LightForce photon-pressure collision avoidance: Efficiency analysis in the current debris environment and long-term simulation perspective.

This work provides an efficiency analysis of the LightForce space debris collision avoidance scheme in the current debris environment and describes a simulation approach to assess its impact on the long-term evolution of the space debris environment. LightForce aims to provide just-in-time collision avoidance by utilizing photon pressure from ground-based industrial lasers. These ground stations impart minimal accelerations to increase the miss distance for a predicted conjunction between two objects. In the first part of this paper we will present research that investigates the short-term effect of a few systems consisting of 20 kW class lasers directed by 1.5 m diameter telescopes using adaptive optics. The results found such a network of ground stations to mitigate more than 85 percent of conjunctions and could lower the expected number of collisions in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) by an order of magnitude. While these are impressive numbers that indicate LightForce's utility in the short-term, the remaining 15 % of possible collisions contain (among others) conjunctions between two massive objects that would add large amount of debris if they collide. Still, conjunctions between massive objects and smaller objects can be mitigated. Hence, we choose to expand the capabilities of the simulation software to investigate the overall effect of a network of LightForce stations on the long-term debris evolution. In the second part of this paper, we will present the planned simulation approach for that effort. For the efficiency analysis of collision avoidance in the current debris environment, we utilize a simulation approach that uses the entire Two Line Element (TLE) catalog in LEO for a given day as initial input. These objects are propagated for one year and an all-on-all conjunction analysis is performed. For conjunctions that fall below a range threshold, we calculate the probability of collision and record those values. To assess efficiency, we compare a baseline (without collision avoidance) conjunction analysis with an analysis where LightForce is active. Using that approach, we take into account that collision avoidance maneuvers could have effects on third objects. Performing all-on-all conjunction analyses for extended period of time requires significant computer resources; hence we implemented this simulation utilizing a highly parallel approach on the NASA Pleiades supercomputer.

[1]  N. Johnson,et al.  NASA's new breakup model of evolve 4.0 , 2001 .

[2]  D. Gavel,et al.  ORION: Clearing near-Earth space debris using a 20-kW, 530-nm, Earth-based, repetitively pulsed laser , 1996 .

[3]  Jonathan D. Aziz,et al.  LightForce Photon-Pressure Collision Avoidance: Updated Efficiency Analysis Utilizing a Highly Parallel Simulation Approach , 2014 .

[4]  Scot S. Olivier,et al.  Brute Force Modeling of the Kessler Syndrome , 2012 .

[5]  J. Liou Collision activities in the future orbital debris environment , 2004 .

[6]  N. Johnson,et al.  Instability of the Present LEO Satellite Populations , 2008 .

[7]  Jan Stupl,et al.  Assessment of Long Range Laser Weapon Engagements: The Case of the Airborne Laser , 2010 .

[8]  David K. Barton,et al.  Report of the American Physical Society Study Group on boost-phase intercept systems for national missile defense: Scientific and technical issues , 2004 .

[9]  J.-C. Liou,et al.  Controlling the growth of future LEO debris populations with active debris removal , 2010 .

[10]  D. Kessler,et al.  Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt , 1978 .

[11]  D. Drob,et al.  Nrlmsise-00 Empirical Model of the Atmosphere: Statistical Comparisons and Scientific Issues , 2002 .

[12]  C. H. Acton,et al.  Ancillary data services of NASA's Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility , 1996 .

[13]  David E. Smith,et al.  The Development of the NASA GSFC and NIMA Joint Geopotential Model , 1997 .

[14]  Monique Moury,et al.  CNES Operational Experiences in Collision Avoidance for LEO Satellites , 2009 .

[15]  Alberto Guillen Salas,et al.  LightForce: An Update on Orbital Collision Avoidance Using Photon Pressure , 2012 .

[16]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Final Report of the Haystack Orbital Debris Data Review Panel , 1998 .

[17]  D. Vallado Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications , 1997 .

[18]  John E. Prussing,et al.  Solar Sailing: Technology, Dynamics, and Mission Applications , 2000 .

[19]  Darren S. McKnight,et al.  System engineering analysis of derelict collision prevention options , 2013 .

[20]  P. Krisko,et al.  LEGEND - a three-dimensional LEO-to-GEO debris evolutionary model , 2004 .

[21]  W. Folkner,et al.  The Planetary and Lunar Ephemeris DE 421 , 2009 .

[22]  William Marshall,et al.  Improved orbit predictions using two-line elements , 2010, 1002.2277.

[23]  R. Patera General Method for Calculating Satellite Collision Probability , 2001 .

[24]  J. Dormand,et al.  A family of embedded Runge-Kutta formulae , 1980 .

[25]  C. Levit,et al.  Orbital debris–debris collision avoidance , 2011, 1103.1690.

[26]  C. Levit,et al.  LightForce Photon-Pressure Collision Avoidance: Efficiency Assessment on an Entire Catalogue of Space Debris , 2013 .

[27]  E. Hairer,et al.  Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II: Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems , 2010 .