DOCSLIB.ORG

Study of Debris Mitigation Methods for End of Lifetime Satellites

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study of Debris Mitigation Methods for End of Lifetime Satellites Study of Debris Mitigation Methods for End of Lifetime Satellites Nicholas Dietrich University of Florida [email protected] Faculty Advisor: Dr. Norman Fitz-Coy University of Florida ABSTRACT The space environment is constantly growing more crowded with satellites continually launched into orbit. To allow the space environment to be useful for future generations, it is recommended that satellites be disposed of within 25 years after the end of their mission life-time, either by disintegrating during re-entry of Earth’s atmosphere or boosting up into a graveyard orbit. The method for disposal must be designed to minimize the risk of colliding with space debris and be cost effective to implement. This paper analyzes five methods for disposal: electric engine, solar sail, electrodynamic tether, deployable drag surface, and chemical propulsion. The orbit trajectories were modelled using the two-body equation and an analysis of the area-time product and mass requirements for each deorbiting method was conducted. Orbits in low Earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit were analyzed for typical satellite parameters to determine the feasibility of a successful disposal while minimizing the risk of collision with space debris. Introduction of satellites in low earth orbit (LEO) and geostationary orbit (GEO). The methods for disposal will be electric engines, solar The Earth’s satellite population is only set to increase in the sail, electrodynamic tether, deployable drag surface, and coming years. As space becomes more accessible with more chemical engine. All these methods, except for chemical countries and organizations launching satellites, the satellite engine, are low thrust methods that will look to take advantage population will continue to expand. With an increased number of the longer allowable timescale of disposal transfer orbits. of satellites, the probability of collision for satellites will As satellite technology becomes more accessible with the increase and create more space debris that will consequently usage of smaller satellites like nanosatellites and picosatellites, increase the number of collisions in a cycle known as the these satellites potentially pose a great risk of becoming debris Kessler Syndrome [1]. Just in the region of 900 to 1000 km in as these satellites many times do not have on-board propulsion altitude, the projected number of objects in orbit 10 cm or larger systems to perform on-orbit maneuvers. It is currently the is set to triple within 200 years, and the probability of collision standard to place small satellites in orbits no greater than 600 to go up by a factor of 10 [2]. The composition of this debris km in altitude to ensure they meet the 25-year requirement. includes smaller fragments from previous collisions, satellites While this is the current standard, smaller satellites are pushing that have not yet deorbited, and rocket bodies. While it will the boundaries of their capabilities. Just in 2018 the CubeSat prove difficult to remove these debris objects from orbit, MarCO was able to achieve interplanetary travel by making the requirements have been set to reduce the amount of future space trip to Mars [4]. If CubeSats are to be able to expand beyond debris. The current NASA requirement is for the satellite to the limit of 600 km altitudes, cost-effective means of removal deorbit within 25 years after the mission lifetime [3]. There will be essential to achieving that goal. These cost-effective exist two ways for a satellite to be deorbited: either it re-enters methods will also prove to be beneficial to large satellites as Earth’s atmosphere or it is boosted up into a graveyard orbit. fuel on board required for deorbiting could otherwise be used This paper will examine these methods for disposal in the cases in station keeping and extend its operational lifetime. Dietrich, Nicholas 1 Developing effective means for satellite disposal will greatly equator, geostationary orbit (GEO) is one where the period of aid in the efforts for providing a safe and clean space the orbit equals the rotation of the Earth. environment by reducing strains on the satellite population and will help to ensure that space will be accessible for all future 푎3 generations. 푇 = 2휋√ (1) 휇 Slots in this orbit are in high demand as providing coverage over a specific area allows for continuous communication between the ground and the satellite and only a finite number are available for rent. These slots are managed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). As of the end of 2018, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) satellite database lists 558 satellites in GEO and include communications, broadcast, weather, and surveillance satellites [5]. At the end of the lifetime of these satellites, if they have the capability to, boost up into a graveyard orbit 300 km higher in Figure 1: MATLAB generated image of satellites in orbit used from current altitude than the GEO belt [7]. However, there exist a number satellite population data [5]. of dead satellites in GEO that possess no propulsion capabilities. These dead satellites will drift east and west within Low Earth Orbit their orbit, resulting in drifts toward the two libration points at latitudes 105 degrees West and 75 degrees East [8]. Only The region of satellites within low earth orbit (LEO) are another satellite will be able to remove these satellites but will those with an altitude below 2000 km. Most satellites and debris come at a high fuel cost. are located in this region of space, totaling 1229 satellites as of To ensure that future satellites do not drift and end up in this the end of 2018 [5]. This region of space thus possesses the liberation point, an orbit transfer must be performed. The GEO greatest risk of collisions for satellites with the greatest risks in belt slots are finite and are highly sought after, so it is within the altitudes between 900 and 1000 km and in polar inclinations the best interest of all organizations and countries to prevent [2]. While it is possible for satellites at the end of their lifetime GEO from becoming overcrowded with space debris. to boost up into a graveyard orbit at a higher altitude, the best mode of removal for LEO is for re-entry into Earth’s Two-Body Problem atmosphere. Using this method will permanently remove the satellite from the space and reduce risk of any future collision. To describe the motion of two celestial bodies, the two-body To further the goal of keeping the space environment as clean equation is used. Assuming that the two bodies are perfectly of debris as possible, this paper will only examine disposing of symmetrical and there is only a gravitational force acting on the satellites in LEO through re-entry of Earth’s atmosphere. An system, the equation of motion can be written as additional risk for satellites re-entering Earth’s atmosphere will be assurance that the satellite does not survive re-entry into 퐺(푀 + 푚) (2) Earth’s atmosphere, or the descent can be controlled to land on 풓̈ = − 3 풓 Earth with a maximum human casualty risk of 1:10,000 [6]. For 푟 passive disposal methods, this may pose a challenge if a component on board the satellite would survive re-entry as the where G is the gravitational constant, M and m are the masses location of re-entry would not be able to be controlled. of the bodies, and r is the position vector from body M to body In LEO, environmental forces from the Earth are able to be m. Assuming that the orbiting body’s mass, m, is much less than employed for providing a deorbit method. The Earth’s gravity, that of the central body, M, it can be found that magnetic field, and atmosphere all provide methods for generating a retarding force that can be taken advantage of for 퐺(푀 + 푚) ≈ 퐺푀 ≡ 휇, (3) lower the orbit altitude. The lower bound of LEO will be defined as 150 km in altitude. This is the altitude the satellite is where µ is defined as the gravitational parameter. Thus, the not able to complete one full revolution and will re-enter Earth’s two-body equation becomes atmosphere to be disposed. 휇 풓̈ + 3 풓 = 0 (4) Geostationary Orbit 푟 This equation of motion will be used to describe the motion of One specific orbit that is of great particular interest to countries the satellite in orbit about the Earth. Additional perturbative and corporations is one that provides continuous coverage over accelerations will be added to model the environmental and the same region of Earth. At an altitude of 35,786 km above the control the forces acting on the satellite. The two-body equation will be solved by a MATLAB integrator, ode113. Dietrich, Nicholas 2 Collision Type 푇 푉푗 퐼 = = (5) 푠푝 푚̇ Any debris fragment greater than 10 cm in diameter can produce catastrophic damage [3]. Relative to catastrophic where 푇 is thrust, 푚̇ is the change in mass, is standard collisions, there is a range of potential debris that is generated. gravitational accelerations, and 푉 is the exhaust velocity. For example, if a fragment of debris collides with a satellite’s 푗 fuel tank used for chemical propulsion, the explosion will The fuel used for electric propulsion additionally can be generate a significantly greater amount of debris than a collision significantly safer than chemical engines as they do not required with an inert metal component. Thus, it is important to take into combustion to function [10]. Fuel used in electric engines are consideration the materials used within each removal method. commonly chemically inert noble gases, like Xenon, that pose a low risk of explosion.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Orbital Mechanics, Oxford University Press
    Astrodynamics (AERO0024) 5A. Orbital Maneuvers Gaëtan Kerschen Space Structures & Systems Lab (S3L) Course Outline THEMATIC UNIT 1: ORBITAL DYNAMICS Lecture 02: The Two-Body Problem Lecture 03: The Orbit in Space and Time Lecture 04: Non-Keplerian Motion THEMATIC UNIT 2: ORBIT CONTROL Lecture 05: Orbital Maneuvers Lecture 06: Interplanetary Trajectories 2 Definition of Orbital Maneuvering It encompasses all orbital changes after insertion required to place a satellite in the desired orbit. This lecture focuses on satellites in Earth orbit. 3 Motivation Without maneuvers, satellites could not go beyond the close vicinity of Earth. For instance, a GEO spacecraft is usually placed on a transfer orbit (LEO or GTO). 4 5. Orbital Maneuvers 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Coplanar maneuvers 5 5. Orbital Maneuvers 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Why ? 5.1.2 How ? 5.1.3 How much ? 5.1.4 When ? 6 Orbit Circularization Ariane V is able to place heavy GEO satellites in GTO: perigee: 200-650 km GTO apogee: ~35786 km. GEO 5.1.1 Why ? 7 Orbit Raising: Reboost ISS reboost due to atmospheric drag (ISS, Shuttle, Progress, ATV). The Space Shuttle is able to place heavy GEO satellites in near-circular LEO with a few hundred kilometers altitude. 5.1.1 Why ? 8 Orbit Raising: Evasive Maneuvers See also www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Operations/SEM64X0SAKF_0.html 5.1.1 Why ? 9 Orbit Raising: Deorbiting GEO Satellites Graveyard orbit: to eliminate collision risk, satellites should be moved out of the GEO ring at the end of their mission. Their orbit should be raised by about 300 km to avoid future interference with active GEO spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • A Passive Satellite Deorbiting Strategy for MEO Using Solar Radiation
    62nd International Astronautical Congress Space Debris Symposium A Passive Satellite Deorbiting Strategy for MEO Using Solar Radiation Pressure and the J2 Effect Charlotte Lücking*, Camilla Colombo, and Colin R. McInnes Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde Glasgow, G1 1XJ, United Kingdom The growing population of space debris poses a serious risk to the future of space flight. To effectively manage the increase of debris in orbit, end-of life disposal has become a key requirement for future missions. This poses a challenge for Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) spacecraft which require a large Δv to re-enter the atmosphere or reach the geostationary graveyard orbit. This paper further explores a passive strategy based on the joint effects of solar radiation pressure and the Earth’s oblateness acting on a high area-to-mass ratio object. The concept was previously presented as an analytical planar model. This paper uses a full 3D model to validate the analytical results numerically for equatorial circular orbits first, then investigating higher inclinations. It is shown that for higher inclinations the initial position of the Sun and right ascension of the ascending node become increasingly important. A region of very low required area-to-mass ratio is identified in the parameter space of a and inclination which occurs for altitudes below 10,000 km. NOTATION angle of position of the Sun on ecliptic with respect to the vernal equinox [rad] a semi-major axis [m] gravitational parameter of the Earth a acceleration by solar radiation pressure [m/s2] SRP argument of perigee [rad] c speed of light in vacuum [m/s] right ascension of the ascending node [rad] cR coefficient of reflectivity angle between the direction of the solar e eccentricity radiation and the radius of the perigee [rad] area-to-mass ratio [m2/kg] ecrit critical eccentricity f true anomaly [rad] 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch Activity and Orbital Debris Mitigation
    Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report 1 Introduction The Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report features launch results from the first quarter of 2002 (January-March 2002) and launch forecasts for the second quarter of 2002 (April-June 2002) and the third quarter of 2002 (July-September 2002). This report contains information on worldwide commercial, civil, and military orbital space launch events. Projected launches have been identified from open sources, including industry ref- erences, company manifests, periodicals, and government sources. Projected launches are subject to change. This report highlights commercial launch activities, classifying commercial launches as one or more of the following: • Internationally-competed launch events (i.e., launch opportunities considered available in principle to competitors in the international launch services market) • Any launches licensed by the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration under U.S. Code Title 49, Section 701, Subsection 9 (previously known as the Commercial Space Launch Act) Contents First Quarter 2002 Highlights . .2 Vehicle Use . .3 Total Launch Events by Country . .4 Commercial Launch Events by Country . .4 Commercial vs. Non-commercial Launch Events . .5 First Quarter 2002 Launch Successes vs. Failures . .5 Payload Use . .6 Payload Mass Class . .6 Commercial Launch Trends . .7 Quarterly Report Topic: Launch Activity and Orbital Debris Mitigation . .8 Appendix A: First Quarter 2002 Orbital Launch Events . .A-1 Appendix B: Second Quarter 2002 Projected Orbital Launch Events . .B-1 Appendix C: Third Quarter 2002 Projected Orbital Launch Events . .C-1 Cover: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., Feb. 21, 2002 - An Atlas 3B launch vehicle successfully delivers its EchoStar 7 payload into orbit for EchoStar Communications Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • Geosynchronous Earth Orbit/Low Earth
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 8-2013 Geosynchronous Earth Orbit/Low Earth Orbit Space Object Inspection and Debris Disposal: A Preliminary Analysis Using a Carrier Satellite With Deployable Small Satellites Derick A. Crockett Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Crockett, Derick A., "Geosynchronous Earth Orbit/Low Earth Orbit Space Object Inspection and Debris Disposal: A Preliminary Analysis Using a Carrier Satellite With Deployable Small Satellites" (2013). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 1749. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1749 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOSYNCHRONOUS EARTH ORBIT/LOW EARTH ORBIT SPACE OBJECT INSPECTION AND DEBRIS DISPOSAL: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS USING A CARRIER SATELLITE WITH DEPLOYABLE SMALL SATELLITES by Derick Alan Crockett A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Aerospace Engineering Approved: Dr. David Geller Dr. R. Rees Fullmer Major Professor Committee Member Dr. Stephen A. Whitmore Dr. Mark R. McLellan Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2012 ii Copyright © Derick Alan Crockett 2012 All Rights Reserved iii Abstract Geosynchronous Earth Orbit/Low Earth Orbit Space Object Inspection and Debris Disposal: A Preliminary Analysis Using a Carrier Satellite With Deployable Small Satellites by Derick Alan Crockett, Master of Science Utah State University, 2012 Major Professor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Orbit Stability in the Geosynchronous Region for End-Of-Life Disposal
    ANALYSIS OF ORBIT STABILITY IN THE GEOSYNCHRONOUS REGION FOR END-OF-LIFE DISPOSAL Camilla Colombo (1), Ioannis Gkolias (2) (1) Politecnico di Milano, Department of Aerospace Science and Technology, via La Masa 34, 20156 Milan, Italy, Email: [email protected] (2) Politecnico di Milano, Department of Aerospace Science and Technology, via La Masa 34, 20156 Milan, Italy, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT disposal orbit with the following characteristics: - eccentricity 0.005, This paper characterises the dynamical structure and long - minimum perigee altitude h above the term stability of the geostationary orbit region, including p inclined orbits. Long-term orbit propagation through geostationary altitude according to semi-analytical techniques is employed to identify the h 235 1000 c A m effect of gravitational luni-solar and solar radiation p R pressure perturbations and their coupling with the Earth’s where h is in km, c is the solar radiation pressure oblateness and triaxiality. Maps showing the amplitude p R of the oscillation of the orbital parameters are produced coefficient of the space system at the beginning of as the results of these long-term simulations over an its life (0 for completely transparent material, 1 for extended grid of initial orbit conditions. These maps will completely absorbing material, 2 for totally be used to design manoeuvres for fuel efficiency transfer reflecting material), Am is the cross-section area to stable graveyard orbits or re-entry “highways”. (in m2) to dry mass (in kg) of the space system. Keywords: Geostationary orbit, long-term evolution, OR-03. Where practicable and economically feasible, disposal, graveyard, space debris, ReDSHIFT.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 17 December 1999
    United Nations A/AC.105/734 General Assembly Distr.: General 17 December 1999 Original: English Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Disposal of satellites in geosynchronous orbit Report by the Secretariat Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction ....................................................... 1-2 2 II. Standards and recommendations on geosynchonous satellite disposal ........ 3-8 2 III. Examples of the GSO disposal policy .................................. 9-15 3 A. Intelsat....................................................... 10 3 B. Canadian Space Agency ......................................... 11-12 4 C. Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales................................ 13 4 D. European Space Agency ........................................ 14 4 E. EUMETSAT.................................................. 15 4 IV. Situation near the geostationary orbit................................... 16-20 4 V. Conclusions ....................................................... 21 5 Annex. Statistical data....................................................................... 6 V.99-91115 (E) A/AC.105/734 I. Introduction (b) Every reasonable effort should be made to shorten the lifetime of debris in the transfer orbit; 1. At its forty-second session, the Committee on the (c) A geostationary satellite at the end of its life Peaceful Uses of Outer Space agreed1 that the Scientific should be transferred, before complete exhaustion of its and Technical Subcommittee, at its thirty-seventh session, propellant, to a supersynchronous
    [Show full text]