Space debris is a growing problem. Models show that the Kessler syndrome, the exponential growth of debris due to collisions, has become unavoidable unless an active debris removal program is initiated. The debris population in LEO with inclination between 60° and 95° is considered as the most critical zone. In order to stabilize the debris population in orbit, especially in LEO, 5 to 10 objects will need to be removed every year. The unique circumstances of such a mission could require that several objects are removed with a single launch. This will require a mission to rendezvous with a multitude of objects orbiting on different altitudes, inclinations and planes. Removal models have assumed that the top priority targets will be removed first. However this will lead to a suboptimal mission design and increase the ΔV-budget. Since there is a multitude of targets to choose from, the targets can be selected for an optimal mission design. In order to select a group of targets for a removal mission the orbital parameters and political constraints should also be taken into account. Within this paper a number of the target selection criteria are presented. The possible mission targets and their order of retrieval is dependent on the mission architecture. A comparison between several global mission architectures is given. Under consideration are 3 global missions of which a number of parameters are varied. The first mission launches multiple separate deorbit kits. The second launches a mother craft with deorbit kits. The third launches an orbital tug which pulls the debris in a lower orbit, after which a deorbit kit performs the final deorbit burn. A RoM mass and cost comparison is presented. The research described in this paper has been conducted as part of an active debris removal study by the Advanced Study Group (ASG). The ASG is an interdisciplinary student group working at the DLR, analyzing existing technologies and developing new ideas into preliminary concepts.
[1]
Carsten Wiedemann,et al.
The MASTER-2001 model
,
2002
.
[2]
James R. Wertz,et al.
Space mission engineering : the new SMAD
,
2011
.
[3]
J.-C. Liou,et al.
Controlling the growth of future LEO debris populations with active debris removal
,
2010
.
[4]
Christophe Bonnal,et al.
Active debris removal: Recent progress and current trends
,
2013
.
[5]
J. Liou.
Collision activities in the future orbital debris environment
,
2004
.
[6]
James R. Wertz,et al.
Space Mission Analysis and Design
,
1992
.
[7]
D. Kessler,et al.
Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt
,
1978
.
[8]
J.-C. Liou,et al.
A sensitivity study of the effectiveness of active debris removal in LEO
,
2009
.
[9]
Max Cerf,et al.
Multiple Space Debris Collecting Mission—Debris Selection and Trajectory Optimization
,
2011,
J. Optim. Theory Appl..
[10]
S. Flegel,et al.
Active debris removal of multiple priority targets
,
2013
.
[11]
J. Liou.
An active debris removal parametric study for LEO environment remediation
,
2011
.
[12]
D. Schubert,et al.
The Space Weather Observation Network (SWON) Concept - Inauguration of the DLR Advanced Study Group
,
2011
.