Another Licensed Operator Was Already There. Their Attempt Did Not Succeed. ORC’s Did.
ORC was commissioned on 08 January 2025 to retrieve a decommissioned LEO object at 541 km. When Patience reached the target zone on day 11, it detected another vehicle already present at proximity range. This vehicle belonged to another licensed orbital retrieval operator. We will refer to them as the other operator throughout this report. This is not coyness. L. Sandhu has asked that we not name them. We are complying with L. Sandhu’s request.
The other operator had been commissioned by a different client for the same object. This is a known risk in the industry — parallel commissions do occur when operators maintain different client relationships in the same sector. ORC was not aware of the parallel commission. The other operator was, apparently, also not aware of ORC. Both clients were unaware of each other. This is the situation that led to the following sequence of events, which is shown in the approach timeline below.
ORC does not comment on other operators’ capabilities, methodologies, or outcomes. This is our policy and it is a good policy and we are maintaining it in this report. What we can say is that the other operator is a licensed entity, that they operated within legal parameters throughout the concurrent presence period, and that their vehicle departed the proximity zone before ORC’s capture sequence commenced. These are facts.
We will note, as a factual observation requiring no further elaboration, that the other operator was incorporated in [REDACTED]. We will also note that ORC has had no formal relationship with the other operator’s [REDACTED]. We consider these facts to be contextual rather than editorial.
The other operator’s capture attempt failed due to what their vehicle’s telemetry, which ORC observed passively from a safe distance, suggested was [REDACTED]. Their vehicle withdrew safely and without incident. ORC acknowledges that withdrawal was the correct decision.
ORC and the other operator communicated once during the concurrent presence period, via standard proximity IFF protocol. The exchange was brief and professional. Patience broadcast the standard ORC mission identifier. The other operator acknowledged. ORC acknowledged their acknowledgement. The other operator then broadcast their withdrawal intention. ORC acknowledged. The exchange lasted approximately four minutes. No further communication occurred.
M. Hargreaves was in the ops room during the exchange. M. Hargreaves said nothing during the exchange. After the exchange, M. Hargreaves said [REDACTED].
A. Kowalski, who was also in the ops room, said three words that are not in this report and will not be. A. Kowalski has been reminded of ORC’s professional standards. A. Kowalski said he knows. A. Kowalski does know. A. Kowalski would like it noted that, in his view, the three words were accurate. We have noted this.
Following the other operator’s withdrawal, P. Patel completed the approach. The object, which had been subjected to one unsuccessful capture attempt, had acquired a minor additional tumble component of 0.3 rpm. P. Patel adjusted the approach. Arrest took 2 hours and 11 minutes. Capture was confirmed on 18 February 2025. Re-entry was confirmed on 04 March 2025. The mission was complete. ORC billed its client for the standard S-01 rate. The tumble adjustment was not billed as an additional charge. The tumble was minor and the adjustment was within standard operating parameters. We have not mentioned the source of the additional tumble in the invoice. We are mentioning it here, in this footnote, in the interests of completeness.