DOCSLIB.ORG

The Spacecraft I Cosmos 2251

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Spacecraft I Cosmos 2251 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Analysis and Consequences of the Iridium 33- Cosmos 2251 Collision Phillip Anz-Meador1 and J.-C. Liou2 1 ESCG Jacobs, Houston, Texas, USA 2 NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, USA National Aeronautics and Space Administration Outline • The spacecraft • Circumstances of the collision event • Physical characterization of the debris clouds – Characteristic size, mass, and area-to-mass (A/m) – Directionality and ∆v distributions – Momentum transfer • Comparisons with the NASA Standard Breakup Model • Long-term evolution of the debris clouds • Conclusions 2/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Spacecraft I Cosmos 2251 • The Strela-2M series utilized the versatile NPO-PM KAUR-1 standard bus (Kosmicheskiy Apparat Unversalnogo Ryada-1, (Космический Аппарат Универсального Ряда), which can be translated as Spacecraft Bus from the Standardized Line (Group)-1). In addition to the LEO communication constellation Strela-2/-2M, the KAUR-1 bus has served as the basis for navigation (Tsiklon/Parus military series and Tsikada civil series and Nadezhda civil COSPAS/SARSAT subseries), geodesy (Sfera and GEO- IK/Musson), and science (Ionosfernaya, Cosmos 381 ionospheric topside sounder) spacecraft. • Background: family album of spacecraft using the KAUR-1 bus; middle inset: cross section of a Nadezhda spacecraft*; top inset: a Strela-2M spacecraft** * after Russian Space News, issue 24 (1994), p. 24 ** FROM: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/strela2m.htm 3/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Spacecraft II Iridium 33 •The Iridium first-generation constellation utilized the Lockheed-Martin LM700A bus, shown in exploded view (left) and with Iridium nadir payload module (above) From: Rudiger et al., Application of Existing Satellites to Space and Earth Science Missions, 1997. 4/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Spacecraft III physical & operational characteristics Cosmos 2251 Iridium 33 bus KAUR-1 LM700A dry mass [kg] 900 (estimated) 556 Shape Cylinder with boom Triangular prism with panels Stabilization Gravity gradient 3 axis Size 2 m x 2 m (body) 3.6 m long onboard energy Core cylinder may Hydrazine tanks sources have been for thrusters; NiH2 pressurized battery Initial orbit 800x776 km, 74° 779x776 km, 86.4° inclination inclination status derelict operational 5/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration The collision event Estimated collision parameters: Event time: 10 February 2009, 16h 55m 59.8s GMT Location: 72.50° N latitude 97.86° E longitude 778.6 km altitude Relative velocity: 11.647 km/s Directionality: from the viewpoint of the Iridium 33 spacecraft, Cosmos 2251 approached at an elevation of -2.6° and an azimuth (measured from North) of 231° Orbital distribution: see Gabbard charts on next 2 pp. 6/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Cosmos 2251 Gabbard diagram 1800 C2251 apogee series, June 2010 1600 C2251 perigee series, June 2010 1400 C2251 apogee srs, June 2009 C2251 perigee srs, June 2009 1200 1000 altitude km] 800 600 400 200 0 85 95 105 115 period [min] 7/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Iridium 33 Gabbard diagram 1800 Iri33 apogee srs, June 2010 1600 Iri33 perigee srs, June 2010 1400 Iri33 apogee srs, June 2009 1200 Iri33 perigee srs, June 2009 1000 800 altitude [km] 600 400 200 0 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 period [min] 8/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Physical characterization of the debris clouds I characteristic size distribution Size Distributions of Iridium 33, Cosmos 2251, and FY-1C Fragments 10000 FY-1C Iridium 33 1000 Cosmos 2251 100 Cumulative Number Cumulative 10 1 0.01 0.1 1 10 Diameter (m) 9/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Physical characterization of the debris clouds II mass distribution 10000 Cosmos 2251 ] Iridium 33 - 1000 power law fit, C2251 power law fit, Iri33 100 “step” indicative of 10 objects with no size cumulative number [ [ number cumulative (RCS) data 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 mass [kg] Masses estimated using median A/m and characteristic lengths; power law slope is -1.2, considerably steeper than standard breakup model. 10/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration A/M Distribution of Iridium 33 Fragments (1/2) A/M Distribution of Iridirm 33 Fragments 120 NASA Breakup Model Prediction 100 TLE Data (17 May 2010) 80 60 Number 40 20 0 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2 Log10(A/M m /kg) 11/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration A/M Distribution of Iridium 33 Fragments (2/2) A/M Distribution of Iridirm 33 Fragments 120 NASA Breakup Model Prediction 100 TLE Data, A/M/3 (17 May 2010) 80 60 Number 40 20 0 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2 Log10(A/M m /kg) 12/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration A/M Distribution of Cosmos 2251 Fragments A/M Distribution of Cosmos 2251 Fragments 0.25 NASA Breakup Model Prediction 0.2 TLE Data (17 May 2010) 0.15 0.1 Number (Normalized) 0.05 0 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2 Log10(A/M m /kg) 13/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Comparison of the Two Fragment Clouds 14/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Physical characterization of the debris clouds IV • SSN Catalog data analysis ∆v and directionality distributions have been estimated for both clouds, but are currently under review – Little or no momentum transfer observed in cataloged clouds • Haystack/HAX data analysis – Both clouds were observed by the Haystack and Haystack Auxiliary (HAX) radars shortly after the event – Analysis ongoing 15/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Long-term evolution of the debris clouds Percent of Cosmos 2251/Iridium 33 Collision Fragments Still in Earth Orbit as a Function of Calendar Year 100 90 % of Cosmos 2251 fragments 80 % of Iridium 33 fragments 70 60 50 40 30 Percent of Objects Still in Orbit 20 10 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 2105 2110 Year 16/17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Conclusions • A very large, very energetic event: – C2251: 1267 fragments cataloged; 1212 on orbit as of 10 June 2010 SSN catalog – Iri33: 521 fragments cataloged, of which 498 are on orbit – History indicates that cataloging may continue for some time – Impact velocity highest of known intentional & accidental collisions • These debris clouds will influence the LEO environment for decades to come • Significant work remains to be done to understand origin of A/m distribution (Iri33), mass and size distributions in context of the NASA standard breakup model 17/17.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GLONASS Spacecraft
    INNO V AT IO N The task of designing and developing the GLONASS GLONASS spacecraft fell to the Scientific Production Association of Applied Mechan­ ics (Nauchno Proizvodstvennoe Ob"edinenie Spacecraft Prikladnoi Mekaniki or NPO PM) , located near Krasnoyarsk in Siberia. This major aero­ Nicholas L. Johnson space industrial complex was established in 1959 as a division of Sergei Korolev 's Kaman Sciences Corporation Expe1imental Design Bureau (Opytno Kon­ struktorskoe Byuro or OKB). (Korolev , among other notable achievements , led the Fourteen years after the launch of the effort to develop the Soviet Union's first first test spacecraft, the Russian Global Nav­ launch vehicle - the A launcher - which igation Satellite System (Global 'naya Navi­ placed Sputnik 1 into orbit.) The founding gatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema or and current general director and chief GLONASS) program remains viable and designer is Mikhail Fyodorovich Reshetnev, essentially on schedule despite the economic one of only two still-active chief designers and political turmoil surrounding the final from Russia's fledgling 1950s-era space years of the Soviet Union and the emergence program. of the Commonwealth of Independent States A closed facility until the early 1990s, (CIS). By the summer of 1994, a total of 53 NPO PM has been responsible for all major GLONASS spacecraft had been successfully Russian operational communications, navi­ Despite the significant economic hardships deployed in nearly semisynchronous orbits; gation, and geodetic satellite systems to associated with the breakup of the Soviet Union of the 53 , nearly 12 had been normally oper­ date. Serial (or assembly-line) production of and the transition to a modern market economy, ational since the establishment of the Phase I some spacecraft, including Tsikada and Russia continues to develop its space programs, constellation in 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian and Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Plans in Space
    Russian and Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Plans in Space Pavel Podvig and Hui Zhang © 2008 by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-87724-068-X The views expressed in this volume are those held by each contributor and are not necessarily those of the Officers and Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Please direct inquiries to: American Academy of Arts and Sciences 136 Irving Street Cambridge, MA 02138-1996 Telephone: (617) 576-5000 Fax: (617) 576-5050 Email: [email protected] Visit our website at www.amacad.org Contents v PREFACE vii ACRONYMS 1 CHAPTER 1 Russia and Military Uses of Space Pavel Podvig 31 CHAPTER 2 Chinese Perspectives on Space Weapons Hui Zhang 79 CONTRIBUTORS Preface In recent years, Russia and China have urged the negotiation of an interna - tional treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space. The United States has responded by insisting that existing treaties and rules governing the use of space are sufficient. The standoff has produced a six-year deadlock in Geneva at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, but the parties have not been inactive. Russia and China have much to lose if the United States were to pursue the programs laid out in its planning documents. This makes prob - able the eventual formulation of responses that are adverse to a broad range of U.S. interests in space. The Chinese anti-satellite test in January 2007 was prelude to an unfolding drama in which the main act is still subject to revi - sion.
    [Show full text]
  • Radio Navigation Signals
    Radio Navigation Signals This series of articles about radio navigation signals appeared in the WUN-newsletters of November and December 1995 and January 1996. © Worldwide Utility News / Ary Boender 1995-1996 Systems covered in the articles: Alpha DECCA LENA Ralog-20 SYLEDIS AN/SSQ-72 Del Norte Trisponder LORAN-A RANA TACAN AN/TRQ-112 DGPS LORAN-C Raydist Timation AN/TRQ-114 Diff Omega LORAN-D RDF TORAN P100 AN/TRQ-32 GEE MARS-75 RS-10 Transit NNSS Argo DM-54 GeoLoc Maxiran RS-WT1 Tsikada Artemis-3 GLONASS Mini Ranger RS-WT1S Tsyklon Autotape GPS NDB RSBN VOR-DME Bathymetric Guardrail Omega Seafix WJ-8958 BRAS-3 HI-FIX/6 Parus / Tsikada-M SECOR Chayka Hydrotrac Pulse/8 Shoran Consol Hyper-Fix Quick-Fix SPRUT Radio Direction Finding (RDF) Radio Direction Finding (RDF) is the most widespread of radio navigation systems. Most pleasure boats, fishing vessels and larger commercial and naval vessels have RDF equipment onboard. Various countries installed radio direction-finder equipment at points ashore. These stations will take radio bearings on ships when requested, passing that info by radio to the ships. I will explain it in detail using Norddeich Radio as an example. Unfortunately the North Sea DF-net no longer exists, but it gives you a good idea how it works. There are still direction-finder stations in Norway, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Panama and Russia. The radio direction-finding control station of the North Sea direction finding network was Norddeich Radio. Bearings were taken on the freqs 410 and 500 kHz and on freqs between 1605 and 3800 kHz.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Security 2010
    SPACE SECURITY 2010 spacesecurity.org SPACE 2010SECURITY SPACESECURITY.ORG iii Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publications Data Space Security 2010 ISBN : 978-1-895722-78-9 © 2010 SPACESECURITY.ORG Edited by Cesar Jaramillo Design and layout: Creative Services, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Cover image: Artist rendition of the February 2009 satellite collision between Cosmos 2251 and Iridium 33. Artwork courtesy of Phil Smith. Printed in Canada Printer: Pandora Press, Kitchener, Ontario First published August 2010 Please direct inquires to: Cesar Jaramillo Project Ploughshares 57 Erb Street West Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2 Canada Telephone: 519-888-6541, ext. 708 Fax: 519-888-0018 Email: [email protected] iv Governance Group Cesar Jaramillo Managing Editor, Project Ploughshares Phillip Baines Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada Dr. Ram Jakhu Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University John Siebert Project Ploughshares Dr. Jennifer Simons The Simons Foundation Dr. Ray Williamson Secure World Foundation Advisory Board Hon. Philip E. Coyle III Center for Defense Information Richard DalBello Intelsat General Corporation Theresa Hitchens United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Dr. John Logsdon The George Washington University (Prof. emeritus) Dr. Lucy Stojak HEC Montréal/International Space University v Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Acronyms PAGE 7 Introduction PAGE 11 Acknowledgements PAGE 13 Executive Summary PAGE 29 Chapter 1 – The Space Environment:
    [Show full text]
  • Russian and Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Plans in Space
    Russian and Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Plans in Space Pavel Podvig and Hui Zhang © 2008 by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-87724-068-X The views expressed in this volume are those held by each contributor and are not necessarily those of the Officers and Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Please direct inquiries to: American Academy of Arts and Sciences 136 Irving Street Cambridge, MA 02138-1996 Telephone: (617) 576-5000 Fax: (617) 576-5050 Email: [email protected] Visit our website at www.amacad.org Contents v PREFACE vii ACRONYMS 1 CHAPTER 1 Russia and Military Uses of Space Pavel Podvig 31 CHAPTER 2 Chinese Perspectives on Space Weapons Hui Zhang 79 CONTRIBUTORS Preface In recent years, Russia and China have urged the negotiation of an interna - tional treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space. The United States has responded by insisting that existing treaties and rules governing the use of space are sufficient. The standoff has produced a six-year deadlock in Geneva at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, but the parties have not been inactive. Russia and China have much to lose if the United States were to pursue the programs laid out in its planning documents. This makes prob - able the eventual formulation of responses that are adverse to a broad range of U.S. interests in space. The Chinese anti-satellite test in January 2007 was prelude to an unfolding drama in which the main act is still subject to revi - sion.
    [Show full text]
  • 11. the Military Uses of Outer Space
    11. The military uses of outer space JOHN PIKE I. Introduction Since the dawn of the space age, outer space has been regarded as the ultimate high ground from which the earth below could be controlled. Reflecting this view, the cold war space race between the superpowers was a natural corollary of the arms race. At the end of 2001, the one dominant power, the United States, had nearly 110 operational military spacecraft—well over two-thirds of all the military spacecraft orbiting the earth. Russia was a distant second, with about 40. The rest of the world had only about 20 satellites in orbit. This chapter presents the current space programmes and provides an inven- tory of military spacecraft that were operational at the end of 2001. While there are various approaches to research on military space activities, an inven- tory provides a foundation for research on nuclear and conventional weapons. In the case of military space systems, however, an inventory is more difficult to construct and thus all the more important. In the path-breaking chapters on military satellites published in the SIPRI Yearbook in the 1970s, the tables listed the satellites that had been launched over the course of the year.1 At that time, when satellite launches were frequent and operational lifetimes were brief, this focus on annual launches was appropriate. Over time, however, annual launch rates have declined and operating lifetimes have been extended, so today it is meaningful to report on the spacecraft in operation. The counting of operational military spacecraft poses greater challenges than those encountered in compiling inventories of, for example, nuclear weapons or naval forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Security Index 2009
    SPACE SECURITY2009 spacesecurity.org SPACE 2009SECURITY SPACESECURITY.ORG iii Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publications Data Space Security 2009 ISBN : 978-1-895722-74-1 © 2009 SPACESECURITY.ORG Edited by Jessica West Design and layout by Graphics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Cover image: STS-112 Astronaut Wolf Participates in Extravehicular Activity NASA, 10 December 2002 Printed in Canada Printer: Pandora Press, Kitchener, Ontario First published August 2009 Please direct inquiries to: Project Ploughshares 57 Erb Street West Waterlo, Ontario Canada N2L 6C2 Telephone: 519-888-6541 Fax: 519-888-0018 Email: [email protected] iv Governance Group Jessica West Managing Editor, Project Ploughshares Dr. Wade Huntley Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-proliferation Research, University of British Columbia Dr. Ram Jakhu Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University Dr. William Marshall NASA-Ames Research Center/Space Generation Foundation John Siebert Project Ploughshares Dr. Ray Williamson Secure World Foundation Advisory Board Amb. Thomas Graham Jr. Special Assistant to the President for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament (ret.) Hon. Philip E. Coyle III Center for Defense Information Richard DalBello Intelsat General Corporation Theresa Hitchens United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Dr. John Logsdon The George Washington University (Prof. emeritus) Dr. Lucy Stojak M.L. Stojak Consultants/International Space University v Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Acronyms PAGE 5 Introduction PAGE 7 Acknowledgements PAGE 9 Executive Summary PAGE 25 Chapter 1 – The Space Environment: this indicator examines the security and sustainability of the space environment with an emphasis on space debris, space situational awareness, and space resource issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Open Yello Rdy 4 Pj
    Space2004 Almanac N the following pages appears a variety of information and statistical material about Ospace—particularly military activity in space. This almanac was compiled by Air Force Magazine, with assistance and information from Steve Garber, NASA History Office; Phillip S. Clark, Molniya Space Consultancy; Joseph J. Burger, Space Analysis and Research, Inc.; and US Strate- gic Command and Air Force Space Command Public Af- fairs Offices. Figures that appear in this section will not always agree because of different cutoff dates, rounding, or different methods of reporting. The information is intended to illustrate trends in space activity. Photo illustration by Erik Simonsen 26 AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2004 By Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2004 27 Introduction What’s Up There As of May 31, 2004 Country/Organization Satellites Space Probes Debris Total CIS (Russia/former USSR) 1,349 35 2,618 4,002 US 903 52 2,872 3,827 European Space Agency 35 4 301 340 People’s Republic of China 40 0 285 325 Japan 84 7 51 142 India 27 0 104 131 Intl. Telecom Sat. Org. 60 0 0 60 Globalstar 52 0 0 52 France 33 0 16 49 Orbcomm 35 0 0 35 European Telecom Sat. Org. 26 0 0 26 Germany 20 2 1 23 United Kingdom 22 0 1 23 Canada 21 0 1 22 Italy 10 0 3 13 Luxembourg 13 0 0 13 Australia 9 0 2 11 Sea Launch 1 0 10 11 Brazil 10 0 0 10 Sweden 10 0 0 10 Indonesia 9 0 0 9 Intl.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Security 2011
    SPACE SECURITY 2011 www.spacesecurity.org SPACE 2011SECURITY SPACESECURITY.ORG iii FOR PDF version use this Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publications Data Space Security 2011 ISBN : 978-1-895722-87-1 ISBN : 978-1-895722-87-1 © 2011 SPACESECURITY.ORG Edited by Cesar Jaramillo Design and layout: Creative Services, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Cover image: The International Space Station is featured in this photograph taken by an STS-130 crew member on space shuttle Endeavour after the station and shuttle began their post-undocking relative separation on 19 February 2010. Image credit: NASA. Printed in Canada Printer: Pandora Press, Kitchener, Ontario First published August 2011 Please direct inquires to: Cesar Jaramillo Project Ploughshares 57 Erb Street West Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2 Canada Telephone: 519-888-6541, ext. 708 Fax: 519-888-0018 Email: [email protected] Governance Group Gérard Brachet Institute de l’Air et de l’Espace Peter Hays Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Dr. Ram Jakhu Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University William Marshall NASA – Ames Research Center Paul Meyer The Simons Foundation John Siebert Project Ploughshares Dana Smith Foreign A airs and International Trade Canada Ray Williamson Secure World Foundation Advisory Board Richard DalBello Intelsat General Corporation Theresa Hitchens United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Dr. John Logsdon The George Washington University Dr. Lucy Stojak HEC Montréal Project Manager Cesar Jaramillo Project Ploughshares Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Acronyms PAGE 7 Introduction PAGE 10 Acknowledgements PAGE 11 Executive Summary PAGE 27 Chapter 1 – The Space Environment: this indicator examines the security and sustainability of the space environment with an emphasis on space debris, the potential threats posed by near-Earth objects, and the allocation of scarce space resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Autonomy in Satellite Navigation Systems: the Indian Programme Ajey Lele*
    Indian Foreign Affairs Journal Vol. 9, No. 3, July–September 2014, 240-254 Autonomy in Satellite Navigation Systems: The Indian Programme Ajey Lele* India is developing an Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) to provide itself and neighbouring countries with the Position Navigation and Timing (PNT) service. This project is likely to become operational by 2015. Initially, the system will have seven satellites, and the number will later go up to 11.1 IRNSS will be an independent 7 satellite constellation, built and operated by India with indigenous capability: three in GSO and 4 in non-GSO (inclined 29 degrees with equatorial plane).2 India has already launched three satellites of their constellation and one thereafter, thus making the initial phase of this system operational. The IRNSS will provide an absolute position accuracy of approximately 20 metres throughout India, and within a 2,000 km region around it.3 The system is expected to provide two types of services: one for civilian use, and another as a restricted encrypted service for specific users. India has also developed the GPS-Aided Geo Augmented Navigation (GAGAN) system. GAGAN is interoperable with GPS, and provides greater reliability than GPS alone. GAGAN has been designed primarily for civil aviation purposes and, when it becomes fully operational, it will be useful in aircraft landing where accuracy of six meters is desirable.4 The IRNSS is expected to cater for the presence of GAGAN. It will be designed to maintain interoperability between GAGAN and other regional augmentations to the GPS for global navigation.5 The first GAGAN navigation payload was launched on 21 May 2011 on board the GSAT-8 communications satellite.
    [Show full text]
  • TARGET IDENTIFICATION and DELTA-V SIZING for ACTIVE DEBRIS REMOVAL and IMPROVED TRACKING CAMPAIGNS Glenn E. Peterson Abstract
    TARGET IDENTIFICATION AND DELTA-V SIZING FOR ACTIVE DEBRIS REMOVAL AND IMPROVED TRACKING CAMPAIGNS Glenn E. Peterson Senior Engineering Specialist, Astrodynamics Department, The Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 92957, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957, 310-336-1904, [email protected] Abstract: Long-term projections of the low Earth orbit debris environment show the number of objects is increasing, even in the event of no future launches. Various proposals have been made to mitigate the growth including actively removing objects from orbit or tracking currently orbiting objects to a greater degree of precision to facilitate more effective risk assessment. However, the cost of single removal or tracking missions is most likely prohibitive. An alternative is for a single mission to engage multiple targets. This paper determines desirable targets for such missions in terms of likelihood of future debris production and sizing of deltaV requirements. Keywords: Orbital debris, active debris removal, mission planning 1. Introduction The Aerospace Corporation, under the auspices of the United States Air Force (USAF) developmental planning and architectures group (SMC/XRD), recently performed modeling of the future growth of the space debris environment in Low Earth Orbit (LEO)1. Studies of the results indicated that some of the consequences of the projected growth include an expected 3 to 18% increase in the cost of space missions due to reliability degradation of orbiting assets by 20502, increased number of collision avoidance alerts3,4, and increased likelihood of launch windows being closed3. Other studies have shown that missions that actively remove debris- producing objects can reduce the rate of debris growth5 and that tracking objects with a higher degree of fidelity can reduce the number of collision avoidance (COLA) alerts4.
    [Show full text]
  • ! Transformation of the ! Soviet Space Program After the Cold
    .,! ' Science & Global Security, 1994, Volume 4, pp.339-361 Photocopying permitted by license only Reprints available directly from the publisher @ 1994 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A. Printed in the United States of America Transformation of the ! Soviet Space Program after the Cold War Maxim V. TarasenkoO Changesin the managementof the spaceprogram and the operational status of vari- ous systems in the former Soviet Union are examined with particular emphasis on defense-relatedspace systems. After the break-upof the Soviet Union, Russiaassumed general responsibility for the entire scopeof Sovietspace activity. Spaceprogram man- agementwas re-organizedto separatemilitary and civilian activities. Russia is com- mitted to maintaining military spacecapabilities, however,its top priority is now the conversionof military spacetechnology for civilian uses,including global environmen- tal problems. INTRODUCTION Space systems are now crucial for global security both from military and envi- ronmental standpoints. Early in the space age, development of space-based systems was driven primarily by the desire of competing superpowers to carry out effective strategic reconnaissance. Later, civilian applications, such as sat- ellite communications, weather forecasts, and global environmental monitor- ing, became progressively more important. Beginning in the late 1960s, the number of Soviet space launches by far surpassed the combined launch rate of all other countries in the world (see fig- ure 1). The Soviet Union and the United States were the only countries in the world which pursued the entire spectrum of space research and applications, scientific, commercial, and military. The breakup of the U.S.S.R. raises ques- tions about the fate of the entire spectrum of its space activities.
    [Show full text]