Impact of high-risk conjunctions on Active Debris Removal target selection

All rights reserved.Space debris simulations show that if current space launches continue unchanged, spacecraft operations might become difficult in the congested space environment. It has been suggested that Active Debris Removal (ADR) might be necessary in order to prevent such a situation. Selection of objects to be targeted by ADR is considered important because removal of non-relevant objects will unnecessarily increase the cost of ADR. One of the factors to be used in this ADR target selection is the collision probability accumulated by every object. This paper shows the impact of high-probability conjunctions on the collision probability accumulated by individual objects as well as the probability of any collision occurring in orbit. Such conjunctions cannot be predicted far in advance and, consequently, not all the objects that will be involved in such dangerous conjunctions can be removed through ADR. Therefore, a debris remediation method that would address such events at short notice, and thus help prevent likely collisions, is suggested.

[1]  V. F. Baik. Av,et al.  Direct method for the analysis of collision probability of artificial space objects in LEO: techniques, results and applications , 1993 .

[2]  J. Liou.  An active debris removal parametric study for LEO environment remediation , 2011 .

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

[4]  Salvatore Alfano.  Determining satellite close approaches, part 2 , 1994 .

[5]  Nicolas Bérend,et al.  Estimation of the probability of collision between two catalogued orbiting objects , 1999 .

[6]  Victor P Osweiler,et al.  Covariance Estimation and Autocorrelation of NORAD Two-Line Element Sets , 2012 .

[7]  Toshiya Hanada,et al.  Discussion on the necessity of orbital debris removal in the geostationary region , 2014 .

[8]  Salvatore Alfano,et al.  Determining satellite close approaches , 1992 .

[9]  Ken Chan.  International Space Station Collision Probability , 2013 .

[10]  BLRToN C. CouR-PALArs,et al.  Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites : The Creation of a Debris Belt , 2022 .

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

[12]  Waldemar Bauer,et al.  Target selection and comparison of mission design for space debris removal by DLR׳s advanced study group ☆ , 2014 .

[13]  Vincent Agi Coppola.  Determination of Close Approaches Based on Ellipsoidal Threat Volumes , 1999 .

[14]  Holger Krag,et al.  Assessment and Categorization of TLE Orbit Errors for the US SSN Catalogue , 2008 .

[15]  G. Roberts.  Satellite Tracking Software , 2007 .

[16]  Heiner Klinkrad,et al.  Collision Risk Assessment with a `Smart Sieve' Method , 2002 .

[17]  Linda L. Crawford,et al.  An analytic method to determine future close approaches between satellites , 1984 .

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

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

[20]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes in C , 2002 .

[21]  Felix R. Hoots,et al.  SPACETRACK REPORT NO. 3 Models for Propagation of , 1988 .

[22]  Adam E. White,et al.  The many futures of active debris removal , 2014 .

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

[24]  Russell P. Patera.  Space Event Detection Method , 2008 .

[25]  M. Degroot,et al.  Probability and Statistics , 1977 .

[26]  David Finkleman,et al.  A critical assessment of satellite drag and atmospheric density modeling , 2008 .

[27]  Salvatore Alfano.  Relating Position Uncertainty to Maximum Conjunction Probability , 2003 .

[28]  J.-C. Liou,et al.  A sensitivity study of the effectiveness of active debris removal in LEO , 2009 .

[29]  T. S. Cssi Kelso,et al.  Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precision Ephemerides , 2007 .

[30]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd Edition , 1992 .

[31]  Stephen Johnson,et al.  Scalable Conjunction Processing using Spatiotemporally Indexed Ephemeris Data , 2014 .

[32]  Ryan Clayton Frigm,et al.  Relative Velocity as a Metric for Probability of Collision Calculations , 2008 .

[33]  P. F. Easthope,et al.  Examination of SGP4 along-track errors for initially circular orbits , 2015 .

[34]  Holger Krag,et al.  ESA’s process for the identification and assessment of high-risk conjunction events , 2009 .

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

[36]  Donald J. Kessler,et al.  Derivation of the collision probability between orbiting objects: the lifetimes of jupiter's outer moons , 1981 .

[37]  Hugh G. Lewis,et al.  A deterministic approach to active debris removal target selection , 2014 .

[38]  R. Armellin,et al.  A high order method for orbital conjunctions analysis: Monte Carlo collision probability computation , 2015 .

[39]  M. Degroot,et al.  Probability and Statistics , 2021, Examining an Operational Approach to Teaching Probability.

[40]  Liam M. Healy,et al.  Close conjunction detection on parallel computer , 1995 .

[41]  Luciano Anselmo,et al.  Analysis of the orbital decay of spherical satellites using different solar flux proxies and atmospheric density models , 2006 .