DOCSLIB.ORG

Impacts on Earth from Space

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impacts on Earth from Space IMPACTS ON EARTH POST 80 FROM SPACE June ■ What are the risks? note 1996 ■ What safeguards are there? POSTnotes are intended to give Members an overview of issues arising from science and technology. Members The growing number of man-made objects in Earth can obtain further details from the PARLIAMENTARY orbit are a potential hazard to space missions and OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (extension 2840). satellites, and the uncontrolled re-entry of the Chinese FSW-1 5 (‘China 40’) reconnaissance sat- Figure 1 VISIBLE OBJECTS AND THEIR ORBITS ellite in March 1996 was a reminder that ‘space AAAA A AAA AAA her A AAA debris’ can also pose a threat on the ground. More Other A AAAA Spacecraft AAA AA is also being learnt about the threat from asteroids. A A A GEO EO A Rocket bodies AAA AAA Debris fragments A This note examines the risk of terrestrial damage A Transferfer A from space and what safeguards are available. A A A EO A MEO A A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ‘CONGESTION’ IN SPACE AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA EO A A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LEO AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Since 1958 there have been some 3750 space launches 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 resulting in nearly 8,000 objects larger than 10cm in Source: ESA orbit around the Earth (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1, only about 30% of these objects are telecommunica- Table 1 NATURAL ORBITAL LIFETIME tions or other satellites; the rest are spent rocket stages, Altitude (km) Earth Orbit (EO) Lifetime mission-related objects (launch adapters etc.) and de- 200 Low (LEO) 1-4 days 600 25-30 years bris from the 129 spacecraft which have broken up in 1000 2000 years orbit. 80% of the satellites no longer function, e.g. 2000 20,000 years because they have run out of fuel or failed. 5,500 Medium (MEO) 100,000 years 36,000 Geostationary (GEO) >1M years RISK OF RE-ENTRY pushed into a higher orbit, also running out of fuel. The satellite then took 2.5 years to re-enter, out of control. The Earth’s atmosphere thins progressively towards Risks can also arise when spacecraft fail to reach the space and the drag exerted on satellites is less at higher desired orbit because of some malfunction in the launch altitudes. This affects the orbital lifetime of a satellite as phase. For example, in February 1996 a Chinese Long shown in Table 1. Satellites in the lowest orbits (often March rocket (carrying an Intelsat satellite) veered off military ‘spy’ satellites at around 200km) have natural course and crashed near the launching pad. orbital lifetimes of only days before they re-enter the lower atmosphere. At higher altitudes, orbital lifetimes Other forms of launch failure include booster malfunc- extend to thousands of years and satellites in tions so that satellites are deployed into lower orbits, geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) can remain there al- damage to satellite control mechanisms during deploy- most indefinitely. ment and ‘on-orbit’ explosions. For example, the Rus- sian Raduga 33 military communications satellite failed To compensate for atmospheric drag (and for the smaller to reach geostationary orbit in February 1996 due to the effect of ‘orbital drift’ caused by gravitational pull of the explosion of its fourth booster stage; it has been left sun and the moon), many satellites carry small rocket (together with about 200 fragments) in an elliptical thrusters. These also can be used to adjust the ‘attitude’ geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) which approaches of the satellite in space; e.g. to point an instrument or within 250km of the Earth’s surface. antenna in a specific direction. When a satellite reaches the end of its useful life, the thrusters can sometimes be Currently, several man-made objects re-enter the at- used to boost the satellite into a higher ‘graveyard’ mosphere every week: most of them disintegrate and orbit or to attempt a ‘controlled re-entry’ to allow the burn up in the upper atmosphere, a long way from the satellite to burn up or land harmlessly. Earth’s surface. Some objects, however, can reach the ground and potentially cause damage for three main Such plans can go wrong and satellites can become ‘re- reasons (see Table 2) : entry risk objects’. For example, FSW-1 5 was designed ● because it contains too much mass to burn up (e.g. to re-enter under control 8 days after launch so that its Skylab, Salyut 7); payload could be recovered. However, its motors were ● because it was designed to survive re-entry (e.g. fired in the wrong orientation and the satellite was FSW-1 5); P. O. S. T. n o t e 8 0 J u n e 1996 Box 1 SPACE DEBRIS RESEARCH While space debris research is very much metre telescope located at the Spanish Teide Data from this source is made available by an international effort, the lead has been observatory (Canary Islands). Radar meas- MOD to DERA for research purposes. taken on by the USA. The US Office of urement techniques for the detection of sub- The UK has a strong academic research Science and Technology Policy has pub- decimetre size objects in Low-Earth Orbits effort into space debris (e.g. at Southamp- lished two key reports on orbital debris. (LEO) are also being developed and applied ton, QMW, Cranfield and Glasgow and the The first (1989) prompted NASA and the by the German FGAN radar (at Wachtberg- Unit for Space Science and Astrophysics Department of Defense to conduct an ex- Werthhoven). (USSA) of the University of Kent at Canter- tensive exercise to measure debris in Low ESA also investigates the effects of ‘hyper bury (UKC). USSA conducts research into Earth Orbit (LEO), and the second was velocity’ impacts on spacecraft and shielding debris impact both on the ground and through made generally available in Spring 1996. techniques; and is implementing debris miti- participation in various international space These reports are concerned primarily with gation standards for its ARIANE launchers. missions. While in the past this research orbital debris, rather than re-entry risk. Historically, the UK has had a strong interest has been supported by the Research Coun- The European Space Agency (ESA) de- cils, the majority of funding now comes from bris activity is coordinated by the Euro- in space. Until 1992, the Royal Aircraft Estab- international sources, such as ESA. pean Space Operations Centre (ESOC) lishment (RAE, now DERA Farnborough) com- in Darmstadt and includes:- piled the “RAE Table of Earth Satellites”, The characteristics of objects which are too ● a database of known (‘catalogued’) which was a definitive list of all known satel- small to observe from the ground can be space objects (DISCOS) available, to lites, with details of their orbits, specifications estimated from space-based measure- registered users, on the Internet. (where available) and predictions for their re- ments. So far this has involved the exami- ● space debris and meteoroid computer entry date. In 1992, DERA submitted its nation of impact damage and particles models; database to ESA where it now forms part of trapped in special ‘aerogel’ cells on recov- ● results of optical and radar observa- the DISCOS service. ered objects. New types of particle detector tion of space objects. The UK also has access to orbital tracking are being developed which can analyse ESOC is preparing optical observations of facilities through its partnership with the USA small debris in orbit and in ‘real time’ and high altitude orbits (e.g. GEO) with a 1 in the RAF Fylingdales early warning radar. transmit the results back to Earth. TABLE 2 - SATELLITE EARTH IMPACTS spacecraft parameters. However, launch failures and Object Date Mass(Kg) Causes on-orbit variations mean that the information may not Kosmos 954 1978 3000 failed to reach boost orbit remain accurate. Ground-based observation which Skylab 1979 75000 'solar harvest' can use radar or optical telescopes (see Box 1) are thus Kosmos 1402 1983 3000 failed to reach boost orbit needed to supplement the catalogue of space objects. Salyut 7/ Kosmos1686 1991 40000 'solar harvest' Express 1 1995 1000 failed to reach initial orbit Objects larger than about 10cm can be tracked by radar, Kosmos 398 1995 >1000 lunar module such as the missile early warning system at RAF FSW-1 5 1996 >1000 control failure Fylingdales, which gives accurate trajectories for ob- ● because it never achieved a high enough orbit to jects as they pass through the field of view. These have enough time to burn up (e.g. Express 1). international observation and tracking campaigns (ex- amples are given in Box 1) can identify likely re-entry The re-entry of the Soviet Kosmos spacecraft in 1978 events and submit them to closer scrutiny. highlights the particular danger from nuclear power sources (NPS). Satellite NPS are small ‘thermo-piles' of However, whether a satellite is re-entering the atmos- low grade uranium which are used to generate electric- phere ‘under control’ or not, there are many factors ity to power the satellite. Today, NPS are used only for which make its behaviour difficult to predict. First of deep space probes (e.g. the recent Galileo mission to all, most satellites have complicated shapes and pro- Jupiter and the forthcoming Cassini/Huygens mission trusions such as solar panel arrays which make their to Saturn), for which solar power would provide insuf- ‘flight path’ difficult to analyse. Moreover, many ficient energy. But there are still 42 Soviet NPS from the satellites are spinning and may start to tumble as they RORSAT series in ‘nuclear graveyard orbit’ 650-1000km re-enter the atmosphere.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cross-References ASTEROID IMPACT Definition and Introduction History of Impact Cratering Studies
    18 ASTEROID IMPACT Tedesco, E. F., Noah, P. V., Noah, M., and Price, S. D., 2002. The identification and confirmation of impact structures on supplemental IRAS minor planet survey. The Astronomical Earth were developed: (a) crater morphology, (b) geo- 123 – Journal, , 1056 1085. physical anomalies, (c) evidence for shock metamor- Tholen, D. J., and Barucci, M. A., 1989. Asteroid taxonomy. In Binzel, R. P., Gehrels, T., and Matthews, M. S. (eds.), phism, and (d) the presence of meteorites or geochemical Asteroids II. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 298–315. evidence for traces of the meteoritic projectile – of which Yeomans, D., and Baalke, R., 2009. Near Earth Object Program. only (c) and (d) can provide confirming evidence. Remote Available from World Wide Web: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ sensing, including morphological observations, as well programs. as geophysical studies, cannot provide confirming evi- dence – which requires the study of actual rock samples. Cross-references Impacts influenced the geological and biological evolu- tion of our own planet; the best known example is the link Albedo between the 200-km-diameter Chicxulub impact structure Asteroid Impact Asteroid Impact Mitigation in Mexico and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Under- Asteroid Impact Prediction standing impact structures, their formation processes, Torino Scale and their consequences should be of interest not only to Earth and planetary scientists, but also to society in general. ASTEROID IMPACT History of impact cratering studies In the geological sciences, it has only recently been recog- Christian Koeberl nized how important the process of impact cratering is on Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria a planetary scale.
    [Show full text]
  • 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’.
    [Show full text]
  • Questioning the Surface of Mars As the 21St Century's Ultimate Pioneering Destination in Space
    Questioning The Surface Of Mars As The 21st Century's Ultimate Pioneering Destination In Space Small Bodies Assessment Group Meeting #13 Washington D.C. 1 July 2015 Questioning Mars As The Ultimate Pioneering Destination In Space Background And Context • Foreseeable human-initiated activity in space can be divided into two categories - Exploring (e.g. Lewis & Clark ca. 1805): survey foreign territory + A major component of NASA's charter + Can be conducted by humans directly or by robots under human control + Virtual human presence is possible via tele-robotics stationed < 100,000 km away + Mars never approaches Earth closer than 56 million km - Pioneering (e.g. Pilgrims ca.1620): put down multi-generation roots in foreign territory + NOT in NASA's charter + MUST be conducted by humans in situ and ultimately return sustained profits + Any examples to date are dubious and Earth-centered (e.g. communication satellites) • Mars is widely accepted as the ultimate 21st century pioneering destination in space - Why would 202,586* adults volunteer in 2013 for a one-way trip to the surface of Mars? - What are potential obstacles to pioneering the surface of Mars? - Might there be more accessible and hospitable pioneering destinations than Mars? * The number of applications actually completed and submitted to Mars One was reported in 2015 to be 4227. Daniel R. Adamo ([email protected]) 1 1 July 2015 Questioning Mars As The Ultimate Pioneering Destination In Space History† Indicates Humans Pioneer For Compelling Reasons • Escape from war, starvation,
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Defence Activities Beyond NASA and ESA
    Planetary Defence Activities Beyond NASA and ESA Brent W. Barbee 1. Introduction The collision of a significant asteroid or comet with Earth represents a singular natural disaster for a myriad of reasons, including: its extraterrestrial origin; the fact that it is perhaps the only natural disaster that is preventable in many cases, given sufficient preparation and warning; its scope, which ranges from damaging a city to an extinction-level event; and the duality of asteroids and comets themselves---they are grave potential threats, but are also tantalising scientific clues to our ancient past and resources with which we may one day build a prosperous spacefaring future. Accordingly, the problems of developing the means to interact with asteroids and comets for purposes of defence, scientific study, exploration, and resource utilisation have grown in importance over the past several decades. Since the 1980s, more and more asteroids and comets (especially the former) have been discovered, radically changing our picture of the solar system. At the beginning of the year 1980, approximately 9,000 asteroids were known to exist. By the beginning of 2001, that number had risen to approximately 125,000 thanks to the Earth-based telescopic survey efforts of the era, particularly the emergence of modern automated telescopic search systems, pioneered by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT’s) LINEAR system in the mid-to-late 1990s.1 Today, in late 2019, about 840,000 asteroids have been discovered,2 with more and more being found every week, month, and year. Of those, approximately 21,400 are categorised as near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), 2,000 of which are categorised as Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs)3 and 2,749 of which are categorised as potentially accessible.4 The hazards posed to us by asteroids affect people everywhere around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning from Fukushima: Nuclear Power in East Asia
    LEARNING FROM FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER IN EAST ASIA LEARNING FROM FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER IN EAST ASIA EDITED BY PETER VAN NESS AND MEL GURTOV WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANDREW BLAKERS, MELY CABALLERO-ANTHONY, GLORIA KUANG-JUNG HSU, AMY KING, DOUG KOPLOW, ANDERS P. MØLLER, TIMOTHY A. MOUSSEAU, M. V. RAMANA, LAUREN RICHARDSON, KALMAN A. ROBERTSON, TILMAN A. RUFF, CHRISTINA STUART, TATSUJIRO SUZUKI, AND JULIUS CESAR I. TRAJANO Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Learning from Fukushima : nuclear power in East Asia / Peter Van Ness, Mel Gurtov, editors. ISBN: 9781760461393 (paperback) 9781760461409 (ebook) Subjects: Nuclear power plants--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--Risk assessment--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--Health aspects--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--East Asia--Evaluation. Other Creators/Contributors: Van Ness, Peter, editor. Gurtov, Melvin, editor. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover image: ‘Fukushima apple tree’ by Kristian Laemmle-Ruff. Near Fukushima City, 60 km from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, February 2014. The number in the artwork is the radioactivity level measured in the orchard—2.166 microsieverts per hour, around 20 times normal background radiation. This edition © 2017 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Acronyms and abbreviations .
    [Show full text]
  • Itu Recommendation Itu-R S.1003.2
    SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION STANDARDS ITU RECOMMENDATION ITU‐R S.1003.2 International mechanism: International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Recommendation ITU‐R S.1003.2 (12/2010) Environmental protection of the geostationary‐satellite orbit Description: ITU‐R S.1003.2 provides guidance about disposal orbits for satellites in the geostationary‐ satellite orbit (GSO). In this orbit, there is an increase in debris due to fragments resulting from increased numbers of satellites and their associated launches. Given the current limitations (primarily specific impulse) of space propulsion systems, it is impractical to retrieve objects from GSO altitudes or to return them to Earth at the end of their operational life. A protected region must therefore be established above, below and around the GSO which defines the nominal orbital regime within which operational satellites will reside and manoeuvre. To avoid an accumulation of non‐functional objects in this region, and the associated increase in population density and potential collision risk that this would lead to, satellites should be manoeuvred out of this region at the end of their operational life. In order to ensure that these objects do not present a collision hazard to satellites being injected into GSO, they should be manoeuvred to altitudes higher than the GSO region, rather than lower. The recommendations embodied in ITU‐R S.1003.2 are: – Recommendation 1: As little debris as possible should be released into the GSO region during the placement of a satellite in orbit. – Recommendation 2: Every reasonable effort should be made to shorten the lifetime of debris in elliptical transfer orbits with the apogees at or near GSO altitude.
    [Show full text]
  • F, I3/ M EARTH VIEW: a Business Guide to Orbital Remote Sensing
    _Ot-//JJ J zJ v - _'-.'3 7 F, i3/ m EARTH VIEW: A Business Guide to Orbital Remote Sensing NgI-Z4&71 (_!ASA-C_-ISB23_) EAsT VIEW: A 3USINESS GUI_E TO ORBITAL REMOTE SENSING (Houston Univ.) 13I p CSCL OBB Unclos G3/_3 001_137 Peter C. Bishop July 1990 Cooperative Agreement NCC 9-16 Research Activity No. IM.1 NASA Johnson Space Center Office of Commercial Programs Space Station Utilization Office "=.,. © Research Institute for Computing and Information Systems University of Houston - Clear Lake - T.E.C.H.N.I.C.A.L R.E.P.O.R.T Iml i I Jg. I k . U I i .... 7X7 iml The university of Houston-Clear Lake established the Research Institute for Computing and Information systems in 1986 to encourage NASA Johnson Space Center and local industry to actively support research in the computing and r' The information sciences. As part of this endeavor, UH-Clear Lake proposed a _._ partnership with JSC to jointly define and manage an integrated program of research in advanced data processing technology needed for JSC's main missions, including RICIS administrative, engineering and science responsibilities. JSC agreed and entered itffo : " a three-year cooperatlveagreement with UH-Clear _ke beginning in May, 1986, to ii jointly plan and execute such research through RICIS. Additionally, under Concept Cooperative Agreement NCC 9-16, computing and educational facilities are shared by the two institutions to conduct the research. The mission of RICIS is to conduct, coordinate and disseminate research on _-.. -- : computing and information systems among researchers, sponsors and users from UH-Clear Lake, NASA/JSC, and other research organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendation Itu-R S.1003-2*
    Recommendation ITU-R S.1003-2 (12/2010) Environmental protection of the geostationary-satellite orbit S Series Fixed-satellite service ii Rec. ITU-R S.1003-2 Foreword The role of the Radiocommunication Sector is to ensure the rational, equitable, efficient and economical use of the radio-frequency spectrum by all radiocommunication services, including satellite services, and carry out studies without limit of frequency range on the basis of which Recommendations are adopted. The regulatory and policy functions of the Radiocommunication Sector are performed by World and Regional Radiocommunication Conferences and Radiocommunication Assemblies supported by Study Groups. Policy on Intellectual Property Right (IPR) ITU-R policy on IPR is described in the Common Patent Policy for ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC referenced in Annex 1 of Resolution ITU-R 1. Forms to be used for the submission of patent statements and licensing declarations by patent holders are available from http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/go/patents/en where the Guidelines for Implementation of the Common Patent Policy for ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC and the ITU-R patent information database can also be found. Series of ITU-R Recommendations (Also available online at http://www.itu.int/publ/R-REC/en) Series Title BO Satellite delivery BR Recording for production, archival and play-out; film for television BS Broadcasting service (sound) BT Broadcasting service (television) F Fixed service M Mobile, radiodetermination, amateur and related satellite services P Radiowave propagation RA Radio astronomy RS Remote sensing systems S Fixed-satellite service SA Space applications and meteorology SF Frequency sharing and coordination between fixed-satellite and fixed service systems SM Spectrum management SNG Satellite news gathering TF Time signals and frequency standards emissions V Vocabulary and related subjects Note: This ITU-R Recommendation was approved in English under the procedure detailed in Resolution ITU-R 1.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 7 January 2005
    United Nations A/AC.105/839 General Assembly Distr.: General 7 January 2005 Original: English Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Scientific and Technical Subcommittee Forty-second session Vienna, 21 February-4 March 2004 Item 10 of the provisional agenda∗ Near-Earth objects Information on research in the field of near-Earth objects carried out by international organizations and other entities Note by the Secretariat Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 2 II. Replies received from international organizations and other entities ..................... 2 European Space Agency ......................................................... 2 The Spaceguard Foundation ...................................................... 17 __________________ ∗ A/AC.105/C.1/L.277. V.05-80067 (E) 010205 020205 *0580067* A/AC.105/839 I. Introduction In accordance with the agreement reached at the forty-first session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (A/AC.105/823, annex II, para. 18) and endorsed by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space at its forty-seventh session (A/59/20, para. 140), the Secretariat invited international organizations, regional bodies and other entities active in the field of near-Earth object (NEO) research to submit reports on their activities relating to near-Earth object research for consideration by the Subcommittee. The present document contains reports received by 17 December 2004. II. Replies received from international organizations and other entities European Space Agency Overview of activities of the European Space Agency in the field of near-Earth object research: hazard mitigation Summary 1. Near-Earth objects (NEOs) pose a global threat. There exists overwhelming evidence showing that impacts of large objects with dimensions in the order of kilometres (km) have had catastrophic consequences in the past.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA's Near-Earth Object Program
    NASA’s Near-Earth Object Program (Spaceguard) Don Yeomans Manager, NASA Near-Earth Object Program Office Meteor Crater Arizona History of Known NEO Population The Inner Solar System in 2006 201118001900195019901999 Known • 500,000 Earth minor planets Crossing •7750 NEOs Outside • 1200 PHAs Earth’s Orbit Scott Manley Armagh Observatory NASA’s NEO Search Program (Current Systems) Minor Planet Center (MPC) • IAU sanctioned NEO-WISE • Int’l observation database • Initial orbit determination www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/mpc. html NEO Program Office @ JPL • Program coordination JPL • Precision orbit determination Sun-synch LEO • Automated SENTRY www.neo.jpl.nasa.gov Catalina Sky Pan-STARRS LINEAR Survey MIT/LL UofAZ Arizona & Australia Uof HI Soccoro, NM Haleakula, Maui3 The Importance of Near-Earth Objects •Science •Future Space Resources •Planetary Defense •Exploration NASA’s NEO Program Office at JPL Coordination and Metrics Automatic orbit updates as new data arrive SENTRY system Relational database for NEO orbits & characteristics Conduct research on: Discovery efficiency Improving observational data Modeling dynamics Optimal mitigation processes Impact warnings & outreach http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch / NEO Program Office: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ Near-Earth Asteroid Discoveries Start of NASA NEO Program Discovery Completion Within Size Intervals 40% 8% <1% 87% JPL’s SENTY NEO Risk Page http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ Object Year Potential Impact Velocity H Estimated Palermo Torino Designation Range Impacts Prob. (km/s) (mag.) Diameter
    [Show full text]
  • Les Déchets Dans L'espace
    Les déchets dans l’espace 1 1 J i 0 u n 2 SOMMAIRE Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………. 3 I- Le milieu spatial …………………………………………………………………………. 5 II- Les déchets spatiaux …………………………………………………………………… 6 n°1 : Les lanceurs …………………………………………………………... 6 n°2 : Les résidus de combustion ……………………………………..….... 6 n°3 : Les déchets d’exploitation …………………………………………... 7 n°4 : Les Satellites Hors d’Usage …………………………………….…... 7 n°5 : Les déchets de fragmentation ………………………………….…... 8 5a- Explosions accidentelles ………………………………….…... 8 5b- Collisions accidentelles …………………………………...…... 8 5c- Destructions volontaires …………………………………..…... 9 n°6 : L’érosion spatiale ………………………………………………..…... 10 III- Inventaires des déchets spatiaux ………………………………………………..…... 11 1- Déchets en catalogue …………………………………………………... 11 2- Déchets hors catalogue …………………………………………….…... 13 IV- Les orbites basses (Low Earth Orbit, LEO) ………………………………………... 14 1- Trafic ……………………………………………………………………... 14 2- Satellites en activité, fonctions, nationalités ……………………...…... 14 3- La Station Spatiale Internationale (ISS) ………………………….…... 17 4- Les déchets en orbites basses …………………………………….…... 20 5- Les déchets de l’ISS (International Space Station) ……………..…... 22 V- Les orbites moyennes (Medium Earth Orbit, MEO) ………………………………... 26 1- Trafic ……………………………………………………………………... 26 2- Satellites en activité, fonctions, nationalités ……………………..…... 26 3- Les déchets en orbites moyennes ………………………………..…... 26 4- Les pelotes d’aiguilles de West-Ford ……………………………..…... 27 VI- L’orbite géostationnaire (Geostationary
    [Show full text]