scilogs GO FOR LAUNCH

Close Asteroid Encounter Tomorrow

from Michael Khan, 12. January 2010, 18:56

Tomorrow, Wednesday, January 13, 2010, a small asteroid called 2010 AL 30 (presumed diameter 10-15 meters) will buzz the Earth at just 1/3 of the lunar distance. The point of closest approach will be passed around 13:00 UTC (14:00 CET).   +++ Please also note the update at the bottom of this post. +++

(Lesen Sie diesen Artikel hier auf Deutsch)

This announcement in the Minor Planet Electronic Circular lists a set of observations that were used for orbit determination. They start  on January 10, 2010 - that's how short a warning we get with these little fellas.

At first sight the asteroid's orbital period appears remarkable: It's almost exactly one year, just a bit more. The orbit is inclined by around 4 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, and it's quite eccentric. The aphelion is larger than 1.3 AU, the perihelion less than 0.7 AU.  

The orbital period led to speculation that the object might be man-made, in analogy to the object J002E3, which probably is a spent Saturn V stage from the Apollo missions that barely managed to escape into a heliocentric orbit and then was temporarily re-captured into an orbit around the Earth in 2002.

For various reasons, this scenario does not apply here. The 1-year orbital period probably is no more than a fluke.

Where does this thing come from?

Zurueckgerechnete Bahn des Asteroiden 2010 AL30, Quelle: Michael Khan/ESAProbably 2010 AL30 is of natural origin. However, the possibility that it is man-made cannot be completely excluded. If so, it might be the upper stage of a rocket used in an earlier planetary mission, possible to Venus. The current orbit would have been acquired through a Venus swingby and other orbital perturbations.

The perihelion radius is somewhat suspicious. It's almost identical with the orbital radius of Venus, as this diagram shows. I produced this based on the orbit determination results given in the MPEC for Jan. 4, 2010. I numerically propagated the given orbital state backwards in time, taking into account the gravitational attraction of all planets and the Sun. As can be seen, the asteroid orbit intersects the Venus orbit in two locations close to its perihelion (well, almost, because there also is a difference in inclination).

In such a scenario, it's very likely that at some point in time the object must get close to Venus and undergo some more or less significant orbital perturbations. My numerical simulation also showed that this was the case. But then, of course, the initial orbit determination uncertainties will tend to multiply in the propagation, especially if there are close planetary encounters. This is rocket science .... but still, I have to live with the inaccuracies in the data available. 

Asterod 2010 AL30 - Abstand von Erde, und Venus, Quelle: Michael Khan/ESA When plotting the obtained distances from Earth and Venus over time, as in the  diagram to the left (Note: logarithmic y-scale), you can see that there was a close Earth encounter almost exactly 1 year ago, on January 12, 2009. This makes sense: If the period is 1 year, and we have an encounter on January 13, 2010, then logically there must have been one also one year earlier. There are no Venus encounters or anything else that might have changed the orbit in 2009.

Then, it looks as if there was a close Venus encounter in spring 2006, preceded by an Earth encounter in late 2005. Again applying all due caution and pointing out the uncertainties, these results do not appear to be altogether inconsistent with the conjecture that we have here the Fregat upper stage of the Soyuz launch vehicle that launched the ESA spacecraft Venus Express on November 9, 2005, with Venus arrival on April 11, 2006. 

There are indications that the object may be rotating quite fast, which also would not be surprising in the case of a spent upper stage. If this is in fact a Fregat, then it is clad in reflective metallized foil for thermal reasons, so its albedo would be a lot higher than that of a natural body. Despite the Fregat's smaller size, distinctly less than the 10-15 meters tentatively assumed for this body, the reflective material would make it appear bright.

I assume that the hypothesis I am putting on the table here will be easy to disprove or to confirm once we have more observations and also some spectroscopy and radar, which hopefully will be the case by tomorrow.

An Afterthought: Coincidences Galore ....

Semi-major axis over B-plane for VEX flyby scenario, source: Michael Khan/ESAI just couldn't let it rest, so I decided to approach the problem from a different tack. Let's assume that 2010 AL30 is the Fregat upper stage from the Soyuz launcher used for Venus Express. Then I need to find out whether the gravitational perturbation of the stage during its close encounter with Venus could have led to the orbital parameters we see now. The answer to this analysis was clearer than I had expected.

The hyperbolic arrival velocity at Venus amounted to around 4.6 km/s, the date and time and the direction are known. I used this data to compute the post-encounter heliocentric orbital elements for a large set of sample points in the B-plane. The B-plane is a commonly used tool for mission analysis, it constitutes an imaginary plane that is centered in the target planet (here Venus) and is perpendicular to the hyperbolic arrival velocity vector.  

Perihelion radius over B-plane based on VEX arrival conditions, source: Michael Khan/ESAThe results are plotted in the attached diagrams. The white circle in the middle is the impact zone. If you try to target a flyby within this zone, the pericentre radius is too small, so the craft (a space probe or a spent stage) would enter the atmosphere and burn up.

The first diagram shows that a post-encounter orbit with a semi-major axis of 1 AU (and therefore a period of 1 year) is easy to reach. The B-plane target parameters must then be on the dotted white line. 

The second diagram shows the achieved post-encounter perihelion. No problem with around 0.7 AU.

Aphelion over B-plane for VEX arrival scenario, source: Michael Khan/ESAFinally, the aphelion radius, shown in the third diagram. The orbit of object 2010 AL30 has an aphelion of just over 1.3 AU. No problem there, as the dotted white line shows. And here's what's strange: For the B-plane target area delimited by the little red circle in all three plots, you get exactly the combination of all three: a period of 1 year, a perihelion of just under 0.7 AU and an aphelion of 1.3 AU. 

And there is more: This marked zone happens to be exactly the zone that you would target at if a Venus orbit insertion over the planet's north pole is wanted (It appears to be on the bottom side in the graphs, but that is just due to the way the B-plane axes are defined. Anyway, astronomers are used to seeing things represented upside down). Incidentally: Venus Express was targeted for orbit insertion over the north pole.   

So, let's summarize briefly:

Numerical backwards propagation of the orbital state of object 2010 AL30, as determined in January 2010, turns out to appear to lead to a close Venus encounter in spring 2006 and an Earth encounter in late 2005. These epochs are consistent with the Venus arrival and Earth launch dates, respectively, of ESA's Venus Express probe.

From the known approach conditions of Venus Express to Venus one can derive that a target point close above the planet's north pole, as was chosen in that mission, would lead to a deflection of an inert body on the same trajectory, such as the spent Fregat stage, that has a period of 1 year with perihelion and aphelion distances of 0.7 and 1.3 AU, respectively. These orbital parameters closely coincide with those of object 2010 AL30. 

Obviously this does not constitute proof. But I would say that we have a surprisingly long chain of unusual coincidences here. Wouldn't you agree?

Update

It is now Thursday, January 14, 2010. Object 2010 AL30 has come and gone. Improved orbit determination results are now available. The backwards propagation I performed on January 12 was based on the "old" set of orbital data. In fact, though there is some change in the orbital parameters, this change is a lot smaller than I expected, in view of the relatively short arc spanned by optical observations.

As you can see from the description of part of my analysis above, where I propagated the orbit backwards from the date for which the January 12, 2010 orbit determination was provided, I obtained a Venus encounter in early spring 2006. Date and distance were not entirely  consistent with the Venus Express case, but close enough to warrant a closer look, and I expected that the uncertainties in the orbit determinaton, together with a magnification effect of the 2009 Earth encounter, would lead to some change here, moving the encounter date to April 11 and reducing the encounter distance.

Asterod 2010 AL30 - Abstand von Erde, und Venus, Quelle: Michael Khan/ESAHowever, as the post-encounter orbit determination does not differ significantly from the pre-encounter ones, there is no alternative but to conclude that 2010 AL30 in fact did pass no closer than 0.011 AU to Venus in 2006 and that this happened on February 25, some 6 weeks prior to the Venus Express arrival (see the updated distance plot). This is not consistent with the conjecture that 2010 AL30 might be the Fregat upper stage.

What does this mean? As stated earlier, probably 2010 AL30 is of natural origin. This hasn't changed. Even though the initial conjecture that the timeline of planetary encounters of object 2010 AL30 might indicate that it is the upper stage of the rocket that launched the Venus Express spacecraft did not survive the ongoing process of orbit determination - well, that's the way science works, in the end it's the data that counts - my other set of calculations also holds.

Anyone with a computer and some experience with celestial mechanics can check my results: if you send a spacecraft to a planet, it is not unlikely that the expended upper stage will pass close to the target planet and be deflected into an orbit that differs significantly from the original one. There is no reason to assume that man-made objects, even uncontrolled ones such as spent rocket stages, can only encounter the Earth with a relative velocity and direction that are akin to those it was launched to.

And to clarify another piont that was frequently made in reference to the 2010 AL30 issue: There is considerable confusion related to the significance of the fact that the orbital period amounts to almost exactly 1 year. This point is only of relevance if the object in question escaped the Earth at a very low velocity and remained in an orbit very similar to that of the Earth (either a "leading" or a "trailing" orbit.). On such an orbit there is no chance of meeting another massive body, so the object's orbit around the sun will not change significantly, and there is a high probability it will come back to the Earth, again at low relative velocity. But for rocket stages from interplanetary missions, this does not apply. These very likely did enconter a massive body along the way and one should not assume that their orbit must have remained essentially unchanged or that their period is close to one year. 



  Share on ResearchGATE

Related Articles:

Reply

Trackbacks

Go for Launch: Morgen: Sehr nahe Asteroidenbegegnung!

Comments

  1. BCHILL 2010 AL30
    13.01.2010 | 20:34

    THANK YOU FOR PUTTING ROCKET SCIENCE IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, AND CONGRATULATIONS! I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT!

  2. Art Glick Probably 2010 AL30 is of natural origin?
    14.01.2010 | 07:17

    With such an elegant set of calculations, how can you state that "probably 2010 AL30 is of natural origin"? Who was it that said "there are no coincidences". Kudos to your math!

  3. abraxas Subject
    14.01.2010 | 07:21

    That's some very nice maths :) I wonder why the NASA crowd have not come to the same conclusion? peace

  4. Michael Khan Math and Origin
    14.01.2010 | 09:00

    Just to avoid any misunderstanding. I am not arguing that I think that this is anything other than a natural object.

    All I am stating here is that one cannot exclude the possibility of this being a man-made object, a rocket upper stage from an earlier mission to Venus only on the basis of the fact that the relative velocity with respect to the Earth is high, and it doesn't now closely resemble any kind of orbit that anyone would launch a spacecraft into.

    I am demonstrating that, mathematically, such an orbit as 2010 AL30 is in now would be quite consistent with what is to be expected when a rocket stage undergoes a close encounter at a massive body, in this case, Venus.

    No more than that. That's quite a different matter from saying "I think that this must be one of our old rocket stages".

    The ultimate evidence as to what kind of object 2010 AL30 constitutes will be provided by radar observations - and I hope there also is some spectroscopical analysis.

    If radar shows that it's an irregularly shaped object 15 meters across, and spectroscopy shows that it is composed of, e.g., silicate rock - and I think it's quite likely that they will find this - then that will be absolutely conclusive and the end of the matter.

  5. Gerhard Holtkamp Future Planetary Missions
    14.01.2010 | 12:06

    It might be a good idea to perform the kind of analysis you did routinely for each new planetery mission to arrive at an early warning at when to expect a possible close encounter with spent rocket stages in the future. This would prevent false alarms that we have seen a few times now.

    Good work, Michael!

  6. Michael Khan @Gerhard
    14.01.2010 | 14:11

    I am not sure that it would be possible to arrive at meaningful results which actually help identify a spent rocket stage years after it was launched.

    There is a some degree of uncertainty in the knowledge of the rocket stage after separation, also because the separation itself changes its velocity, albeit slightly.

    Some upper stages then can perform avoidance manooeuvres with their reaction control system to avoid impacting the target planet, which would add further uncertainty.

    For Venus missions, this is not necessary, and it was not done with this Fregat, so in the given case, there is a good chance that the Fregat stage trajectory and that of the payload proper, the Venus Express probe, were very similar.

    When there is uncertainty in the knowledge of the orbital state, one can count on this uncertainty multiplying with time. If there is even a close planetary encounter, was was the case here, the uncertainty will further increase manifold.

    So I am not sure that one would get results that are meaningful in the context of helping you distinguish between a natural or a man-made object.

    What one could get is some feel for the probability that an upper stage may return to the vicinity of the Earth within a given time frame. But that is a different kind of information.

  7. Stevo Raine Close Asteroid Encounter Tomorrow
    14.01.2010 | 15:26

    I agree - it does indeed look like its the venus Express rocket - or shouldwe nowcall it the "Venus Return" booster? ;-)

    Great work & blog -enjoyed reading & agree with your analysis here. The Bad Astronomy Blog (www "dot" bad astronomy "dot" com) has more threads on this if you'd like to comment there it'd be great!

  8. Wayne T Hally I had a feeling
    14.01.2010 | 17:09

    I suspected this within hours of the discovery (posted on SDC 10 PM Jan 11), however, your demonstration is far more rigorous. Thanx for putting in the effort!!

  9. George Roberts coincidence
    18.01.2010 | 21:06

    I got the impression that you followed the orbit of this 'asteroid' backwards and it passed by venus on the same day as 'venus express'. If my impression is correct then doesn't that alone imply that it is very likely man made?

  10. Michael Khan Reply to George Roberts
    19.01.2010 | 10:06

    If the case had been as clearly cut as that, it would have been akin to proof. But with asteroid observations, things are rarely that clear, as I explained (or tried to) above.

    As I stated in my post, the backwards calculation from the initial orbit determination did lead to the vicinity of Venus in early spring 2006. The date I obtained was not quite right, and the distance, with around 1.65 million km was not a close swingby, but close enough to appear suspicious.

    I had assumed that the first orbit determination would not have been very precise. It was based on observations that spanned only a short arc, and the viewing geometry was close to "head-on" with the object approaching the Earth.

    That's not the best geometry for optical observations, you might expect considerable uncertainty in the orbit determination. My - not unreasonable - assumption was that with these observations, the computed Venus encounter date and distance would also change considerably. A dispersion in the computed orbital state can make a big difference when propagated over almost four orbital revolutions (from 2010 back to 2006).

    Assuming that the orbit determination might still be off-mark, together with the other computations that showed that if the stage had passed close by Venus in April 2006, it may well have been inserted into an orbit similar to that of 2010 AL30, my hypothesis did not appear implausible.

    Of course, when it turned out that after the Earth encounter in 2010, the orbit determination results had not changed appreciably with respect to those obtained before the Earth encounter, I have to accept this as proof that in fact 2010 AL30 did not pass very close to Venus on April 11, 2006 and therefore cannot be the Fregat stage from the Venus Express launch.

Add comment