Considering the collision probability of Active Debris Removal missions

Abstract Active Debris Removal (ADR) methods are being developed due to a growing concern about the congestion on-orbit and sustainability of spaceflight. This study examined the probability of an on-orbit collision between an ADR target, whilst being de-orbited, and all the objects in the public catalogue published by the US Strategic Command. Such a collision could have significant effects because the target is likely to be located in a densely populated orbital regime and thus follow-on collisions could take place. Six impulsive and three low-thrust example ADR mission trajectories were screened for conjunctions. Extremely close conjunctions were found to result in as much as 99% of the total accumulated collision probability. The need to avoid those conjunctions is highlighted, which raises concerns about ADR methods that do not support collision avoidance. Shortening the removal missions, at an expense of more Δ V and so cost, will also lower their collision probability by reducing the number of conjunctions that they will experience.

[1]  Robert L. Ash,et al.  A methodology for selective removal of orbital debris , 1993 .

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

[3]  Leonard Vance,et al.  Value analysis for orbital debris removal , 2013 .

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

[5]  Massimiliano Vasile,et al.  Preliminary Design of Debris Removal Missions by Means of Simplified Models for Low-Thrust, Many-Revolution Transfers , 2012, ArXiv.

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

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

[8]  Max Cerf,et al.  Multiple Space Debris Collecting Mission—Debris Selection and Trajectory Optimization , 2011, J. Optim. Theory Appl..

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

[10]  Holger Krag,et al.  THE EUROPEAN SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM – REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN CONCEPTS , 2010 .

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

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

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

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

[15]  James R. Wertz,et al.  Space Mission Analysis and Design , 1992 .

[16]  Hugh G. Lewis,et al.  Collision probability assessment for active debris removal missions , 2014 .

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

[18]  Hiroshi Hirayama,et al.  Practical guidelines for electro-dynamic tethers to survive from orbital debris impacts , 2010 .

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

[20]  Aurélien Pisseloup,et al.  Technology Combination Analysis Tool (TCAT) for Active Debris Removal , 2013 .

[21]  K. Nock,et al.  Removing Orbital Debris with Less Risk , 2013 .

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

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

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

[25]  Simon Barraclough,et al.  Development of Harpoon System for Capturing Space Debris , 2013 .

[26]  Hugh G. Lewis,et al.  Impact of high-risk conjunctions on Active Debris Removal target selection , 2015 .

[27]  M. Ottaviani,et al.  De-Orbit Strategies With Low-Thrust Propulsion , 2015 .

[28]  S. Flegel,et al.  Active debris removal of multiple priority targets , 2013 .