The Top 10 Questions for Active Debris Removal - … Top 10 Questions for Active Debris Removal...
Transcript of The Top 10 Questions for Active Debris Removal - … Top 10 Questions for Active Debris Removal...
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Top 10 Questionsfor Active Debris Removal
J.-C. Liou, PhDNASA Orbital Debris Program Office
Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas
European Workshop on Active Debris Removal22 June 2010, CNES HQ, Paris, France
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20100025507 2018-05-20T03:58:31+00:00Z
2/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Outline
• Historical and current orbital debris environment
• The top 10 topics for active debris removal (ADR)– Focus the discussion on ≥10 cm objects– Limit the future projection to 200 years– Use the NASA orbital debris evolutionary model, LEGEND
(an LEO-to-GEO Environment Debris model), for simulations– Address environment remediation only (will not discuss cost,
technology, ownership, legal, liability, and policy issues)
• Recent and future active debris removal activities– ADR conference, workshops, studies, opportunities, etc.
3/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Num
ber o
f Obj
ects
Year
Monthly Number of Objects in Earth Orbit by Object Type
Total Objects
Fragmentation Debris
Spacecraft
Mission-related Debris
Rocket Bodies
Growth of the Historical Debris Populations
FY-1C ASAT Test
Iridium-Cosmos
×
4/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Consequences of the Two Major Breakups
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts p
er 2
0 km
Alt
Bin
Altitude (km)
1-Apr-10 SSN catalog
1-Jan-07 SSN catalog
An increase of 117% in the region below 1000 km
5/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Mas
s (m
etric
ton)
per
50
km A
ltitu
de B
in
Altitude (km)
Mass Distribution in LEO
Mass in Orbit (1/2)
LEO-to-GEO: ~5900 tonsLEO: ~2500 tons
6/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Mass in Orbit (2/2)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Mas
s (m
etric
ton)
per
50
km A
ltitu
de B
in
Altitude (km)
Mass Distribution in LEO
All
Rocket Bodies (46% of All)
Spacecraft (51% of All)
Others
7/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
The Top 10 Topics for Active Debris Removal
8/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
The Top-10 List
1. Which region (LEO/MEO/GEO) has the fastest projected growth rate and the highest collision activities?
2. Can the commonly-adopted mitigation measures stabilize the future environment?
3. What are the objectives of ADR?4. How can effective ADR target selection criteria to stabilize the
future LEO environment be defined?5. What are the keys to remediate the future LEO environment?6. What is the timeframe for ADR implementation?7. What is the effect of practical/operational constraints? 8. What are the collision probabilities and masses of the current
objects?9. What are the benefits of collision avoidance maneuvers?10. What is the next step?
9/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
1. Which region (LEO/MEO/GEO) has the fastest projected growth rate and the highest collision
activities?
10/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts (>
10 c
m)
Year
Non-Mitigation Projection (averages and 1-σ from 100 MC runs)
LEO (200-2000 km alt)
MEO (2000-35,586 km alt)
GEO (35,586-35,986 km alt)
Projected Growth of the Future Debris Populations
Ave. collisions in the next 200 years(non-mitigation scenario)
Cat. Non-cat. Total
LEO 83 95 178
MEO 0.5 1.5 2
GEO 1.5 1.5 3
11/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Assessments of the Non-Mitigation Projection
• LEO: the non-mitigation scenario predicts the debris population (≥10 cm objects) will have a rapid non-linear increase in the next 200 years– This is a well-known trend that was the motivation for
developing the currently-adopted mitigation measures more than 10 years ago
• MEO and GEO: the non-mitigation scenario predicts a moderate population growth– Only a few accidental collisions between ≥10 cm objects are
predicted in the next 200 years– The currently-adopted mitigation measures will further limit the
population growth in key regions– Active debris removal is not a priority
12/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
2. Will the commonly-adopted mitigation measures stabilize the future LEO environment?
13/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
2005 LEGEND Study – the Best Case Scenario(No New Launches Beyond 1/1/2006)
• Collision fragments replace other decaying debris through the next 50 years, keeping the total population approximately constant
• Beyond 2055, the rate of decaying debris decreases, leading to a netincrease in the overall satellite population due to collisions
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Year
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts (>
10cm
, LEO
)
Total
Intacts + mission related debris
Explosion fragments
Collision fragments
(Liou and Johnson, Science 2006)
14/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
A Realistic Assessment
• In reality, the situation will be worse than the “no new launches” scenario as– Satellites launches will continue– Major breakups may continue to occur (e.g., Fengyun-1C,
Briz-M, Iridium 33/Cosmos 2251)
• Postmission disposal (such as a 25-year decay rule) will help, but will be insufficient to prevent the self-generating phenomenon from happening
• To preserve the near-Earth space for future generations, ADR must be considered
15/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
LEO Environment After FY-1C and Iridium/Cosmos Breakups
• Solid lines: 1957-to-2006, no new launches beyond 2006• Dashed lines: 1957-to-2009, no new launches beyond 2009
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts (>
10cm
, LE
O)
Year
Total
Intacts + mission related debris
Explosion fragments
Collision fragments
Increased baselineof ~2500 objects
16/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110
Cum
ulat
ive
Num
ber o
f Col
lisio
ns (≥
10 c
m o
bjec
ts, L
EO)
Year
LEGEND Projections (averages from 100 MC runs)
Reg Launches, No PMD
Reg Launches + 90% PMD
No Future Launches
Historical
Collisions in LEO
Another 8-to-9 collisions areexpected in the next 40 years (~1 every 5 years)
17/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
3. What are the objectives of ADR?(How to define mission success?)
18/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
How to Define Mission Success?
• The mission objectives guide the removal target selection criteria and the execution of ADR
• Specific objectives– Control population growth (≥10 cm or others)– Limit collision activities– Mitigate short-/long-term risks (damage, not necessarily
catastrophic destruction) to selected payloads– Mitigate risks to human space activities– And so on
• Common objectives– Follow practical/mission constraints (in altitude, inclination,
class, size, etc.)– Maximize benefit-to-cost ratio
19/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
One Example: Risks From Small Debris
• The U.S. segments of the ISS are protected against orbital debris about 1.4 cm and smaller– “Currently”, the number of objects between 1.5 cm and 10 cm,
with orbits crossing that of the ISS, is approximately 1200• ~800 of them are between 1.5 cm and 3 cm
– To reduce 50% of the ISS-crossing orbital debris in this size range (1.5 cm to 3 cm) will require, for example, a collector with an area-time product of ~1000 km2 year
20/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
4. How can effective ADR target selectioncriteria to stabilize the future LEO environment
be defined?
21/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
A Simple Physical Argument
• Future LEO environment is likely to be dominated by fragments generated via accidental collisions
• The effort to reduce future accidental collision fragments should focus on– Objects with the highest collision probabilities– Objects with the potential of generating the greatest amount of
fragments after collisions
• An effective ADR target selection criterion can be defined as– Objects with the highest [M × Pc]; M: mass, Pc: collision probability
22/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
5. What are the keys to remediatethe future LEO environment?
23/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Active Debris Removal Modeling
• A 2008-2009 LEGEND study shows that the two key elements to stabilize the future LEO environment (in the next 200 years) are– A good implementation of the commonly-adopted mitigation
measures (passivation, 25-year rule, avoid intentional destruction, etc.)
– An active debris removal of about five objects per year• Select objects with the highest [M × Pc]• Is based on two assumptions: (1) future launches can be
represented by the traffic cycle from the last 8 years, and (2) implementation of ADR start in 2020
• Does not include Iridium 33/Cosmos 2251 fragments– Future LEO environment can become better than what it is
today if more than five objects per year are removed
24/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts (>
10 c
m)
Year
LEO Environment Projection (averages of 100 LEGEND MC runs)
Reg Launches + 90% PMD
Reg Launches + 90% PMD + ADR2020/02
Reg Launches + 90% PMD + ADR2020/05
LEO Population Control
• PMD scenario predicts the LEO populations would increase by ~75% in 200 years• The population growth could be reduced by half with a removal rate of 2 obj/year• LEO environment could be stabilized with PMD and a removal rate of 5 obj/year
(Liou, Johnson, and Hill 2010)
25/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0.0E+00
5.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.5E+06
2.0E+06
2.5E+06
3.0E+06
3.5E+06
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Mas
s (k
g)
Year
Mass in LEO (PMD)
Mass in LEO (PMD + ADR02)
Mass in LEO (PMD + ADR05)
Cum mass removed (PMD + ADR02)
Cum mass removed (PMD + ADR05)
Mass in Orbit and Mass Removed
~6.8 tons per year
~4.3 tons per year
26/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
6. What is the timeframe for ADR implementation?
27/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Sooner or Later?
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts (>
10 c
m)
Year
LEO Environment Projection (averages of 50 LEGEND MC runs)
Reg Launches + 90% PMD
Reg Launches + 90% PMD + ADR2060/05
Reg Launches + 90% PMD + ADR2020/05
Average difference fromwaiting for 40 more years
28/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
7. What is the effect of practical/operational constraints?
29/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Distributions of R/Bs and S/Cs in LEO
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Alt
itud
e (k
m)
Inclination (deg)
Current LEO R/Bs and S/Cs (masses >50 kg)
Apogee
Perigee
30/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0.E+00
1.E-08
2.E-08
3.E-08
4.E-08
5.E-08
6.E-08
7.E-08
8.E-08
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Spat
ial D
ensi
ty (o
bj/k
m3 )
Altitude (km)
LEO Spatial Density (≥10 cm objects)
2209 (Reg Launches + PMD)
2209 (Reg Launches + PMD + ADR2020/05)
2209 (reg Launches + PMD + ADR2020/05 (limited h/inc)
One Example(Limiting ADR Targets to 900-1050 km alt and 82.5°-83.5°)
Does not address growthin other altitude regimes
31/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
8. What are the collision probabilities and masses of the current objects?
32/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Alt
itud
e (k
m)
Inclination (deg)
Top 200 Current R/Bs and S/Cs
Apogee
Perigee
Objects with the Highest [M x Pc] Values
SL-8 R/B (1400 kg)
Cosmos (2000-6000 kg)
METEOR (2200 kg)
Cosmos (2500 kg)
SL-16 R/B (8300 kg)Cosmos (3300 kg)
SL-8 R/B (1400 kg)
Cosmos (1300-4000 kg)
Varies (1100-8300 kg)
33/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
9. What are the benefits of collision avoidance maneuvers?
34/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Effects of Collision Avoidance Maneuvers
• Collision avoidance (COLA) maneuvers– Can prevent spacecraft from colliding with objects in the U.S.
Space Surveillance Network (SSN) catalog• ~80% of the ~300 currently active payloads in LEO have the
maneuvering capability– Do not protect spacecraft from non-catalog objects
• Objects smaller than 10 cm are still lethal to payloads• The LEO population growth is a concern to every satellite
operator/owner – Do not significantly reduce the long-term LEO debris population
growth
35/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Mass Distribution of “Young” Spacecraft
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Mas
s (m
etric
ton)
per
50
km A
ltitu
de B
in
Altitude (km)
Mass Distribution in LEO (January 2010)
All (R/Bs + S/Cs + Debris)
Spacecraft launched after 2001 (total ~220 tons)
~9% of the total LEO mass
36/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts (>
10 c
m)
Year
LEO Environment Projection (averages of 50 LEGEND MC runs)
Reg Launches + 90% PMD
Reg Launches + 90% PMD + COLA
Benefits of COLA Maneuvers
All payloads younger than 9 years old were excluded from collision consideration
37/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
10. What is the next step?
38/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
The Challenges Ahead – a Personal Perspective
• Reach a consensus on the instability problem of the LEO debris environment
• Determine if there is a need to use ADR for environment remediation– Define “what is acceptable”– Establish a timeframe to move forward
• Commit the necessary resources to support the development of low-cost and viable removal technologies
• Address the policy, coordination, ownership, legal, liability, and other issues at the national and international levels
39/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Recent and Future Activities Related toActive Debris Removal
40/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
The International Conference onOrbital Debris Removal (Dec. 2009)
• The 2.5-day conference included 10 sessions– Understanding the Problem; Solution Framework; Legal & Economic ;
Operational Concepts; Using Environmental Forces; Capturing Objects; Orbital Transfer; Technical Requirements; In Situ vs. Remote Solutions; Laser Systems.
– Had 275 participants from 10 countries; 52 presentations plus 4 keynote speeches
• The conference reflected a growing concern for the future debris environment
• It represented the first joint effort for different communities to explore the issues and challenges of active debris removal
41/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Maintaining a Good Momentum to Move Forward
• ISTC Space Debris Mitigation Workshop (April 2010)
• European Workshop on Active Debris Removal
• IAA study on removal technologies, IADC study on the LEO environment, debris removal papers at upcoming COSPAR, IAC, etc.
• NASA RFI for small satellite demonstration missions– orbital debris removal, autonomous/collaborative/close
proximity operations, etc.
• Potential collaboration on ADR demonstration missions
42/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Pre 1957 2010 2210+
The Future is in Our Hands
43/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Backup Charts
44/42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
• LEGEND – A three-dimensional LEO-to-GEO debris evolutionary model, Adv. Space Res. 34, 5, 981-986, 2004.
• A LEO Satellite postmission disposal study using LEGEND, Acta Astronautica 57, 324-329, 2005.
• Risks in space from orbiting debris, Science 311, 340-341, 2006.• Collision activities in the future orbital debris environment, Adv. Space Res.
38, 9, 2102-2106, 2006.• A statistic analysis of the future debris environment, Acta Astronautica 62,
264-271, 2008.• Instability of the present LEO satellite population, Adv. Space Res. 41, 1046-
1053, 2008.• Characterization of the cataloged Fengyun-1C fragments and their long-
term effect on the LEO environment, Adv. Space Res. 43, 1407-1415, 2009.• A sensitivity study of the effectiveness of active debris removal in LEO,
Acta Astronautica 64, 236-243, 2009.• Controlling the growth of future LEO debris populations with active debris
removal, Acta Astronautica 66, 648-653, 2010.
Journal Publications(LEGEND and LEGEND Applications)