to look into that internally. M. Hargreaves said that seemed sensible. The client then said: [REDACTED]
The call ended at 16:06. M. Hargreaves’ post-call note reads: [REDACTED]
The client’s internal review, shared with ORC in February 2026, established the following: the satellite had experienced a partial propulsion anomaly in 2023 that caused an unplanned orbital manoeuvre. The anomaly was detected at the time. The satellite’s position was updated in the client’s internal records. The update was not propagated to the client’s asset register, which is the document from which the Form 3-Q data was drawn. The asset register showed the original orbital parameters from launch. The satellite had been at 511 km since the 2023 anomaly.
Dr. Chen, reviewing the client’s report, noted that the satellite’s actual position at 511 km was consistent with the expected natural decay from its launch orbit over the period in question, which means the anomaly in 2023 had actually placed it approximately where atmospheric drag would have moved it anyway, just sooner. Dr. Chen described this as [REDACTED].
| Stated altitude | 548 km · Actual: 511 km |
| Stated inclination | 62.1° · Actual: 61.8° |
| TLE data source | Client asset register · last updated: 2020 |
| Positional discrepancy | ~340 km from stated position |
| How object was found | Reg detected it in transit on the way to the stated position |
| Estimated mission duration | 28 days (based on stated position) |
| Actual mission duration | 8 days (based on where it actually was) |
| Call 1 (client reaction) | Brilliant |
| Call 2 (client reaction) | Embarrassed |
| Form 3-Q update | Now requires TLE source date and last independent verification date |
- Form 3-Q has been updated to require a TLE source date and a last independent verification date for all objects. The field reads “TLE source and date · last independent positional verification.” This field did not exist before ORC-2026-014. It exists now.
- Dr. Chen has added a pre-mission step for any object where the TLE source date is more than 12 months old: an independent positional cross-check against a current commercial tracking catalogue. The step adds approximately 4 hours to pre-mission planning. The step would have identified the discrepancy in this case before deployment.
- The client’s reaction to Call 2 was, as M. Hargreaves noted, understandable. ORC does not derive any satisfaction from a client’s embarrassment. ORC does derive satisfaction from a mission successfully completed and a Form 3-Q updated. We consider this the appropriate transfer of feeling.
- The 20-day time saving relative to the 28-day estimate was not passed on to the client as a cost reduction. The mission cost was fixed at contracting. The time was saved because the object was closer. ORC’s costs were lower. ORC retained the difference. This is in the standard terms. The client did not query it. The client was, at that point, processing the information from Call 2.