Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T05:38:47.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The space debris environment: future evolution

Part of: Sustainable Aerospace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

H. G. Lewis ,
G. G. Swinerd  and
R. J. Newland
G. G. Swinerd
Affiliation:
School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
R. J. Newland
Affiliation:
School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Space debris represents a significant risk to satellite operations, due to the possibility of damaging or catastrophic collisions. Consequently, many satellite operators screen the orbiting population for close approaches with their on-orbit assets and a public conjunction assessment service, Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space (SOCRATES), generates close approach predictions on a daily basis for all satellite payloads in the catalogue. These screening capabilities are used to inform operational decisions relating to risk mitigation but it is anticipated that the demands placed on these services will increase as debris becomes more prolific. This hypothesis is explored in a preliminary analysis of conjunction data for the years 2004 to 2009 and a new ‘Business as usual’ study using the Debris Analysis and Monitoring Architecture for the Geosynchronous Environment (DAMAGE) model. The results suggest a 50% increase in the number of close approaches reported by SOCRATES (or its equivalent) within the next ten years. By 2059, daily conjunction reports could contain over 50,000 close approaches below 5km, affecting the demands placed on tracking facilities and satellite resources.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 115 , Issue 1166 , April 2011 , pp. 241 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Liou, J.-C. and Johnson, N.L. Risks in space from orbiting debris, Science, 2006, 311, pp 340–341.Google Scholar
2. Wright, D. Colliding satellites: consequences and implications Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009 http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/space_weapons/technical_issues/colliding-satellites.html, accessed 28 September 2009.Google Scholar
3. Payne, T.P. First ‘confirmed’ natural collision between two catalogued satellites. Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, 17-19 March 1997.Google Scholar
4. Payne, T.P., Morris, R.F., Taft DeVere, G., Thurston, R.G., Ward, D.A. and Teets, R.B. The second confirmed unintentional on-orbit collision. Proceedings of the AMOS Technical Conference, Maui, Hawaii, US, September 2005.Google Scholar
5. Kelso, T.S. and Alfano, S. Satellite orbital conjunction reports assessing threatening encounters in space (SOCRATES). Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, 18-20 April 2005.Google Scholar
6. Alfano, S. Relating position uncertainty to maximum conjunction probability, J Astronautical Sciences, 2005, 53, (2), pp 193–205.Google Scholar
7. Liou, J.-C. Update on recent major breakup fragments, Orbital Debris Quarterly News, 2009, 13, (3), pp 5–6.Google Scholar
8. Ailor, W.H. and Peterson, G.E. Collision avoidance as a debris mitigation measure. 55th International Astronautical Congress, Vancouver, Canada, October 2004, IAC-04-IAA.5.12.3.01.Google Scholar
9. Newman, L.K. The NASA robotic conjunction assessment process: overview and operational experiences. 59th International Astronautical Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, October 2008, IAC-08-A.6.2.6.Google Scholar
10. Johnson, N.L., Krisko, P.H., Liou, J.-C. and Anz-Meador, P.D. NASA’s new breakup model of EVOLVE 4.0., Advances in Space Research, 28, (9), 2001, pp 1377–1384.Google Scholar
11. Liou, J.-C., Hall, D.T., Krisko, P.H. and Opiela, J.N. LEGEND – a three-dimensional LEO-to-GEO debris evolutionary model, Advances in Space Research, 34, 2004, pp 981–986.Google Scholar