NASA Swift telescope rescue: a daring orbital first



Swift has watched the sky since 2004, catching some of the universe’s biggest explosions. Now it is sinking, and time is short. NASA is paying Katalyst Space Technologies about $30mn to save it, the Associated Press reported. Liftoff could come as early as Tuesday.

The plan sounds simple and is anything but. Reach a satellite nobody designed for capture, grab it, and lift it higher.

Why Swift is falling

Every satellite in low orbit fights a slow drag from the thin air up there. The Sun makes it worse. Intense solar activity has puffed up the atmosphere, and the extra drag now pulls Swift down faster than NASA expected.

The telescope now orbits at about 360km. Left alone, it would drop below 300km by October, past the point where a rescue could still work. After that comes re-entry and a fiery end for a working observatory. NASA has already switched off Swift’s instruments to slow the fall, and science observations stopped in February.

That would be a real loss. Swift ranks among the fastest eyes on the sky, swinging within minutes onto gamma-ray bursts, the brief, violent flares that mark dying stars and colliding neutron stars. “If we let Swift reenter, we would lose that telescope,” NASA science chief Nicky Fox told the AP. “We don’t currently have the budget to build another one to replace that.”

The grab

Katalyst’s answer is Link, an autonomous spacecraft about the size of a small fridge with a 12-metre solar wingspan. It carries three arms, each tipped with two pinching grippers. It rides up on an air-launched Pegasus rocket, dropped from a plane over the Marshall Islands in the Pacific.

From there it has to chase down its target. NASA expects Link to take about a month to reach the 1.4-tonne observatory and grab it, then a further couple of months to raise the orbit from roughly 360km to about 600km. If it works, Swift could be back at work by September.

The catch is the hard part. Swift has no docking port and no grip points, because nobody designed it for servicing. Astronauts once fixed Hubble by hand, but that took the space shuttle and a crew. This time a robot works alone.

A new kind of mission

The speed of it is striking. NASA signed the contract only last September with two instructions: hurry, and do not make things worse. Nine months later, Katalyst is ready to fly.

It is also a first for the US. China nudged a dead satellite into a higher graveyard orbit in 2022, but catching a working telescope that was never built to be caught is a harder job. “No one thought it was going to be possible,” said Shawn Domagal-Goldman, NASA’s astrophysics director.

That matters far beyond Swift. A young industry wants to service, refuel and move satellites in orbit rather than let them die. A real rescue, on a real deadline, is the proof such firms have been waiting for.

Why it matters

The maths is part of the appeal. Thirty million dollars is a fraction of the cost of building and launching a fresh space telescope. If a tug can add years to a healthy instrument, the case for saving hardware over scrapping it gets stronger.

Hubble could be next. Katalyst says a bigger robot, due to fly next year, could reach satellites far higher up and give the ageing Hubble its own boost around 2028. Further out, the firm imagines fleets of orbital robots fixing, fuelling and even building in space.

There is a tidier future hiding in this too. Today most spacecraft simply fall and burn when they reach the end of their lives. A working tug fleet could lift the valuable ones, deorbit the dead ones on purpose, and start to clear the junk crowding low orbit.

For now, all of that rests on one launch and one delicate grab. NASA and Katalyst will know within months whether Swift keeps watching the cosmos or becomes a cautionary tale. The countdown has already started.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


1,000W, 10-port charger for $45... predictably disappointing.

1,000W, 10-port charger for $45… predictably disappointing. 

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes/ZDNET

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.


ZDNET’s key takeaways

  • Things that look “too good to be true” invariable are just that.
  • This example got dangerously hot in a short period of time before dying. 
  • There’s no legitimate charger that comes close to delivering on the 1,000W promise.

Being a tech reviewer for a living means that I get offered some very interesting things. Not interesting as in Bugatti supercars or jewel-encrusted Fabergé eggs, but interesting as in “this thing could easily be a fire hazard — want to take a look?”

Also: The best GaN chargers of 2026: Expert tested

Submissively, I often say yes. And I’m glad I did with the most recent pitch, because it was very interesting indeed.

Meet the “interesting” charger

This time around, the thing of interest was a charger that claimed to deliver an incredible 1,000W through its ten ports — four 140W USB-C ports, four 100W USB-C ports, and two 20W USB-A ports. 

The person who bought this charger told me that they’d plugged it in, used it to charge their phone for “a few minutes,” got worried when it became “a little hot,” and unplugged it.

That's a lot of promise... but (spoilers), they don't deliver!

That’s a lot of promise… but (spoilers), they don’t deliver!

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes/ZDNET

The unit was suspiciously light and plasticky, especially given its built-in power supply. Compare this to Ugreen’s Nexode 500W charger, which weighs a hair under 5 lb.

There was also a slight whiff of melty plastic, which made me think that this had been a bit more than a little hot. 

Also: This $4 router reboot timer is the cheap internet fix I didn’t know I needed – and it works reliably

Color me suspicious, but I had a gut feeling that the only way this charger would be able to push out 1,000W would be if it caught fire. 

Turns out I wasn’t far wrong.

How long would it last? Answer: Minutes

Talk is cheap. It was time to test the charger. 

So I plugged it in, turned it on, and started using it. Within a couple of minutes of starting to use it, I noticed a few things:

  • No matter what I tried, I couldn’t persuade the charger to deliver more than about 60W from any of the ports. 
  • As for peak output, I managed to get close to 250W.
  • The power output was very uneven and noisy, fluctuating wildly. The more ports I used, the worse it got.
  • The unit got very hot to the touch very quickly, even under light loads. 
  • But… before I could get the thermal camera out to check how hot it got, there was a pop and the unmistakable smell of “Magic Smoke.” The charger had been sent to Silicon Heaven within minutes.

Annnnd… POP! This is the moment the charger gave up the ghost.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes/ZDNET

Diagnosis time

Time to take it apart and have a look inside. For an item that plugged into the mains power, this unit was shockingly easy to take apart. 

A thin sheet of easily removable plastic is a that separates curious hands from live AC power.

A thin sheet of easily removable plastic is a that separates curious hands from live AC power.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes/ZDNET

And even unplugged and broken, it was capable of delivering zaps! If the case came off while this was plugged into an outlet, it could very easily be deadly.

There’s charge still in some of the capacitors, and these could deliver quite a zap despite the unit being broken and unplugged!

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes/ZDNET

After getting inside, the unit was filled with a grey goo that I’d seen in a previous disappointing charger I’d taken apart. This is a thermal paste that’s used to try to dissipate the heat generated by the components. 

It’s not really going to work because it’s sealed in a plastic box with no effective heatsink. It’s a token gesture at best. At worst, it creates a mass that’ll slowly heat up and hold temperature because it’s got no way to get rid of it.

Behold the grey goo!

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes/ZDNET

Next to this goo was a bank of capacitors — the black cylinders in the photo — which were the cause of the failure. They’d clearly overheated, with three of them showing signs of bulging.

The problem!

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes/ZDNET

Well there’s the problem!

I also noticed that two of the components — bridge rectifiers that are used to turn AC mains into DC — have been fixed on an angle to make the touch a metal heatsink. It’s not really an effective way to cool down components.

The bottom line

Another “too good to be true” device bites the dust. It’s not the first one I’ve come across, and it won’t be the last.

Moral of the story here is that manufactures are using big number marketing — in this case 1,000W and masses of ports — to scalewash poor quality products. 

This might be a half-decent product if it was built to deliver 100W, but there’s no end of competition at that end of the market. Silkscreen “1,000W” on the outside, sprinkle in a few reviews that feel scripted and fake, and all of a sudden it’s interesting and exciting… right up until it blows up. 

Also: My top 7 laptop-bag essentials now, after decades of remote work

I know of no 1,000W charger. In fact, the 500W Ugreen Nexode is the highest-power charger that I’ve tested that’s legit. And the price is also legit — $250. 

But it’s built to deliver on what it promises and is packed with safety features, including “tip-over protection,” which cuts the output when the unit tips over and prevents it from falling on its side, where it can’t dissipate heat effectively. Now that’s an attention to safety that I like to see in a product that handles that much power. 

But if you want 1,000W of output, you’ll have to buy two and duct tape them together.





Source link