DOCSLIB.ORG

Launch Activity and Orbital Debris Mitigation Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Launch Activity and Orbital Debris Mitigation Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report 8 Launch Activity and Orbital Debris Mitigation INTRODUCTION As indicated above, launch vehicle upper stages and their mechanisms and components Since the start of human space activity, the have proven to be a considerable contributor number of orbital debris, or artificial objects to the orbital debris population. This report orbiting Earth that are no longer functional, shows how launch vehicles and launch activ- has steadily increased. These debris make up ity can create orbital debris and explains what 95 percent of all orbiting space objects and the U.S. and foreign governments and the consist of spent satellites and upper stages, aerospace industry are doing to minimize the separation devices, bolts, paint chips, and still amount of orbital debris generated by launch other spacecraft components. U.S. Space activity. Command tracks more than 9,000 objects larger than ten centimeters wide with ground- LAUNCH ACTIVITY AND ORBITAL based optical and radar telescopes; another DEBRIS CREATION 100,000 objects between one and ten cen- timeters are estimated to be orbiting Earth. Along with derelict spacecraft, upper stages Figure 1 shows computer-generated views of comprise the greatest concentration of mass catalogued space objects, including debris, in Earth orbit. More than 1500 rocket bodies distributed in various Earth orbits. launched by the spacefaring nations of the world currently circle Earth, with nearly half of these in low orbits. The orbital stages of launch vehicles can create hazards to opera- tional spacecraft in two main ways: through collisions and explosions. Collisions involving launch vehicle orbital stages can occur if spent upper stages and their components remain in operational orbits after directly injecting their payloads. While rare, collisions can cause devastation to active spacecraft, as occurred when the Japanese Figure 1: Space objects distributed in low- Earth (left) and geostationary, medium-Earth, ECS-1 (Ayame-1) satellite was incapacitated and Molniya (right) orbits after colliding with the third stage of its own launch vehicle. While the risk of an orbital debris impact to an operational spacecraft is low, the debris Accidental explosions of upper stages are the population continues to grow at 175 metric primary source of the approximately 2200 tons per year and has caused damage to active rocket body debris now in Earth orbit. Upper spacecraft. Indeed, orbital debris' presence is stages may explode when, after the upper apparent in the dings and dents observed on stage successfully delivers satellites to orbit, spacecraft such as the Space Shuttle, the stored energy, such as residual propellants Russian Mir space station, and the Hubble and pressurants, undergoes thermal cycling or Space Telescope. As a result, efforts are is over-pressurized due to solar heating. Such underway in both the government and indus- explosions can generate hundreds of frag- try to mitigate orbital debris. ments of orbital debris and, along with space- craft explosions, account for almost 40 per- Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report 9 stage in 1996. Three upper stages and two upper stage components exploded in 2001. The launch industry and U.S. government, along with governments around the world, have recognized the risks associated with upper stage collisions and explosions. The next section shares the efforts the U.S. gov- ernment, international organizations, and the launch industry have made to minimize on- orbit collisions and explosions involving launch hardware, in turn mitigating orbital debris. LAUNCH ACTIVITY AND ORBITAL DEBRIS MITIGATION Figure 2: Notional spread of orbital debris after a Recognizing that keeping the space environ- spacecraft or upper stage explosion ment clean is a common responsibility and cent of all orbiting objects tracked from the desire, spacefaring governments and compa- ground. Figures 2 and 3 depict how orbital nies have worked to develop procedures and debris can spread over time. standards for minimizing the amount of orbital debris they produce in their launch Upper stage explosions are considered to be activities. While some of the government pro- the greatest source of the most hazardous cedures and standards developed pertain debris in Earth orbit. The creation of more specifically to launch hardware, many are debris adds to the risk of collision with an generally applicable to space activity. Though active satellite. While Space Shuttle described in separate sections below, U.S. Discovery successfully avoided debris from government, foreign and international, and an exploded Pegasus upper stage with an in- launch industry orbital debris mitigation orbit maneuver in 1997, the less fortunate efforts have coincided in time and have influ- French military satellite CERISE was struck enced one another. by a fragment of an exploded Ariane upper U.S. Government Efforts In 1988, the Reagan Administration released the first national space policy that called for agencies to "seek to minimize the creation of orbital debris." The following year, the U.S. government issued a report on orbital debris. Noting the lack of good measurements on the orbital debris environment, the report called for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop a plan to moni- tor the debris environment. As a result, these Figure 3: Gabbard diagram of the orbital debris agencies embarked on programs to address distribution from a Long March upper stage this recommendation. Figure 4 shows the explosion in March 2000 Haystack radar, a facility operated by the Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report 10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology's national space policy reaffirmed the earlier Lincoln Laboratory that NASA and the Air policy by calling for U.S. government agen- Force have used since 1990 to track small cies to minimize space debris. The 1996 pol- orbital debris. icy also required NASA, DoD, the intelli- gence community and the private sector to develop design guidelines for U.S. govern- ment space hardware procurements and stressed a U.S. leadership role in urging other nations to adopt debris minimization prac- tices and policies. Shortly after the issuance of the report, a U.S. interagency working group led by NASA and DoD developed a work plan to study the debris environment and to work with U.S. government agencies and other spacefaring nations and international organizations to design and adopt guidelines to minimize orbital debris. In 1997, the working group created a set of "U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices." Based on a NASA safety standard of proce- Figure 4: The Haystack radar dures for limiting debris, the Standard Practices are intended for government-oper- The Bush Administration took up orbital ated or -procured space systems, including debris mitigation as a formal goal in its 1989 satellites as well as launch vehicles. The national space policy, adding that the United interagency group has shared the guidelines States would also encourage other nations to with the aerospace industry to encourage adopt debris mitigation policies and prac- voluntary compliance. tices. Following the approval of that direc- tive, NASA and DoD adopted policies con- Now forming the foundation of U.S. govern- cerning the mitigation of orbital debris in all ment protocol regarding orbital debris, the of their space activities. Standard Practices support four objectives, presented below. All of the practices apply to The government updated its orbital debris report launch vehicle components and upper stages. in 1995, issuing five recommendations. These recommendations were to: (1) continue and 1. Control of debris released during enhance debris measurement, modeling, and normal operations. Spacecraft as well as monitoring capabilities; (2) conduct a upper stages are to be designed to eliminate focused study on debris and emerging low- or minimize debris released under normal Earth orbit (LEO) systems; (3) develop gov- circumstances. Any planned release of debris ernment/industry design guidelines on larger than five millimeters that remain on orbital debris; (4) develop a strategy for orbit for over 25 years should be evaluated international discussion; and (5) review and and justified on the basis of cost effective- update U.S. policy on debris. These recom- ness and mission requirements. mendations have guided U.S. government activity regarding orbital debris mitigation 2. Minimization of debris generated by since that time. Just one year after the accidental explosions, during and after mis- issuance of this report, President Clinton's sion operations. During missions, spacecraft Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report 11 and upper stages should not have any credible by space transportation in several ways. In 14 failure modes for accidental explosions, or Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part the probability of a failure mode's occurrence 415.39, the FAA requires expendable launch should be limited. After missions, on-board vehicle (ELV) launch license applicants to stored energy should be depleted or safed. demonstrate that: (1) there will be no unplanned contact between the vehicle, its 3. Selection of safe flight profile and components, and payload after payload sepa- operational configuration. Spacecraft and ration; (2) no debris will be generated from upper stage design and mission profiles the conversion of chemical, pressure, and should estimate and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Soft Passivation of Spacecraft Pressure Vessels
    First Int'l. Orbital Debris Conf. (2019) 6042.pdf Soft Passivation of Spacecraft Pressure Vessels William P. Schonberg Civil Engineering Department, Missouri University of Science & Technology, Rolla, MO 65409 [email protected] ABSTRACT Most spacecraft have at least one pressurized vessel on board. In addition to a hole, it is possible that a pressure vessel may experience catastrophic failure as a result of a hypervelocity impact, such as by a micrometeoroid or space debris particle. If a tank rupture were to occur on-orbit following a micrometeoroid or orbital debris particle impact, not only could it lead to loss of life, but it would also generate a tremendous amount of debris that could compromise future space assets working in similar orbits. As a result, NASA and other space agencies have put in place design requirements to prevent additional sizable debris from being created in the event of a catastrophic pressure vessel failure. These requirements typically state that stored energy devices are to be passivated at the end of a spacecraft’s mission or useful life. Since many spacecraft designs are not be able to comply with some aspects of those requirements, an alternative, so-called “soft passivation” option was added. This paper provides a summary of a project performed with the intent of providing guidelines and considerations that can be used by satellite programs to help satisfy passivation requirements using a “soft passivation” approach, that is, when not able to perform complete hard passivation. 1 INTRODUCTION Most spacecraft have at least one pressurized vessel on board. For robotic spacecraft, it is usually a liquid propellant tank.
    [Show full text]
  • Rendezvous and Proximity Operations: Friend Or Foe?
    Promoting Cooperative Solutions for Space Sustainability Rendezvous and Proximity Operations: Friend or Foe? Victoria Samson, Washington Office Director Secure World Foundation “Supporting Diplomacy: Clearing the Path for Dialogue” UNIDIR Geneva, Switzerland May 28-29, 2019 ©2019 Secure World Foundation. Used with Permission www.swfound.org UNIDIR May 29 ,2019 @SWFoundation Development of OOS and RPO Capabilities Promoting Cooperative Solutions for Space Sustainability • On-orbit servicing (OOS) and rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) are key to enabling future of on-orbit activities • Benefits and challenges – Greatly increase the viability of and benefits from space activities – Raises a number of diplomatic, legal, safety, operational, and policy challenges that need to be tackled • OOS and RPO are not new, and are already international – 50+ years of experience in doing it with human spaceflight, but increasingly shifting to robotic/autonomous – Multiple countries/companies developing and testing RPO capabilities • How to develop norms and standards to enable cooperative OOS/RPO and mitigate challenges? UNIDIR May 29, 2019 2 www.swfound.org @SWFoundation RPO Activities and Counterspace Objectives Promoting Cooperative Solutions for Space Sustainability • Global Counterspace Capabilities: An Open Source Assessment, April 2019 – www.swfound.org/counterspace – Compiles and assesses publicly available information on the counterspace capabilities being developed by multiple countries across five categories: direct-ascent, co-orbital,
    [Show full text]
  • The Disposal of Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Stages in Low Earth Orbit
    THE DISPOSAL OF SPACECRAFT AND LAUNCH VEHICLE STAGES IN LOW EARTH ORBIT Nicholas L. Johnson NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA, [email protected] ABSTRACT restricting the orbital lifetimes of spacecraft and launch vehicle stages residing in or passing through LEO after Spacecraft and launch vehicle stages abandoned in mission termination. The primary purpose of this action Earth orbit have historically been a primary source of is to enhance space safety by significantly constraining debris from accidental explosions. In the future, such the potential of future accidental collisions, which in satellites will become the principal cause of orbital turn could result in the creation of large numbers of new debris via inadvertent collisions. To curtail both the orbital debris. near-term and far-term risks posed by derelict spacecraft and launch vehicle stages to operational space systems, Not surprisingly, the majority of mass in Earth orbit numerous national and international orbital debris today (> 5000 metric tons) resides in non-operational mitigation guidelines specifically recommend actions spacecraft and launch vehicle stages. This mass also which could prevent or limit such future debris represents the largest segment of cross-sectional area, generation. Although considerable progress has been i.e., collision hazard, for future debris generation. In the made in implementing these recommendations, some 1980’s, early National Aeronautics and Space changes to existing vehicle designs can be difficult. Administration (NASA) projections of the potential Moreover, the nature of some missions also can present long-term growth of the Earth’s satellite population technological and budgetary challenges to be compliant identified the increasing amount of mass in Earth orbit with widely accepted orbital debris mitigation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal and Regulatory Considerations of Small Satellite Projects
    Legal and Regulatory Considerations of Small Satellite Projects Christopher D. Johnson, Secure World Foundation 1. Overview of the Legal and Regulatory Framework 2. International Space Law 3. National Space Law 4. Contractual and Operational Concerns 5. End-of-Life and Space Debris Mitigation 6. International Frequency Allocation and Coordination 7. National Frequency Allocation and Coordination 8. Conclusion Engineering constraints and technological hurdles are not the only obstacles to the successful completion of a small satellite project. You must also understand the legal and regulatory responsibilities and requirements from the outset. Consider a situation where your small satellite is integrated as a secondary payload and is already on the launch pad. Your country’s foreign ministry suddenly contacts you and orders you to halt the launch, as the government is unwilling to accept any potential international governmental responsibility for your operations. It turns out that the government lacks national legislation regulating space activities, but has ratified a number of international treaties related to outer space. Additionally, its radio frequency administrator has not granted you a radio license or notified other nations of your intended use of certain frequencies, and radio interference is likely. Despite being ready to launch, your satellite project will likely be halted until you clarify and resolve these issues. 1 This chapter outlines the legal and regulatory issues impacting small satellite missions, and offers a process to handle them as they arise during the different phases of your project. Section 5.1 is an overview of the entire legal and regulatory landscape, introducing laws from a variety of sources—including international space law, national legislation, contracts between partners, insurance policies, and the international and national regimes for radio frequency coordination.
    [Show full text]
  • Advantages of Small Satellite Carrier Concepts for LEO/GEO Inspection and Debris Removal Missions
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Space Dynamics Lab Publications Space Dynamics Lab 1-1-2014 Advantages of Small Satellite Carrier Concepts for LEO/GEO Inspection and Debris Removal Missions David K. Geller Utah State University Randy Christensen Adam Shelley Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/sdl_pubs Recommended Citation Geller, David K.; Christensen, Randy; and Shelley, Adam, "Advantages of Small Satellite Carrier Concepts for LEO/GEO Inspection and Debris Removal Missions" (2014). Space Dynamics Lab Publications. Paper 52. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/sdl_pubs/52 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Space Dynamics Lab at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Space Dynamics Lab Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Geller, David K., Derick Crocket, Randy Christensen, and Adam Shelley. 2014. “Advantages of Small Satellite Carrier Concepts for LEO/GEO Inspection and Debris Removal Missions.” International Journal of Space Science and Engineering 2 (2): 115–34. http://www.sffmt2013.org/PPAbstract/4028p.pdf. Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2014 115 Advantages of small satellite carrier concepts for LEO/GEO inspection and debris removal missions David K. Geller* and Derick Crocket Utah State University, 4130 Old Main, Logan, Utah 84322, USA Fax: 435-797-2952 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author Randy Christensen and Adam Shelley Space Dynamics Laboratory, 1695 N. Research Park Way, North Logan, Utah, 84341, USA Fax: 435-713-3013 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This work focuses on two important types of space missions: close-in satellite inspection of LEO/GEO high-value assets to detect and/or resolve anomalies, and LEO/GEO debris disposal missions to reduce space hazards.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Document on Developing an ITU-R Small Satellite HB WP 4A
    Radiocommunication Study Groups Source: Document 4A/TEMP/47 Annex 13 to Document 4A/246-E Subject: Small Satellite Handbook 9 March 2021 English only Annex 13 to Working Party 4A Chairman’s Report WORKING DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING AN ITU-R SMALL SATELLITE HANDBOOK Based on contributions 4A/183 and 4A/239, Working Party (WP) 4A have prepared this draft revision to Annex 14 of the WP 4A Chairman’s Report (Document 4A/155) for the Small Satellite Handbook, following offline consultation as directed by the first Plenary session of WP4A. Annex 14 of document 155 contained only the skeleton of the handbook and all content to the various sections has been added from contributions 4A/183 and 4A/239 to this meeting. This text is shown as clean text in the attached document. Text shown with revision marks indicates changes during the informal consultations during the WP 4A meeting. The attached updated document is proposed to remain as a working document towards Small Satellite Handbook. More contributions to further progress the work on this handbook is encouraged for the future meetings of WP 4A. Editorially, in further work, use of recognized ITU terminology as defined in the ITU-R literature (e.g., Radio Regulations, ITU-R V-series Recommendations and/or Rec. ITU-R S.673) should be ensured to be used throughout this handbook. Considering that this handbook is still at an early stage of development, it may be premature to consider liaison statement to other working parties including reply liaison statement to WP 5A in response to their liaison statement 4A/42 and to WP 7B in response to their liaison statement 4A/69.
    [Show full text]
  • End-Of-Life Disposal Concepts for Libration Point Orbit and Highly
    Author's Accepted Manuscript End-of-life disposal concepts for libration point Orbit and highly elliptical orbit missions Camilla Colombo, Elisa Maria Alessi, Willem van der Weg, Stefania Soldini, Francesca Leti- zia, Massimo Vetrisano, Massimiliano Vasile, Alessandro Rossi, Markus Landgraf www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro PII: S0094-5765(14)00434-2 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.11.002 Reference: AA5254 To appear in: Acta Astronautica Cite this article as: Camilla Colombo, Elisa Maria Alessi, Willem van der Weg, Stefania Soldini, Francesca Letizia, Massimo Vetrisano, Massimiliano Vasile, Alessandro Rossi, Markus Landgraf, End-of-life disposal concepts for libration point Orbit and highly elliptical orbit missions, Acta Astronautica, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.11.002 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Original article presented at IAA-AAS-DyCoSS2. Updated version submitted to Acta Astronautica END-OF-LIFE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS FOR LIBRATION POINT ORBIT AND HIGHLY ELLIPTICAL ORBIT MISSIONS Camilla Colombo1, Elisa Maria Alessi2, Willem van der Weg3, Stefania Soldini4, Francesca Letizia5, Massimo Vetrisano6, Massimiliano Vasile7, Alessandro Rossi8, Markus Landgraf9 Libration Point Orbits (LPOs) and Highly Elliptical Orbits (HEOs) are often se- lected for astrophysics and solar terrestrial missions.
    [Show full text]
  • IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (Rev. 1)
    IADC-02-01 Revision 1 September 2007 INTER-AGENCY SPACE DEBRIS COORDINATION COMMITTEE IADC Action Item number 22.4 IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines Issued by Steering Group and Working Group 4 Table of Contents 1 Scope ..............................................................................................................................................................5 2 Application......................................................................................................................................................5 3 Terms and definitions...................................................................................................................................5 3.1 Space Debris ..................................................................................................................................................5 3.2 Spacecraft, Launch Vehicles, and Orbital Stages ......................................................................................5 3.3 Orbits and Protected Regions ......................................................................................................................6 3.4 Mitigation Measures and Related Terms ....................................................................................................6 3.5 Operational Phases ...................................................................................................................................7 4 General Guidance ..........................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • ESA Space Debris Mitigation Compliance Verification Guidelines
    ESA UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use estec European Space Research and Technology Centre Keplerlaan 1 2201 AZ Noordwijk The Netherlands T +31 (0)71 565 6565 F +31 (0)71 565 6040 www.esa.int ESA Space Debris Mitigation Compliance Verification Guidelines Prepared by ESA Space Debris Mitigation WG Reference ESSB-HB-U-002 Issue 1 Revision 0 Date of Issue 19 February 2015 Status Approved Document Type HB Distribution ESA ESA UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Title ESA Space Debris Mitigation Compliance Verification Guidelines Issue 1 Revision 0 Author ESA Space Debris Mitigation WG Date 19 February 2015 Approved by ESSB Date Reason for change Issue Revision Date First issue 1 19 February 2015 Issue 1 Revision 0 Reason for change Date Pages Paragraph(s) Page 2/95 ESSB-HB-U-002 Date 19 February 2015 Issue 1 Rev 0 ESA UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Table of contents 1 Scope .................................................................................................................... 6 2 References ............................................................................................................ 7 3 Terms, definitions and abbreviated terms ......................................................... 8 3.1 Terms from other standards ................................................................................. 8 3.2 Terms specific to the this document .................................................................... 9 3.3 Abbreviated terms ................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Long-Term Orbital Debris Population Dynamics
    First Int'l. Orbital Debris Conf. (2019) 6097.pdf Understanding long-term orbital debris population dynamics Hugh G. Lewis University of Southampton, Astronautics Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Boldrewood Innovation Campus 176/2041, Southampton SO16 7QF, UK, [email protected] ABSTRACT Linear growth of the orbital debris population is observed in the results of many evolutionary models when they are used to simulate the effects of the widespread adoption of the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) debris mitigation guidelines. Such linear growth seemingly confirms the belief that adopting these debris mitigation guidelines will have substantial and positive benefits on the orbital debris population. However, this outcome is not expected from analyses of simple systems models. Either the systems model is too simplistic, or the linear growth of the debris population is actually the beginnings of exponential growth, which is difficult to discern over the typical analysis period. To resolve this ambiguity, the Debris Analysis and Monitoring Architecture to the Geosynchronous Environment (DAMAGE) model was used to perform ultra-long projections of the future debris population ≥ 10 cm in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) under highly optimistic debris mitigation conditions. The DAMAGE results showed that the linear growth rate observed for the first 200 years of the projection period was transient and the growth was exponential, even with the ongoing and widespread adoption of debris mitigation measures. The population growth was driven by the accumulation of orbital debris at altitudes between 1200 km and 1500 km, even though simulated launch activity to that region was limited.
    [Show full text]