Author Topic: Astrobotic Peregrine Mission One - Updates & Discussion  (Read 57670 times)

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #140 on: 01/14/2024 08:33 pm »
The IRIS rover was to be released from the lander via electromagnets and slowly fall to the Lunar surface via gravity (hopefully right side up!).  In zero-G space IRIS may very slowly separate (if at all) and hopefully not re-contact the lander.  On the other hand, the five Colemena micro-rovers would be ejected well away from the lander.
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP (@KSC, not Baikonur!), STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink G4-24, Artemis 1
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch), Tiangong

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37495
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21545
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #141 on: 01/14/2024 09:12 pm »
It is industry standard for ACS engines to be monoprop (except maybe the Space Shuttle).

Dragon is another exception to that industry standard - it uses bipropellant thrusters (Draco) for attitude control.

there isn't an industry standard, except for GEO sat buses

Offline cohberg

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #142 on: 01/15/2024 01:36 am »
Quote from: Astrobotic - Peregrine Mission One - Update #17 - 1/14/24
Link
For 16 years, Astrobotic has been dedicated to making the Moon accessible to the world. The responsible preservation of the cislunar space environment for all is top of mind as we complete this mission. Since the Peregrine lunar lander’s anomaly occurred 6 days ago, we have been evaluating how best to safely end the spacecraft’s mission to protect satellites in Earth orbit as well as ensure we do not create debris in cislunar space.

Working with NASA, we received inputs from the space community and the U.S. Government on the most safe and responsible course of action to end Peregrine’s mission. The recommendation we have received is to let the spacecraft burn up during re-entry in Earth’s atmosphere. Since this is a commercial mission, the final decision of Peregrine’s final flight path is in our hands. Ultimately, we must balance our own desire to extend Peregrine’s life, operate payloads, and learn more about the spacecraft, with the risk that our damaged spacecraft could cause a problem in cislunar space. As such, we have made the difficult decision to maintain the current spacecraft’s trajectory to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere. By responsibly ending Peregrine’s mission, we are doing our part to preserve the future of cislunar space for all.

Despite the propulsion system issue, the Astrobotic Mission Team has worked tirelessly to stabilize the vehicle, turn on all active payloads, and enable the collection of payload data. The spacecraft has been operating in space for 6 days and 16 hours, and Peregrine continues to leak propellant, but now at a very slow rate. Yesterday afternoon, we test fired one of the main engines for the first time. We achieved a 200 millisecond burn and acquired data that indicated Peregrine could have main engine propulsive capability. However, due to the anomaly, the fuel to oxidizer ratio is well outside of the normal operating range of the main engines making long controlled burns impossible. The team projects that the spacecraft has enough remaining propellant to maintain sun pointing and perform small maneuvers.

Astrobotic designed and built hardware, avionics, software, and system architectures that have all performed as expected in space. All payloads designed to power on and communicate did so, and even achieved science objectives. While we believe it is possible for the spacecraft to operate for several more weeks and could potentially have raised the orbit to miss the Earth, we must take into consideration the anomalous state of the propulsion system and utilize the vehicle’s onboard capability to end the mission responsibly and safely.

Peregrine will soon return to Earth’s atmosphere and the vehicle is now about 234,000 miles away. We are working with NASA to continue updating and evaluating the controlled re-entry path of Peregrine. We do not believe Peregrine’s re-entry poses safety risks, and the spacecraft will burn up in Earth’s atmosphere. We are validating this through analyses in collaboration with the U.S. Government. We will continue to operate the spacecraft and provide status updates through the end of the mission.

“I am so proud of what our team has accomplished with this mission. It is a great honor to witness firsthand the heroic efforts of our mission control team overcoming enormous challenges to recover and operate the spacecraft after Monday’s propulsion anomaly. I look forward to sharing these, and more remarkable stories, after the mission concludes on January 18. This mission has already taught us so much and has given me great confidence that our next mission to the Moon will achieve a soft landing,” said Astrobotic CEO, John Thornton.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 12:05 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7214
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2059
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #143 on: 01/15/2024 03:24 am »
Quote from: Astrobotic
Yesterday afternoon, we test fired one of the main engines for the first time. We achieved a 200 millisecond burn and acquired data that indicated Peregrine could have main engine propulsive capability. However, due to the anomaly, the fuel to oxidizer ratio is well outside of the normal operating range of the main engines making long controlled burns impossible.

"Nicely done!" to Astrobotic for operating the spacecraft long enough to conduct this test. (Thornton's intention to share how they recovered and operated the spacecraft is equally admirable.)

Does the propellant ratio issue he describes imply low helium availability for pressurizing one of the two propellant supply systems, or could there be some other cause?
« Last Edit: 01/15/2024 04:27 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48461
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82192
  • Likes Given: 37086
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #144 on: 01/15/2024 07:55 pm »
https://twitter.com/astrobotic/status/1746999245968732244

Quote
Update #18 for Peregrine Mission One

Quote
Peregrine has been operational in space for 7 days and 13 hours. The spacecraft continues to be responsive, operational, and stable, and remains on its previously reported trajectory toward Earth's atmosphere. The propellant leak caused by the anomaly has practically stopped. The team continues to work with NASA and U.S.
Government agencies to assess the final trajectory path in which the vehicle is expected to burn up. Peregrine is now about 218,000 miles away from Earth.
This photo was taken in space today, with a camera on one of Peregrine's payload decks. This is the same camera view as the first photo we received from the spacecraft on January 8, 2024.

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #145 on: 01/16/2024 04:59 pm »
Quote from: Astrobotic
Yesterday afternoon, we test fired one of the main engines for the first time. We achieved a 200 millisecond burn and acquired data that indicated Peregrine could have main engine propulsive capability. However, due to the anomaly, the fuel to oxidizer ratio is well outside of the normal operating range of the main engines making long controlled burns impossible.

"Nicely done!" to Astrobotic for operating the spacecraft long enough to conduct this test. (Thornton's intention to share how they recovered and operated the spacecraft is equally admirable.)

Does the propellant ratio issue he describes imply low helium availability for pressurizing one of the two propellant supply systems, or could there be some other cause?

My uninformed guess is that one of the four propellant tanks was emptied/damaged by the leak(?).  Thus, too much oxidizer or too much propellant remains to achieve a normal oxidizer-to-propellant burn ratio.  Separately, if in fact one of the fuel tanks could now empty (or nearly), perhaps that changes the spacecraft's c/g(?).  As such, that could cause an off-axis thrust vector(?).  As a reminder, the main engines are pulsed, not throttled.

I'm also glad Astrobotic is taking whatever time remains to exercise as many subsystems as possible.  That will feed into the design and testing of Peregrine 2.  Alas, there is no Peregrine 2 task order on the horizon.  But when it comes, it will be interesting to see what launch vehicle is selected. 

Could F9 push Peregrine 2 into the same high elliptical orbit as did VC?  [Discussion split/merged to launch thread.]

Respectfully, RSN
(Rocket Scientist NOT)
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 12:14 am by zubenelgenubi »
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP (@KSC, not Baikonur!), STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink G4-24, Artemis 1
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch), Tiangong

Offline Ken the Bin

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • US Pacific Time Zone
    • @kenthebin@spacey.space
  • Liked: 5229
  • Likes Given: 5685
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #146 on: 01/16/2024 11:45 pm »
Update #19 for Peregrine Mission One:

https://www.astrobotic.com/update-19-for-peregrine-mission-one/

Quote from: Astrobotic
Update #19 for Peregrine Mission One

The Peregrine spacecraft continues to be responsive and stable and has been operational in space for 8 days and 16 hours. The mission team is continuously monitoring the spacecraft’s trajectory back to Earth. We remain in contact with our U.S. Government partners to ensure as safe a re-entry path as possible. As a reminder, Peregrine reached apogee on Saturday and is now about 183,000 miles from Earth.

https://twitter.com/astrobotic/status/1747416653300740384

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #147 on: 01/17/2024 12:05 am »
So how high is the collision risk posed by an uncontrolled spacecraft in cis-lunar space?  Cis-lunar is a vastly larger volume than LEO, for example.  Yet collisions in LEO are almost unheard of.  Years ago a Hughes engineer told me that the chances of a satellite collision in LEO are about the same as two gnats bumping into each other inside the Grand Canyon.  What am I missing here about NASA's recommendation?
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP (@KSC, not Baikonur!), STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink G4-24, Artemis 1
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch), Tiangong

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11325
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7522
  • Likes Given: 73478
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #148 on: 01/17/2024 12:12 am »
Moderator:
Launch vehicle discussion posts split/merged to launch thread.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43448.0
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 12:15 am by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1358
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #149 on: 01/17/2024 06:27 am »
"Years ago a Hughes engineer told me"

Years ago we didn't have mega-constellations, some in place and others being planned.  And Peregrine's orbit is not always in cis-lunar space.  At every perigee it's right here, passing through LEO space even if it doesn't stay in it.  How often does ISS have to be moved a bit to avoid something? 

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1358
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #150 on: 01/17/2024 06:29 am »
Seger Yu posts a GIF of the two images from the same camera showing how the blanket has shifted.

https://twitter.com/SegerYu/status/1747092546076217612


Offline eeergo

So how high is the collision risk posed by an uncontrolled spacecraft in cis-lunar space?  Cis-lunar is a vastly larger volume than LEO, for example.  Yet collisions in LEO are almost unheard of.  Years ago a Hughes engineer told me that the chances of a satellite collision in LEO are about the same as two gnats bumping into each other inside the Grand Canyon.  What am I missing here about NASA's recommendation?

LEO self-cleans through atmospheric braking, for starters. Cislunar is much less dynamic, and only LLO self-cleans in short timescales to an extent through mascon perturbations. Other regimes will take much longer to self-clear, if ever, almost exclusively due to (long-term) three-body perturbations.

Years ago the LEO environment was VASTLY different from what it is now, especially if we're talking about times predating the 2000s ASAT tests (and lately Starlink deployment). LEO object population has more than doubled in the last 15 years. Collisions in LEO are NOT unheard of, quite the contrary: they are routine. S/C get peppered by debris all the time, and there have already been a high-profile collision (Iridium-Kosmos) plus several grazing near-misses (Tselina-Kosmos 3M upper stage most notably and recently) together with a number of unconfirmed but suspected fragmentations due to collisions. The issue in any case wouldn't be so much with an intact spacecraft in cislunar space, but its subsequent fragmentation over time and long-term swarming of the volume - which is even more likely through the fact it passes through LEO and risks a high-enery collision there every few days. It would also be hard to track accurately (hence provide COLAs to LEO S/C) once it dies.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 08:05 am by eeergo »
-DaviD-

Offline Brigantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • NZ
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #152 on: 01/17/2024 09:51 am »
the fact it passes through LEO and risks a high-enery collision there every few days. It would also be hard to track accurately

Yes, hard to track accurately is a big problem. But I think this idea that you'll have an orbit repeatedly passing through LEO (consistently for any long time) needs some justification.

If the moon wasn't right there on the 2nd orbit, then sure. But how plausible is it to have a lunar flyby (incl incidental gravity assist) and still have perigee between e.g. 150 km and 800 km? (Apollo 13 more or less did that, but will Peregrine?)

The orbit will be perturbed again in future and may come under 800 km, but statistically speaking, how many times will it pass through that range before it gets perturbed to either re-enter, impact, or go heliocentric? I would have thought not many (10's to 100's) and it's still much less risk than actual LEO debris at e.g. 450 km - but TBF that's just a guess.

It makes sense for NASA anyway, simply because they should also take care of what precedents they're setting - in other words political risk. Especially since this spacecraft is expected to be dead before it gets close to the moon
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 10:26 am by Brigantine »

Offline eeergo

the fact it passes through LEO and risks a high-enery collision there every few days. It would also be hard to track accurately

Yes, hard to track accurately is a big problem. But I think this idea that you'll have an orbit repeatedly passing through LEO (consistently for any long time) needs some justification.

If the moon wasn't right there on the 2nd orbit, then sure. But how plausible is it to have a lunar flyby (incl incidental gravity assist) and still have perigee between e.g. 150 km and 800 km? (Apollo 13 more or less did that, but will Peregrine?)

The orbit will be perturbed again in future and may come under 800 km, but statistically speaking, how many times will it pass through that range before it gets perturbed to either re-enter, impact, or go heliocentric? I would have thought not many (10's to 100's) and it's still much less risk than actual LEO debris at e.g. 450 km - but TBF that's just a guess.

It makes sense for NASA anyway, simply because they should also take care of what precedents they're setting - in other words political risk. Especially since this spacecraft is expected to be dead before it gets close to the moon

Agreed on most accounts, although the probability of the current VHEO repeating for tens of times or longer is a wild guess regarding any outcome. Everything will depend on the details and on the actual corrections applied (corrections which are necessary given their absence will lead to the current outcome: reentry at the first revolution). We can't know what an eventual lunar flyby would do to Peregrine's orbit, because the range of plausible hypothetical corrections needed to avoid tomorrow's reentry would include any of the possible outcomes: reentry on the second revolution, lunar impact, ejection into heliocentric orbit, or some kind of free return à la Apollo XIII. Bottom line, we can't characterize the relative risk with respect to the LEO environment.

IF Peregrine were to keep a similar orbit to the current after the Moon passed by, then you'd get a lunar month of consistently repeating passes through LEO. On top of that, regarding the issue of tracking uncertainties: if the S/C was dead after the TCM but before lunar closest approach, you'd have little to no way of knowing what it actually ended up doing, and probably would miss its perigee (with possible fragmentation if bad luck strikes) right after that, for the rest of its lifetime in Earth orbit, either whole or in pieces, which might themselves end up in uncomfortable places within cislunar space even if the main body eventually meets its demise.

Too many uncertainties, and small but avoidable risks. Astrobotic have been great with mission update timeliness, I hope they eventually publish a paper or even just a blog article about the decision-making process and the outcomes they analyzed to reach this -responsible, IMHO- decision.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 01:09 pm by eeergo »
-DaviD-

Offline cohberg

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #154 on: 01/17/2024 10:55 pm »
Quote from: Astrobotic - UPDATE #20 FOR PEREGRINE MISSION ONE - 1/17/24
Link
Astrobotic has positioned the Peregrine spacecraft for a safe, controlled re-entry to Earth over a remote area of the South Pacific. The team has been continuously monitoring our re-entry analysis with NASA, which indicates a re-entry path over the indicated area below, with no anticipated hazards. A safe re-entry is our top priority, so the team developed a two-step maneuver to move the spacecraft and change its projected trajectory. 

The first step required a main engine burn. Due to the propulsion anomaly, it was impossible to operate the main engines normally. As such, we developed a plan to fire the main engines with a series of very short burns. We conducted a test burn of all five main engines. Each pulse was spaced out to avoid overheating, allowing our mission control team to monitor results and the spacecraft’s status after every burn. Following this, we performed a series of 23 small main engine burns.

Secondly, we adjusted the spacecraft’s attitude so the force induced by the leaking propellant shifted us towards the South Pacific Ocean. The result of these two maneuvers is the ellipse in the graphic shown. 

The procedures the team executed were to minimize the risk of debris reaching land. Astrobotic continues to work closely with NASA and other relevant government authorities to keep everyone informed and to solicit feedback as appropriate.

Peregrine has been operating in space for 9 days and 16 hours. It is 139,000 miles (223,700 km) from Earth.  We expect re-entry to occur at approximately 4pm Thursday, January 18 (US Eastern time).   

As re-entry is now targeted for Thursday, we are moving our previously scheduled media telecon to Friday, January 19 at 1pm (US Eastern time) to provide a comprehensive mission update.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 10:56 pm by cohberg »

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11700
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9338
  • Likes Given: 8065
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #155 on: 01/18/2024 02:46 am »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...and no, I'm not a Feline Dealer!!

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11325
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7522
  • Likes Given: 73478
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #156 on: 01/18/2024 04:44 am »
Quote from: Astrobotic - UPDATE #20 FOR PEREGRINE MISSION ONE - 1/17/24
Link
Astrobotic has positioned the Peregrine spacecraft for a safe, controlled re-entry to Earth over a remote area of the South Pacific.
<snip>
We expect re-entry to occur at approximately 4pm Thursday, January 18 (US Eastern time).
Will any NOTAMs or NOTMARs be issued?

Re: visibility
If I'm doing the time zone math correctly, ~4 pm EST = ~9 am next day in the UTC+12 zone.  So, a daylight reentry.
« Last Edit: 01/18/2024 04:54 am by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Ken the Bin

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • US Pacific Time Zone
    • @kenthebin@spacey.space
  • Liked: 5229
  • Likes Given: 5685
Re: Astrobotic Peregine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #157 on: 01/18/2024 05:32 am »
Quote from: Astrobotic - UPDATE #20 FOR PEREGRINE MISSION ONE - 1/17/24
Link
Astrobotic has positioned the Peregrine spacecraft for a safe, controlled re-entry to Earth over a remote area of the South Pacific.
<snip>
We expect re-entry to occur at approximately 4pm Thursday, January 18 (US Eastern time).
Will any NOTAMs or NOTMARs be issued?

All of the NGA Space Debris notices that I have are all accounted for by upcoming rocket launches.

Offline cohberg

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 53
Astrobotic - Update #21 for Peregrine Mission One - 1/18/24
« Reply #158 on: 01/18/2024 03:26 pm »
https://twitter.com/astrobotic/status/1748017370398851505
Quote from: Astrobotic - Update #21 for Peregrine Mission One - 1/18/24
Peregrine has been operating in space for 10 days and 8 hours and is approximately 30,000 miles above Earth, continuing its controlled re-entry. The trajectory remains on track with our planned path toward a safe area over open water in the South Pacific. The vehicle is stable, operational, and responsive. We remain in contact with appropriate government authorities to keep them informed of the vehicle's position and planned trajectory, which remains unchanged.

The stunning image here of Earth from Peregrine was taken by the mission team this morning. The first attempt to take this photo yielded an oversaturated image, with the Sun making the image too bright to see the Earth. As a result, the team precisely slewed the spacecraft to reposition the Sun to be hidden behind the thin payload deck strut just to the left of Earth, which produced the starburst effects on the vehicle and revealed the Earth's crescent. This image is completely unaltered.

We dedicate this image to our customers, partners, and team who all stood with us throughout Peregrine Mission One.

Thread meta commentary: Thread title needs to be corrected: Peregine Peregrine

[zubenelgenubi: D'oh! Spelling corrected. 🤦‍♂️]
« Last Edit: 01/18/2024 08:15 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Ken the Bin

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • US Pacific Time Zone
    • @kenthebin@spacey.space
  • Liked: 5229
  • Likes Given: 5685
Re: Astrobotic Peregrine Mission One - Updates & Discussion
« Reply #159 on: 01/18/2024 07:45 pm »
Quote from: Astrobotic - UPDATE #20 FOR PEREGRINE MISSION ONE - 1/17/24
Link
Astrobotic has positioned the Peregrine spacecraft for a safe, controlled re-entry to Earth over a remote area of the South Pacific.
<snip>
We expect re-entry to occur at approximately 4pm Thursday, January 18 (US Eastern time).
Will any NOTAMs or NOTMARs be issued?

All of the NGA Space Debris notices that I have are all accounted for by upcoming rocket launches.

An NGA Space Debris notice has been issued.

Quote from: NGA
182022Z JAN 24
HYDROPAC 217/24(82,83).
SOUTH PACIFIC.
DNC 06.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   182050Z TO 182120Z JAN IN AREA BOUND BY
   20-15.00S 171-00.00E, 24-45.00S 177-00.00W,
   26-00.00S 177-30.00W, 21-30.00S 170-30.00E.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 182220Z JAN 24.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1