DOCSLIB.ORG

Small Satellites and Space Debris Mitigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

chapter 11 Small Satellites and Space Debris Mitigation Cordula Steinkogler* i Introduction Almost six decades of spaceflight have left a large quantity of debris in outer space. Due to the continuous increase in space activities, the amount of space debris is constantly growing. While in 2005 the total mass of catalogued objects in Earth orbit was an estimated 5,000 tons, this number had risen to approxi- mately 6,000 tons by 2010 and amounts to over 6,600 tons today.1 At present, approximately 17,000 space objects with sizes ranging from a few centimetres to several meters are officially catalogued.2 Of these, however, only approximately * The author would like to thank Prof Otto Koudelka (Graz University of Technology), Dr Manuel Metz (German Aerospace Center), Attila Matas (ITU) and Vladimir Agapov (Russian Academy of Sciences) for the valuable advice and useful material they provided on technical matters. 1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ‘Monthly Effective Mass of Objects in Earth Orbit by Region’ (Orbital Debris Quarterly News, January 2015) <http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa .gov/newsletter/newsletter.html>. 2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ‘Satellite Box Score’ (Orbital Debris Quarterly News, January 2015) <http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/newsletter.html>. See also United States Strategic Command, ‘Satellite Situation Report’ <https://www.space-track.org> (as of 6 June 2015). Note that according to the esa space debris risk assessment model esa MASTER 2009 the current number of space objects larger than 10 cm is approximately 29,000. See Institute of Aerospace Systems – Technische Universität Braunschweig, Maintenance of the esa MASTER Model – Final Report (European Space Agency 2011) 336. The difference is due to the fact that the United States Space Surveillance Network can track objects larger than 5–10 cm in Low Earth Orbit, but in higher altitudes it is only possible to track objects larger than 0,3-1 m. See Ram Jakhu and Joseph Pelton, Small Satellites and Their Regulation (Springer 2014) 7. Furthermore, data relating to debris that cannot be attributed to a specific source as well as data of military spacecraft are not published in the us Space Surveillance Network’s publicly available catalogue. See National Research Council, Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of nasa’s Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs (National Academies Press 2011) 9. Also note that the number of objects of a size between 1 and 10 cm is estimated to be in the order of 720,000. See Technische Universität Braunschweig Institute of Aerospace Systems, Maintenance of the esa MASTER Model – Final Report (European Space Agency 2011) 336. Due to their small size these objects cannot be tracked continuously, which makes it difficult to predict collisions. Yet, even the collision with an object of this size can lead to the loss of a satellite mission. See Carsten Wiedemann, ‘Space Debris Mitigation’ in Irmgard Marboe (ed), Soft Law in Outer Space (Böhlau 2012) 316. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi �0.��63/97890043���34_0�3 <UN> 212 Steinkogler 1,100 are operational satellites.3 With the growing number of functional and non-functional objects in Earth orbit, the probability of in-orbit collisions is ris- ing. In the long term this could lead to a situation where the increase in space debris will be sustained only by collisions between collision fragments.4 This collision cascading effect, described as ‘Kessler Syndrome’, could render the use of outer space more and more difficult in the future. Space debris is therefore regarded as a serious hazard for the safety and sus- tainability of outer space activities. Yet, this issue is not explicitly addressed in the five United Nations space treaties. To fill this gap, a number of non-binding guidelines and standards on space debris mitigation have been developed on the international level over the past years. In addition, many states have adopted national legislation and procedures on space debris, making the international mitigation standards and guidelines applicable to national space operations. Small satellites have become increasingly popular in recent years and their advantages are manifold.5 However, the technical and operational particulari- ties that allow for their cost-effective development and use, pose specific tech- nical and legal challenges related to the mitigation of space debris. At the same time, small satellites can play an important role in the development of new technologies in the area of space debris mitigation and can thus offer innova- tive solutions to the risks posed by space debris. Against the background of a predicted increase in small satellite activities in the future, the chances and challenges that small satellites present with regard to the issue of space debris merit particular attention. 3 United States Department of Defense, ‘Officials Expand Space-tracking Website’ (Department of Defense News, 25 August 2014) <http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle .aspx?id=123006>. 4 Donald Kessler, ‘Collisional cascading: The limits of population growth in low earth orbit’ (1991) 11 Advances in Space Research 63. 5 In this chapter, the term ‘small satellite’ refers to all subcategories of small satellites as pro- posed by the International Academy of Astronautics (iaa) Study Group on Small Satellite Missions for Earth Observation. See Rainer Sandau (ed), International Study on Cost- Effective Earth Observation Missions (Taylor & Francis 2006). Note however, that there is no universally accepted definition of a small satellite. For a detailed discussion of the defini- tion of small satellites see the chapter of Otto Koudelka in this book. See also Ram Jakhu and Joseph Pelton, Small Satellites and Their Regulation (Springer 2014) 3; International Telecommunication Union and United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, ‘Guidance on Space Object Registration and Frequency Management for Small and Very Small Satellites’ (A/AC.105/C.2/2015/CRP.17, 2015) 2. For a general discussion of the characteristics of small satellites see the chapters of Otto Koudelka, Werner Balogh, Neta Palkovitz, Michael Dornik and Milton Smith in this book. <UN>.
Recommended publications
  • Kessler Syndrome

    Kessler Syndrome

    Kessler Syndrome March 20, 2021 What is Kessler Syndrome? The Kessler syndrome, also called the Kessler effect, collisional cascading or ablation cascade, is a scenario in which the density of objects in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions. Who proposed it? It is a theory proposed by NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, used to describe a self-sustaining cascading collision of space debris in LEO. In an article published on June 1, 1978 in the American Journal of Geophysical Research, the authors Donald J. Kessler and Burton G. Cour-Palais, two NASA experts, identified the risk of an exponential increase in the number of space debris or orbital debris under the effect of mutual collisions. The two authors believed that a belt formed by these objects or fragments of objects around the Earth would soon form. Eventually threatening space activities, this phenomenon will be popularized a few years later under the name of Kessler syndrome Implications One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges impractical for many generations. The Kessler syndrome is troublesome because of the domino effect and feedback runaway wherein impacts between objects of sizable mass spall off debris from the force of the collision Every satellite, space probe, and manned mission has the potential to produce space debris. A cascading Kessler syndrome becomes more likely as satellites in orbit increase in number.
  • Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris

    Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris

    r bulletin 109 — february 2002 Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris D. Mehrholz, L. Leushacke FGAN Research Institute for High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques, Wachtberg, Germany W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Darmstadt, Germany Earth’s space-debris environment tracked, with estimates for the number of Today’s man-made space-debris environment objects larger than 1 cm ranging from 100 000 has been created by the space activities to 200 000. that have taken place since Sputnik’s launch in 1957. There have been more than 4000 The sources of this debris are normal launch rocket launches since then, as well as many operations (Fig. 2), certain operations in space, other related debris-generating occurrences fragmentations as a result of explosions and such as more than 150 in-orbit fragmentation collisions in space, firings of satellite solid- events. rocket motors, material ageing effects, and leaking thermal-control systems. Solid-rocket Among the more than 8700 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbits, motors use aluminium as a catalyst (about 15% only about 6% are operational satellites and the remainder is space by mass) and when burning they emit debris. Europe currently has no operational space surveillance aluminium-oxide particles typically 1 to 10 system, but a powerful radar facility for the detection and tracking of microns in size. In addition, centimetre-sized space debris and the imaging of space objects is available in the form objects are formed by metallic aluminium melts, of the 34 m dish radar at the Research Establishment for Applied called ‘slag’.
  • To Secure Long-Term Spaceflight Safety and Orbital Sustainability for the Benefit of Future Generations the Impact of Space Debris

    To Secure Long-Term Spaceflight Safety and Orbital Sustainability for the Benefit of Future Generations the Impact of Space Debris

    To secure long-term spaceflight safety and orbital sustainability for the benefit of future generations The impact of space debris Our growing reliance on satellite services 1 active satellite 1957 1,950 active satellites 2019 20,000+ active satellites by 2030 67,000 collision alerts per year very day billions of people around the world rely One of the key ways to reduce the risk of collision in on data from satellites to go about their lives. We orbit is to remove potential threats. Designing and Eexchange messages, talk to family and friends, building a satellite to identify, track, rendezvous, dock check the weather, manage finances, and undertake and de-orbit a piece of debris is an extraordinarily numerous other tasks. In addition, satellites are used difficult technical task on its own. However, developing to manage and mitigate natural disasters, monitor the an orbital debris removal business involves more than Earth’s climate and well-being and provide information just creating the technical solution. We now need a for national security. In short, without satellite data, the consistent global effort to shape regulations and a lives of people around the world would be dramatically vibrant ecosystem that assures a business case. At different. And now the source of this data is at growing Astroscale we are working these important tasks risk of being destroyed by space debris. – developing the technologies, working with the policymakers and closing the business case – that will We don’t see these satellites and the millions of pieces allow for a long-term orbital debris solution.
  • Solving the Space Debris Crisis Paul B

    Solving the Space Debris Crisis Paul B

    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 83 | Issue 3 Article 2 2018 Solving the Space Debris Crisis Paul B. Larsen Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Part of the Air and Space Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul B. Larsen, Solving the Space Debris Crisis, 83 J. Air L. & Com. 475 (2018) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol83/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. SOLVING THE SPACE DEBRIS CRISIS PAUL B. LARSEN* ABSTRACT Space debris is a growing public safety problem. As described by the Kessler Syndrome,1 the increasing accumulation of debris will soon hinder and eventually preclude access to outer space unless the trend is swiftly reversed. The Inter-Agency Space Deb- ris Coordination Committee’s (IADC) Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, as adopted by the United Nations (UN) Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), are voluntary but are enforced as mandatory regulations by major space pow- ers; however, the guidelines only apply to new debris. The Euro- pean Space Agency’s (ESA) 2017 Space Debris Conference concluded that existing space debris guidelines are inadequate and must be further strengthened in order to successfully con- trol space debris.2 * The author taught air and space law for more than forty years respectively at Southern Methodist University and at Georgetown University.
  • NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris

    NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris

    NASA-HANDBOOK NASA HANDBOOK 8719.14 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Approved: 2008-07-30 Washington, DC 20546 Expiration Date: 2013-07-30 HANDBOOK FOR LIMITING ORBITAL DEBRIS Measurement System Identification: Metric APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 DOCUMENT HISTORY LOG Status Document Approval Date Description Revision Baseline 2008-07-30 Initial Release Page 3 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SCOPE...........................................................................................................................13 1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Applicability ....................................................................................................................... 13 2 APPLICABLE AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS................................................14 3 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................15 3.1 Acronyms............................................................................................................................ 15 3.2 Definitions .........................................................................................................................
  • Space Debris

    Space Debris

    IADC-11-04 April 2013 Space Debris IADC Assessment Report for 2010 Issued by the IADC Steering Group Table of Contents 1. Foreword .......................................................................... 1 2. IADC Highlights ................................................................ 2 3. Space Debris Activities in the United Nations ................... 4 4. Earth Satellite Population .................................................. 6 5. Satellite Launches, Reentries and Retirements ................ 10 6. Satellite Fragmentations ................................................... 15 7. Collision Avoidance .......................................................... 17 8. Orbital Debris Removal ..................................................... 18 9. Major Meetings Addressing Space Debris ........................ 20 Appendix: Satellite Break-ups, 2000-2010 ............................ 22 IADC Assessment Report for 2010 i Acronyms ADR Active Debris Removal ASI Italian Space Agency CNES Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (France) CNSA China National Space Agency CSA Canadian Space Agency COPUOS Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, United Nations DLR German Aerospace Center ESA European Space Agency GEO Geosynchronous Orbit region (region near 35,786 km altitude where the orbital period of a satellite matches that of the rotation rate of the Earth) IADC Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee ISRO Indian Space Research Organization ISS International Space Station JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency LEO Low
  • Orbiting Debris: a Space Environmental Problem (Part 4 Of

    Orbiting Debris: a Space Environmental Problem (Part 4 Of

    Orbiting Debris: A Since Environmential Problem ● 3 Table 2--of Hazardous Interference by environment. Yet, orbital debris is part of a Orbital Debris larger problem of pollution in space that in- cludes radio-frequency interference and inter- 1. Loss or damage to space assets through collision; ference to scientific observations in all parts of 2. Accidental re-entry of space hardware; the spectrum. For example, emissions at ra- 3. Contamination by nuclear material of manned or unmanned spacecraft, both in space and on Earth; dio frequencies often interfere with radio as- 4. Interference with astronomical observations, both from the tronomy observations. For several years, ground and in space; gamma-ray astronomy data have been cor- 5. Interference with scientific and military experiments in space; rupted by Soviet intelligence satellites that 14 6. Potential military use. are powered by unshielded nuclear reactors. The indirect emissions from these satellites SOURCE: Space Debris, European Space Agency, and Office of Technology As- sessment. spread along the Earth’s magnetic field and are virtually impossible for other satellites to Earth. The largest have attracted worldwide escape. The Japanese Ginga satellite, attention. 10 Although the risk to individuals is launched in 1987 to study gamma-ray extremely small, the probability of striking bursters, has been triggered so often by the populated areas still finite.11 For example: 1) Soviet reactors that over 40 percent of its available observing time has been spent trans- the U.S.S.R. Kosmos 954, which contained a 15 nuclear power source,12 reentered the atmos- mitting unintelligible “data.” All of these phere over northwest Canada in 1978, scatter- problem areas will require attention and posi- ing debris over an area the size of Austria; 2) a tive steps to guarantee access to space by all Japanese ship was hit in 1969 by pieces of countries in the future.
  • IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines

    IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines

    IADC-02-01 Revision 2 Mar 2020 IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines Issued by IADC Steering Group and Working Group 4 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 1 Revision History .................................................................................................................... 2 List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. 3 1 Scope ............................................................................................................................. 6 2 Application ...................................................................................................................... 6 3 Terms and definitions ..................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Space Debris ........................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Spacecraft, Launch Vehicles, and Orbital Stages .................................................... 6 3.3 Orbits and Protected Regions ................................................................................. 7 3.4 Mitigation Measures and Related Terms ................................................................. 8 3.5 Operational Phases ................................................................................................. 8 4 General Guidance .........................................................................................................
  • Assessment of the Legal Regime of Mining of Minerals in Outer Space

    Assessment of the Legal Regime of Mining of Minerals in Outer Space

    United Nations/South Africa Symposium on Basic Space Technology “Small Satellite Missions for Scientific and Technological Advancement”, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 11 – 15 December 2017 Africa in Space: Legal Issues and Responsibilities Related to Space Technology Development Programmes Olusoji Nester JOHN African Regional Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in English (ARCSSTE-E), Nigeria, [email protected], +2348034235704 1. INTRODUCTION Outer Space has always fascinated man, beginning from the Biblical days of the building of the Tower of Babel to this very Century in which it is particularly important in his everyday life. So, man has been making attempt to explore, he has explored and he is still exploring this important domain. This will remain so even to the end the days of the last man on Earth. The early vision of space leaders, particularly the U.S and Soviet Union, was space for prestige and supremacy. That vision was not different from that of the people of Babel: “Come, let us build ourselves ... a tower whose top is in the heavens. Let us make a name for ourselves …” (Genesis 11 The beginning of Space exploration was characterized by “State- selfishness” and unfriendly-race. Soviet Union made several achievements first: • launched Sputnik I in October 1957 • Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin of Soviet Union became the first human being in space on April 12, 1961 Soviet Union leadership claimed that its first capabilities were evidence of its overall superiority These first-in-all achievements contributed to significant increase in Soviet Union national prestige vi- a-viz the U.S Kennedy and his advisers felt the need a to beat Soviet Union, to re-establish U.S prestige and demonstrate its leadership.
  • Espinsights the Global Space Activity Monitor

    Espinsights the Global Space Activity Monitor

    ESPInsights The Global Space Activity Monitor Issue 6 April-June 2020 CONTENTS FOCUS ..................................................................................................................... 6 The Crew Dragon mission to the ISS and the Commercial Crew Program ..................................... 6 SPACE POLICY AND PROGRAMMES .................................................................................... 7 EUROPE ................................................................................................................. 7 COVID-19 and the European space sector ....................................................................... 7 Space technologies for European defence ...................................................................... 7 ESA Earth Observation Missions ................................................................................... 8 Thales Alenia Space among HLS competitors ................................................................... 8 Advancements for the European Service Module ............................................................... 9 Airbus for the Martian Sample Fetch Rover ..................................................................... 9 New appointments in ESA, GSA and Eurospace ................................................................ 10 Italy introduces Platino, regions launch Mirror Copernicus .................................................. 10 DLR new research observatory ..................................................................................
  • AAS Paper Kessler Syndromefinalfinal

    AAS Paper Kessler Syndromefinalfinal

    (Preprint) AAS 10-016 THE KESSLER SYNDROME: IMPLICATIONS TO FUTURE SPACE OPERATIONS Donald J. Kessler,* Nicholas L. Johnson,† and J.-C. Liou,‡ and Mark Matney ☺ The term “Kessler Syndrome” is an orbital debris term that has become popular outside the professional orbital debris community without ever having a strict definition. The intended definition grew out of a 1978 JGR paper predicting that fragments from random collisions between catalogued objects in low Earth orbit would become an important source of small debris beginning in about the year 2000, and that afterwards, “…the debris flux will increase exponentially with time, even though a zero net input may be maintained”. The purpose of this pa- per is to clarify the intended definition of the term, to put the implications into perspective after 30 years of research by the international scientific community, and to discuss what this research may mean to future space operations. The conclusion is reached that while popular use of the term may have exaggerated and distorted the conclusions of the 1978 paper, the result of all research to date confirms that we are now entering a time when the orbital debris environment will increasingly be controlled by random collisions. Without adequate collision avoidance capabilities, control of the future environment requires that we fully implement current mitigation guidelines by not leaving future payloads and rocket bodies in orbit after their useful life. In addition, we will likely be re- quired to return some objects already in orbit. INTRODUCTION Since the beginning of the space program through the 1970’s, it was generally believed that NORAD was tracking all man-made objects in Earth orbit and that the catalogued objects repre- sented the major collision threat to other operational spacecraft.
  • The Existence and Dangers of the Accumulation of Space Debris in Low Earth Orbit and How Analogies Can Be Used to Better Explain Complexities in New Technologies

    The Existence and Dangers of the Accumulation of Space Debris in Low Earth Orbit and How Analogies Can Be Used to Better Explain Complexities in New Technologies

    The Existence and Dangers of the Accumulation of Space Debris in Low Earth Orbit and How Analogies Can Be Used to Better Explain Complexities in New Technologies A Research Paper submitted to the Department of Engineering and Society Presented to the Faculty of the School of Engineering and Applied Science University of Virginia • Charlottesville, Virginia In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science, School of Engineering Colin Purcell Spring 2021 On my honor as a University Student, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this assignment as defined by the Honor Guidelines for Thesis-Related Assignments Advisor Kathryn A. Neeley, Associate Professor of STS, Department of Engineering and Society Overcrowding of Low Earth Orbit Governments, civilians and especially private companies are launching rockets and satellites at unprecedented rates (Stephen Clark, 2021, n.p). This rise is shown in Figure 1 and is predominantly caused by the increase in spacecraft launched by private companies. These satellites serve many purposes such as communication, imagery and even global wifi in the near future. While these spacecraft provide many benefits, some trouble will arise in the future if more attention is not paid to the potential for overcrowding space. Of the 2,666 satellites in orbit around the Earth, 1,918 or 72% are in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) (Datta, 2020). This congestion has the potential to lead to collisions between spacecraft causing damage and even destroying operational satellites. Figure 1: Number of spacecraft launched per year by different groups (Lafleur, 2017) This image shows the progression of how many spacecraft were launched each year from the beginning of space exploration to 2017.