![rendezvous with debris, capture
it, and return to a central station.
The commercially developed MDA
Space Infrastructure Servicing
vehicle is a refuelling depot and
service spacecraft
for communication
satellites in geosynchronous orbit,
slated for launch in 2015. The SIS
includes the vehicle capability to
"push dead satellites
into graveyard orbits."
• The laser broom uses a powerful
ground-based laser to ablate the
front surface off of debris and
thereby produce a rocket-like
thrust that slows the object. With
a continued application the debris
will eventually decrease their
altitude enough to become
subject to atmospheric drag. A
laser broom project named
Project Orion was estimated to
cost $500 million in the 1990s
• Space Sweeper with Sling-Sat (4S)
is a grappling satellite mission
that sequentially captures and
ejects debris. The momentum
from these interactions is used as
a free impulse to the craft while
transferring between targets.
Thus far, 4S has proven to be a
promising solution.
• On February 28, 2014, Japans
JAXA program launched their test
satellite or "space net". The
particular satellite is to test
whether it can operate and open
normally and will not be collecting
any debris yet.
• A space elevator is a proposed
type of space transportation
system.[1]
Its main component is a
ribbon-like cable (also called
a tether) anchored to the surface
and extending into space. It is
designed to permit vehicle
transport along the cable from a
planetary surface, such as the
Earth's, directly into space or
orbit, without the use of large
rockets. By using the space
elevator we can minimize the use
of large rockets hence effectively
reducing the risk of further debris
creation.
CONCLUSION
Space debris poses a potential danger to our
existing satellites and also the objects which
survive re-entry are hazardous to earth.
Though, some of the debris removal
manoeuvres are economically unfeasible or
technically undeveloped as yet, we should
take this problem into consideration and try
to solve it as soon as its practical.
REFERENCES
1. Space debris: report of the
International Astronautical
Federation (A/AC.105/570, 25 Feb-
ruary 1994)
2. Space debris: working paper
submitted by the International
Academy of Astronautics (A/
AC.105/C.1/ L.217, 12 January
1998)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ieeepaper-140430112552-phpapp01/85/Ieee-paper-7-320.jpg)
Ieee paper
- 1. SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION SindhuPriya.SVanamala.l I-year electronic and communication department. Periyarmaniammai university- vallam ABSTRACT For several decades, orbital debris has been identified as a serious concern. This orbital debris potentially threatens future space missions, mainly in Low Earth Orbits and in Geostationary Earth Orbit, due to the risk of high energy collisions with valuable spacecraft. Orbital debris comprise the non- functional hardware orbiting the Earth, decommissioned spacecraft, spent upper stages, operational debris or residues from collisions.There are only very limited ways to improve the risks or effects of collisions: • Removal of large potential colliders does not seem practically feasible today, due to operational and programmatic constraints. • Collision avoidance is possible only with large catalogued debris, but requires access to precise orbital data for the largest debris, thanks to propagation of orbital tracks based on large observation facilities. • Mitigation is by far the most efficient strategy: limiting the number of orbital debris in the critical orbital zones is the most efficient strategy for long term stability of the orbital population. The major recommendations of IADC are: • There shall be no generation of operational debris: a space mission shall be clean, generating no long- term orbital debris such as clamp bands, fairings, optics protection. • Two orbital regions shall be protected, due to their economical importance: Low Earth Region, ranging up to 2000 km altitude, and Geostationary Earth Orbit. A clear motto has been identified as a long term strategy: there shall be no long lived orbital debris creation within the two protected regions KEYWORDS: Space debris, LEO, GEO, mitigation, IADC, protected regions INTRODUCTION Space debris are all manmade objects including fragments and elements thereof, in Earth orbit or re-entering the atmosphere, that are non functional; the expression “orbital debris” is often used and bears exactly the same meaning as “space debris”. It includes fragments and parts of man-made Earth-orbiting objects, such as fragments generated by satellite and upper stage break- up due to explosions and collisions. This derelict hardware is strewn across a wide range of altitudes, but is clustered around regions where space activity has been the greatest: LEO and GEO.
- 2. Space debris continually passes though space shared with functioning fragile and expensive spacecraft, manned and unmanned, performing vital navigation, communications, remote sensing, surveillance and scientific missions. This presents a variety of problems to the space faring community, from the possibility of catastrophic collision to the corruption of astronomical observations and possible interruption or degradation of RF paths. Some space agencies are striving to generate less debris by applying debris mitigation measures. However, there will be little net benefit if only one space faring nation introduces preventative measures. Space is a public domain, and if it is to be protected so that all can continue to exploit its unique attributes, there must be concerted and cooperative action among all space faring nations. In part, this is necessary to make economic competition equitable, but it is also necessary to keep valuable operational regions technically and economically viable for the future.Space faring nations and space agencies have established the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) in order to exchange information on space debris research activities, to facilitate opportunities for cooperation in space debris research, to review the progress of ongoing cooperative activities and to identify debris mitigation options. The most distressing aspect of the space debris problem is that it is getting worse in those regions most extensively used and could grow out of control at some altitudes and inclinations in the sense that collisions among the catalogued objects could become a significant debris growth factor. Because of the time and cost necessary to modify designs and operations practices, the debris problem will have a significant time lag between the recognition of the issues and the effect of changes. For this reason it is prudent to initiate action as soon as practical. CURRENT DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PRACTICES THAT LEAD TO DEBRIS CREATION Transfer and Early-Orbit Operations Solid Rocket Motors represent the main source of debris created during this phase in a mission. Solid Rocket Motors are used as upper stages or integrated into some payloads to perform orbital transfers, in particular between a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) and the final geostationary orbit.During the thrust, particles of aluminium oxide are ejected, which make up about 30% of exhaust products. The size of these particles is generally less than 10 microns and they are ejected at high velocity in the opposite direction to the velocity vector of the spacecraft, which results in a very limited in- orbit lifetime.At the end of combustion, however, instability induces the ejection at low velocity of larger particles called slag. Because the ejection occurs at low velocity, the particles remain in the vicinity of the initial orbit, which means that for a geostationary transfer orbit, the corresponding impact flux can be observed at any altitude. Deployment and Operational Debris During the deployment phase of satellite operations, several items are deliberately released in-orbit. These include: • Spin-up devices or spring release mechanisms released when the spacecraft is separated from the launcher • Debris from explosive bolts and pyrotechnic devices used for
- 3. separating the spacecraft from the launch vehicle stages • Large structural elements (dispensers) left in-orbit in the event of a multiple launch • Attach mechanisms released during deployment of antennae, solar panels, and other appendages • Protective covers released during activation of optical, attitude, and other sensor systems Debris produced can vary in size, from a few tenths of a millimetre to a few millimetres. In all cases, the mass of debris produced remains low. However, it is possible to reduce this mass by design (cutter shape and material, nature of shank). In addition, devices designed to trap debris may be added. Operations A large amount of debris may also be produced as an unexpected outcome of normal operations.For example, the nuclear reactor core disposal procedure adopted after the accidental re-entry of the RORSAT satellite Cosmos 954 resulted in many liquid metal (sodium potassium) droplets escaping from the primary cooling system encircling the expelled reactor core. Unfortunately, such debris can remain a hazard for years--the orbital lifetime of a 1 cm droplet is about 100 years.In addition to these specific cases, the production of debris during the operation phase can come from break-ups, surface degradation or collision with other objects Break-ups At least 184 orbital fragmentations have occurred, with 30% of these break-ups known to have propulsion-related causesT P7P T Approximately 4% were due to batteries, 8% were caused by aerodynamic break-up, and 29% were the result of deliberate actions that are thought to be related to national security. Only 1% can be attributed to collisions. The remaining 33% are officially considered to have unknown causes, although many are rocket body break-ups that are believed to be propulsion-related explosions. Of all break-up debris currently still in orbit, 73% has been associated with rocket body fragmentations. These are generally assumed to have been caused by explosions during manoeuvres, break-ups caused by post- mission mixing of propellant and oxidizer residuals, and pressure bursts. In conclusion, spacecraft break-ups have historically been a significant debris source. The satellite explosion risk has significantly decreased in the last decade as measures to vent propellant tanks and discharge batteries have been implemented. Surface Degradation Surfaces of spacecraft are exposed to the deleterious space environment of ultraviolet radiation, atomic oxygen, thermal cycling, micro-particulates, and micrometeoroids. This can lead to degradation in the optical, thermal and structural integrity of surfaces and coatings, and subsequent shedding of material into the space environment. Although limited analysis of this phenomenon has been conducted, such shed material has the potential to make a significant contribution to the micro-particulate population at altitudes above 1000 km, where the atmospheric density is too low to effect a timely natural decay of these characteristically high area-to-mass ratio coefficient particulates.It is estimated that there are over 63,000 mP2P of painted surfaces currently in orbit Collision Risk with Catalogued Object
- 4. The collision of a satellite with a catalogued object (size above 10 cm) would have catastrophic consequences. Firstly, the satellite would be seriously damaged, or even destroyed, and secondly, a large amount of debris of all sizes could be produced. Since the beginning of the space age, there has been three verified collisions of two tracked objects - the Cerise satellite with a piece of debris from a launch vehicle stage was the first recognized one Predictions are that the frequency of collisions will increase as the number of objects in orbit increases. It may be possible to manoeuvre operating satellites to avoid collisions with tracked objects. End of Mission and Disposal After its end of mission the satellites keep on producing debris as during the operational lifetime. The debris sources are the same: explosion risk, surface degradation, ejecta, and collision risk with other objects.Therefore, the design and operation practices that reduce the probability of success of the end-of-life manoeuvres are indirect sources of debris. These include: - Satellites without propulsion systems where no disposal is possible - Inaccurate estimation of remaining propellant, where disposal may not be completed successfully - Insufficient manoeuvre capability, where disposal is not included in the mission plan - Random and wear out failures that affect disposal propulsion systems. Estimation of Remaining Propellant, Prolongation of the Operational Mission Until recently, the end-of-life of a satellite with no major anomalies was determined by depletion of attitude and orbit control fuel reserves. The application of re-orbiting or de- orbiting measures at end-of-life implies defining the end-of-life as the moment when the quantity of fuel in the tanks equals the quantity necessary to carry out these end-of- life measures. Now, end-of-life is no longer a fact which is noted, but a decision that operators must make. Added to its significant cost is the problem of taking uncertainties into account. Estimating the amount of propellant available in the tanks of an in-orbit vehicle is very delicate. The methods used lead to significant uncertainties at end-of-life. These uncertainties must be taken into account in the form of margins that reduce the satellite's operational life. These margins depend also on the required success probability of the disposal manoeuvre. Passivation Process (Design and Operations) Many satellites are simply abandoned in their operational orbit or transferred to a disposal orbit without taking other debris prevention measures. Satellites generally remain for a long time in this adverse environment where collisions with space debris or meteoroids and the high temperature changes (thermal cycling) between Sun-lit passages and eclipses may trigger break-ups. The main stored energy sources, which may explode include the following: - Overpressure in charged batteries - Residual propellant in the tanks - High pressure gasses in pressure vessels (helium tanks) Hence it becomes necessary to make these sources passive at the end of the mission to avoid debris creation due to explosion of energy sources.
- 5. Long-Term Debris Environment Forecast OPTIONS FOR MINIMIZING DEBRIS CREATION Several possible means of limiting the growth of orbital debris have been proposed. In broad terms, they may be classified in two categories, debris generation prevention and debris removal. Looking at the short-term, the satellite de- orbiting at the end of life belongs to the debris removal category. However, the fundamental motivation of such an action would be to prevent the long-term generation of new orbital debris due to collisions. This distinction between short- and long-term perspectives is very important when the effectiveness of the techniques proposed for debris mitigation is evaluated against the additional cost of having them implemented. According to the results obtained by the models developed to investigate the future evolution of the debris environment, the mitigation measures intended to minimize the generation of new debris without constraining the total mass put into orbit (e.g., explosion prevention or curtailing mission-related objects) will be adequate only in diminishing the short-term hazard, while a long-term benefit can be uniquely achieved by reducing the amount of mass in orbit (e.g., through spacecraft removal or de-orbiting) Internationally agreed debris mitigation measures: • limit the number of mission-related objects during mission deployment(now causing 5% of all catalogued objects) • limit the post-mission on-orbit dwell time of spacecraft and orbital stages (now causing 24% of all catalogued objects), in particular in the “protected EO and GEO regions ” • avoid on-orbit break-ups (now causing 64% of all catalogued objects) Examples of debris mitigation measures: • Passivation of spacecraft and orbital stages at of spacecraft and orbital stages at end of-life and collision avoidance for operational spacecraft. • Re-orbiting of GEO spacecraft at end- of-life. • De-orbiting of LEO spacecraft and orbital stages at end-of-life. Collision Avoidance Manoeuvres The collision of an operational satellite with a catalogued object could be a significant source of debris. In practice, monitoring collision risks is complex and delicate. Data contained in the catalogue supplied by US Space Surveillance Network is relatively imprecise.The principle of collision risk monitoring consists in performing a processing operation with several steps. The first step, which is a rough sorting, uses information given by the Two Line Elements in the catalogue to highlight possible risks while taking significant margins into account. When a potentially dangerous object is thus highlighted, tracking measurements are performed using radar or optical telescopes to gain more knowledge about the object's trajectory. Since the precise orbit of the
- 6. satellite is known to its control centre, it is then possible to determine the closest flyby distance and the probability of collision.When the probability of collision is greater than the accepted risk, an avoidance manoeuvre allowing a safety distance between the two objects can be performed. To limit the amount of fuel necessary, the manoeuvre must be carried out a few orbits before the encounter event. Difficulties associated with collision avoidance include the following: • Computer processing operations are heavy and complex. The database used for the evaluation contains around 14000 objects whose trajectories must be extrapolated over several days and compared with that of the operational satellite; • Flight dynamics experts are often necessary to interpret the results and develop mitigation strategies • Executing a manoeuvre can modify the nominal orbit and interrupt the mission, representing a cost for the operator. A second manoeuvre may be necessary in order to return to nominal orbit • These operations can be complex and represent a risk for the satellite due to thruster malfunction or other potential failure associated with the additional manoeuvre. Self-removal • It is an ITU requirement that geostationary satellites be able to remove themselves to a graveyardorbit at the end of their lives. It has been demonstrated that the selected orbital areas do not sufficiently protect GEO lanes from debris, although a response has not yet been formulated. • Rocket stages or satellites that retain enough propellant can power themselves into a decaying orbit. In cases when a direct (and controlled) de-orbit would require too much propellant, a satellite can be brought to an orbit where atmospheric drag would cause it to de-orbit after some years. Such a manoeuvre was successfully performed with the French Spot-1 satellite, bringing its time to atmospheric re-entry down from a projected 200 years to about 15 years by lowering its perigee from 830 km (516 mi) to about 550 km (342 mi). • Several passive means of increasing the orbital decay rate of spacecraft debris have been proposed. Rather than using rockets, an electrodynamic tether could be attached to the spacecraft on launch. At the end of the spacecraft's lifetime, the tether would be rolled out to slow down the spacecraft. Although tethers of up to 30 km have been successfully deployed in orbit the technology has not yet reached maturity. Other proposals include booster stages with a sail-like attachment or a very-large but ultra-thin inflatable balloon envelope to accomplish the same end. External removal Measures • A well-studied solution is to use a remotely controlled vehicle to
- 7. rendezvous with debris, capture it, and return to a central station. The commercially developed MDA Space Infrastructure Servicing vehicle is a refuelling depot and service spacecraft for communication satellites in geosynchronous orbit, slated for launch in 2015. The SIS includes the vehicle capability to "push dead satellites into graveyard orbits." • The laser broom uses a powerful ground-based laser to ablate the front surface off of debris and thereby produce a rocket-like thrust that slows the object. With a continued application the debris will eventually decrease their altitude enough to become subject to atmospheric drag. A laser broom project named Project Orion was estimated to cost $500 million in the 1990s • Space Sweeper with Sling-Sat (4S) is a grappling satellite mission that sequentially captures and ejects debris. The momentum from these interactions is used as a free impulse to the craft while transferring between targets. Thus far, 4S has proven to be a promising solution. • On February 28, 2014, Japans JAXA program launched their test satellite or "space net". The particular satellite is to test whether it can operate and open normally and will not be collecting any debris yet. • A space elevator is a proposed type of space transportation system.[1] Its main component is a ribbon-like cable (also called a tether) anchored to the surface and extending into space. It is designed to permit vehicle transport along the cable from a planetary surface, such as the Earth's, directly into space or orbit, without the use of large rockets. By using the space elevator we can minimize the use of large rockets hence effectively reducing the risk of further debris creation. CONCLUSION Space debris poses a potential danger to our existing satellites and also the objects which survive re-entry are hazardous to earth. Though, some of the debris removal manoeuvres are economically unfeasible or technically undeveloped as yet, we should take this problem into consideration and try to solve it as soon as its practical. REFERENCES 1. Space debris: report of the International Astronautical Federation (A/AC.105/570, 25 Feb- ruary 1994) 2. Space debris: working paper submitted by the International Academy of Astronautics (A/ AC.105/C.1/ L.217, 12 January 1998)
- 8. 3. Position Paper Space Debris Mitigation, SP-1301, European Space Agency 4. Technical Report on Space Debris, United Nations Committee on peaceful uses of outer space, 1999.