Upload
braedon-farr
View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DEBRIS REMOVAL DESIGN DRIVERS BASED ON TARGET
SELECTION
2nd European Workshop on Active Debris Removal
CNES HQ, Paris, 18th- 19th July 2012
Adam White: [email protected] Lewis: [email protected]
University of Southampton
Hedley Stokes: [email protected] Space Ltd.
• It is probable that the space debris population will continue to grow even with a good compliance of commonly adopted mitigation measures
• This growth will be driven predominately by catastrophic collisions in Low Earth Orbit (LEO)
• Studies shave shown that Active Debris Removal (ADR) can potentially be an effective measure in reducing the population of space debris in the long-term
• An important challenge associated with ADR is the choice of targets to be removed
• The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of ADR when targets are constrained to orbital regimes and object types
• The work presented is part of the Alignment of Capability and Capacity for the Objective of Reducing Debris (ACCORD) project
Introduction
ACCORD Project
• Survey the capability of industry to implement debris mitigation measures
• Review the capacity of mitigation measures to reduce debris creation
Investigate measures to reduce space debris including ADR scenarios
• Combine capability and capacity indicators within an environmental impact ratings system
Alignment of Capability and Capacity for the Objective of
Reducing Debris http://www.fp7-accord.eu/
Aim: To communicate the efficiency of current debris mitigation practices and to identify opportunities for strengthening European capability
European Commission FP7
The top 567 ADR targets orbit parameters for one Monte Carlo (MC) simulation using the Debris Analysis and Monitoring Architecture to the Geosynchronous Environment (DAMAGE) model. Based on Equation (1)
Top ADR Targets (1)
The top 567 ADR targets orbit parameters for one Monte Carlo (MC) simulation using the Debris Analysis and Monitoring Architecture to the Geosynchronous Environment (DAMAGE) model. Based on Equation (1)
Top ADR Targets (1)
1
2
34 5
• DAMAGE was used to quantify the effect of removing target objects on a yearly basis from these clusters
• Spacecraft (S/C) and rocket bodies (R/B) debris were assigned to a cluster (1-5), c, based on their Euclidean distance from a user-defined location (in the inclination-altitude parameter space)
• A cluster selection value, Qc , is assigned to each cluster:
(2)
– where n is the number of objects in the cluster
• DAMAGE simulated removals from the cluster having the highest Qc value
Methodology
Study Scenarios
Scenario
Target selection criterion
Object type/s removed
1 No remediation -
2Removal from cluster
based on Eqn. (2) R/B
3Removal from cluster
based on Eqn. (2) S/C
4Removal from cluster
based on Eqn. (2) R/B + S/C
5Removal based on Eqn.
(1) R/B + S/C
Study Parameters
• Projection period: 2009 - 2209
• Initial population: Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference (MASTER) 2009 (1st May 2009 epoch)
• Objects: 10 cm, orbits intersecting LEO
• Launch traffic: 8-year cycle (2001-2009) from MASTER 2009
• Mitigation: passivation (100%), post-mission disposal (90%) following IADC mitigation guidelines
• Remediation: three removals a year (2020-2209), perigee altitude < 1400 km and eccentricity < 0.5
• Time-step: 5 days
• Number of Monte Carlos (MC) per scenario: 100
Summary of Results
Scenario 1 2 3 4 5
Number of objects ≥10 cm
20579 (3383)
16563 (3118)
17293 (2634)
16480 (2477)
16499 (2152)
% MC below initial population
15 61 48 63 62
Number of damaging collisions
24.8 (6.8)15.2 (4.5)
16.4 (4.7)
14.3 (4.2)
14.2 (4.4)
Number of catastrophic
collisions36.8 (7.7)
27.3 (6.9)
29.5 (6.5)
28.2 (5.7)
27.9 (5.8)
ERF Values
Scenario 1 2 3 4 5
Effective Reduction Factor (ERF)
- 7.08 5.79 7.23 7.20
ERF(Damaging collisions)
- 0.017 0.015 0.018 0.019
ERF(catastrophic
collisions)- 0.017 0.013 0.015 0.016
ratio - - - 1.21 1.07
Conclusions & ADR Impacts• Constraining removals to particular orbital regimes does not
appear to compromise the effectiveness of ADR in LEO
– ADR vehicles designed to remove multiple objects from a particular orbital regime will have reduced transfer energy requirements
• Constraining removals to particular orbital regimes leads to the majority of removals from ~83 (mostly R/Bs) and ~99 (mostly S/C) inclination orbits
– ADR vehicle designs can be tailored to specific target types and orbital regimes
• Removing only R/Bs appears to be as effective as removals targeting both R/Bs and S/C
– ADR vehicles can be targeted at R/Bs, which have common geometrical properties, grappling points etc., resulting in simpler, repeatable designs
Thank you
Adam E. [email protected]
Financial support for this work was provided the EU Framework 7 Programme (ACCORD Project, No. 262824). The authors would like to thank Holger Krag and Heiner Klinkrad
(ESA ESOC) for permission to use the MASTER population data.