Risks in space from orbiting debris

Science

Volumn 311, Issue 5759, 2006, Pages 340-341

  Liou, J C ^a   Johnson, N L ^a  

^a NASA JOHNSON SPACE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SPACE TECHNOLOGY;

ACCIDENT; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; EXPLOSION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK; SHORT SURVEY; SPACE; SPACE FLIGHT;

EID: 31144460017     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1121337     Document Type: Short Survey

References (27)

1. Interagency Report on Orbital Debris (Office of Science and Technology Policy, U.S. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC, 1995).
2. "Technical Report on Space Debris: Text of the Report adopted by the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space" (United Nations, New York, 1999).
3. Orbital Debris Q. News 9 (1), 10 (2005), (www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ newsletter/newsletter.html).
4. Orbital Debris Q. News 9 (3), 10 (2005).
5. N. L. Johnson, D. O. Whitlock, P. D. Anz-Meador, E. M. Cizek, S. A. Portman, History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentations (SC-62530, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, ed. 13, 2004).
6. Orbital Debris Q. News 9 (2), 1 (2005).
7. D. J. Kessler, Adv. Space Res. 11 (12), 63 (1991).
8. S.-Y. Su, Adv. Space Res. 13 (8), 221 (1993).
9. A. Rossi, A. Cordelli, P. Farinella, L. Anselmo, J. Geophys. Res. Planets 99 (E11), 23195 (1994).
10. L. Anselmo, A. Cordelli, P. Farinella, C. Pardini, A. Rossi, "Modelling the evolution of the space debris population: Recent research work in Pisa" [European Space Agency (ESA) SP-393, 339-344, European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Darmstadt, Germany, 1997).
11. D. J. Kessler, "Critical Density of Spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit" (NASA JSC-28949, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, 2000).
12. D. J. Kessler, P. D. Anz-Meador, "Critical number of spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit: Using satellite fragmentation data to evaluate the stability of the orbital debris environment" (ESA SP-473, 265-272, ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany, 2001).
13. P. H. Krisko, J. N. Opiela, D. J. Kessler, "The critical density theory in LEO as analyzed by EVOLVE 4.0" (ESA SP-473, 273-278, ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany, 2001).
14. J.-C. Liou, D. T. Hall, P. H. Krisko, J. N. Opiela, Adv. Space Res. 34 (S), 981 (2004).
15. J.-C. Liou, Adv. Space Res., in press (doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005. 06.021).
16. Within a given projection time step, once the explosion probability is estimated for an intact object, a random number is drawn and compared with the probability to determine if an explosion would occur. A similar procedure is applied to collisions for each pair of target and projectile involved within the same time step. Because of the nature of the Monte Carlo process, multiple projection runs must be performed and analyzed before one can draw reliable and meaningful conclusions from the outcome.
17. A statistical analysis of LEGEND predictions, based on the bootstrap method, indicates that the average from SO Monte Carlo runs leads to a standard error of the average on the order of 5% or less, which was sufficient for the recent study.
18. On the other hand, satellite explosions, the principal source of debris larger than 10 cm now in orbit about the Earth (5), were permitted at their current historical rates. All objects were propagated forward in time while decayed objects were removed from the environment immediately. Perturbations included in the orbit propagator are Earth's solar-lunar gravitational perturbations, atmospheric drag, and solar radiation pressure, as well as Earth's shadow effects. The simulation program outputs the orbital elements and other physical properties of the objects at the end of each year for post processing analysis. The solar flux F10.7 values used in the projection period have two components: a short-term projection [2005-2007, obtained from U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Space Environment Center] and a long-term projection (2008-2204). The long-term F10.7 projection is a repeat of a 13-month running smoothed average cycle derived from solar cycles 18 to 23. A simple smooth function is used to interpolate the two solar flux components during the transition. Explosion probabilities of future rocket bodies and spacecraft were based on an analysis of launch history and recent explosions. Vehicle types with a history of explosion, but which have had the breakup causes fixed, were not included. Collision probabilities among objects were estimated with a fast pair-wise comparison algorithm, Cube (15). The size threshold of objects in collision considerations and in populations shown in the figures in this Policy Forum was selected to be 10 cm. Historically, this is the detection limit of the Space Surveillance Network sensors, and more than 95% of the debris population mass is in objects 10 cm and larger.
19. A catastrophic collision occurs when the ratio of impact energy to target mass exceeds 40 J/g. The outcome of a catastrophic collision is the total fragmentation of the target, i.e., resident space object, whereas a noncatastrophic collision only results in minor damage to the target and generates a small amount of debris that has minimal contribution to population growth.
20. N. L. Johnson, P. H. Krisko, J.-C. Liou, P. D. Anz-Meador, Adv. Space Res. 28 (9), 1377 (2001).
21. NASA Orbital Debris Program Office (www.orbitaldebris. jsc.nasa.gov/).
22. Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) members include national space agencies of the United States, the Russian Federation, China, Japan, India, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, as well as the ESA.
23. "ESOC: focal point for ESA space debris activities" (www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESOC/SEMU2CW4QWD_0.html).
24. "Space debris and space envionment" (www.jaxa.jp/missions/ projects/engineering/space/debris/index_e.html).
25. IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (IADC-02-01, Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, 2002); (www.iadc-online.org).
26. The energy requirements to visit satellites at the same altitude and inclination in different orbital planes can be reduced by maneuvering the remediating vehicle to a different altitude, taking advantage of differential precession of the line of nodes due to the Earth's oblateness, and then returning to the altitude of interest. This concept was described by one of the authors (Johnson) as means for more economically removing nuclear power reactors from Earth orbit (27). The amount of propellant savings derived from this technique is dependent upon the time one is willing to wait between remediation operations.
27. N. L. Johnson, Space Policy 2 (3), 223 (1986)].