design and evaluation of an orbital debris remediation system · 2015. 12. 9. · use plume...

Design and Evaluation of an Orbital Debris Remediation System

1

Collision Risk

Remediation Designs

Debris Remediation

Systems

Strategy Recommendations

1. Object Categorization

2. Network Analysis

3. Utility Analysis

Design Evaluation

Agenda

• Context Analysis – Current Environment

– Space Debris Risk

– Remediation Efforts

• Stakeholder Analysis

• Problem Statement

• Concept of Operations

• Method of Analysis

• Project Plan

2

Background

3

• A satellite is an artificial object placed in orbit around the earth

• Types of orbit:

– LEO: 0-2000 km, 7.6 km/s

– MEO: 2000-35,780 km, 3.8 km/s

– GEO: 35,780 km, 3 km/s Source: ESA, 2003

Uses and Revenue

4

Source: SIA SSIR, 2015

Operational Satellites by Function and Global Satellite Industry Revenues

Development and Launch Costs

• Development costs: from $7,500 (Cubesat) to $2.2 billion (Envisat)

• Launch costs: – Satellite masses range from 1 kg to 18,000 kg (UCS) – ~$4,500/kg (NASA Marshall Center)

5

Space Debris Risk

• 1.285 kg satellite impacted by a 39.2 g projectile at 1.72 km/s

• 1500 fragments produced

6

Source: NASA, JSC, 2007

𝐸𝑖𝑚𝑝 = 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦

𝐸𝑖𝑚𝑝 =𝑀𝑝 ∗ 𝑉𝑖𝑚𝑝

2

2=39.2 𝑔 ∗ (1.72 𝑘𝑚/𝑠)2

2= 57.98 𝐽𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑠

Space Debris Risk

• Kessler Syndrome: a domino effect that could render space systems unusable due to dangerous flight conditions

7

Space Debris Risk

• State-sponsored active anti-satellite measures

– Chinese ASAT missile, 2007

• Random collisions, explosions, and malfunctions

– Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251, 2009

8 Source: T.S. Kelso, 2013

Debris Cloud 3 Hours Post Collision Debris Cloud 27 Months Post Collision

History of Remediation Effort

• First identified as a problem in the 1960’s • United Nations Office of Outer Space

Affairs (UNOOSA) published 7 guidelines in 2007 to enforce total lifecycle planning

• Remediation still needs to take place

1960’s-80’s 1980’s-2000’s 2010’s-today

9

Future

Dynamic System Model

• 𝑂 = 𝑎𝐶𝑂2 + 𝑏𝐿𝐴 + 𝑐𝐿𝐵 −𝑑𝑃𝑀𝐷 − 𝑒𝑁𝐷 − 𝑓𝐷𝑅𝑆

• 𝐶 = 𝑔𝐶𝑂2 − ℎ𝐺𝐴 − 𝑖𝐺𝐵

• 𝐿𝐴 = 𝑗𝐿𝐴𝐺𝐴 − 𝑘𝑂

• 𝐺𝐴 = 𝑙𝐿𝐴𝐺𝐴 −𝑚𝐶

• 𝐿𝐵 = 𝑛𝐿𝐵𝐺𝐵 − 𝑜𝑂

• 𝐺𝐵 = 𝑝𝐿𝐵𝐺𝐵 − 𝑞𝐶

10

Active Debris Removal

11

• ADR Concept of Operations:

1. Identify the target object

2. Maneuver and rendezvous with target

3. Grapple with target and de-tumble if necessary

4. Remove the object(s) from orbit

• There are many different implementations of the same idea

Active Debris Removal

12

ADR Alternatives Concept TRL Cost

Robotic arm (with de-orbit kit)

Physically grab the debris object using a robotic arm and perform a maneuver to change the object’s orbit.

6 - 7 High

Throw Net

Throw a net towards a debris object and pulls the object along a tether. The net entangles the objects due to masses or a closing mechanism.

6 - 7 Low

COBRA IRIDES

Use plume impingement from a hydrazine monopropellant propulsion system to impart momentum on a target debris either to change its orbit or its attitude.

5 - 6 Medium

Three Coordinated Electromagnetic Spacecraft

With the application of inter-spacecraft electromagnetic force, disabled satellite with functional magnetorquer can be removed in a non-contacting manner without propellant expenditure and complicated docking or capture mechanisms.

2 - 4 High

Harpoon

Shoot a tethered harpoon into the object. After the harpoon penetrates the object, the bars at the point are opened to keep itself sticking in the object. Then perform a maneuver to change the object’s orbit.

6 - 7 Medium

Eddy Currents

It is based on the computation of the Magnetic Tensor which depends on how the conductive mass is distributed throughout the debris object, using the open cylindrical shell and flat plates. No mechanical contact with the target is required since an active de-tumbling phrase is based on eddy currents. The study targets an Ariane H10 upper stage (R/B).

3 - 4 High

Agenda

• Context Analysis

• Stakeholder Analysis – Objectives

– Relationships

– Tensions




• Project Plan

13

Research, collect data and present

proposals

Approve space policy and

provide fundings

Approve space policy

politically

Design and build

spacecraft

Evaluate spacecraft

Phase I : Pre-launch Phase II : Launch Phase III : In-orbit life

Determine launch type

Provide launch

services

Monitor progress

Surveil space, and detect movement

Determine launch site

Cover launching risk

Dispose at end-of-life

National government Commercial industry Civil organizations

Increases in debris

population

Triggers

Increases in satellite demand

Decreases in space safety

Insure spacecraft

ADR Implementation

14

United States

Russian

China Europe

National Governments Civil Organizations

NASA ESA

RFSA CNSA

IADC

Approve space policy, and provide funding

Commercial industry System

Manufacturers Transport

Companies

Insurance Companies

XL CATLIN

STARR

SpaceX

ULA

Orbital Sciences

Lockheed Martin

Boeing

Airbus

Build, design and support rockets, spacecrafts and satellites. Also, provides spacecraft launch services.

Build, design and support rockets, spacecrafts and satellites. Also, provides spacecraft launch services.

Contracts Contracts

Research, collect data and provide overall guidance

Financial issue

Tensions Objectives

Political issue

Stakeholder Relationships

15

Agenda



• Problem Statement – Gap Analysis

– Problem Statement

– Need Statement



• Project Plan

16

Gap Analysis

We don’t know how successful individual ADR design alternatives may be or how best

to compare them to each other.

17

Problem Statement

There is currently no consensus on the best strategy for orbital debris remediation.

18

Need Statement

There is a need for a rigorous, comprehensive analysis of design

alternatives.

19

Agenda




• Concept of Operations – Mission Requirements

– Functional Requirements

– Simulation Requirements


• Project Plan

20

Mission Requirements

• MR.1 The DRS shall de-orbit at least 5 high-risk debris objects per year.

• MR.2 The DRS shall select high-risk objects as a function of mass and collision probability.

• MR.3 The DRS shall focus remediation efforts in LEO (below 2000 km).

21

Mission Requirements

• MR.4 The DRS shall not be intentionally destroyed while in orbit.

• MR.5 The DRS shall release no more objects or vehicles than it recovers.

• MR.6 The DRS shall allow end-of-life passivation within 2 months.

22

Functional Requirements

• FR.1 The DRS shall be able to identify debris objects larger than 10 cm in diameter.

• FR.2 The DRS shall be able to maneuver throughout LEO (up to 2000 km).

• FR.3 The DRS shall be able to engage with debris up to 8900 kg (dry mass of SL-16).

• FR.4 The DRS shall be able to remove debris objects from orbit.

23

Simulation Requirements

• SR.1 The simulation shall output optimal network paths for given parameters.

• SR.2 The simulation shall modify the optimal network for different designs.

• SR.3 The simulation shall account for multiple possible launch sites.

• SR.4 The simulation shall account for combinations of ADR designs.

• SR.5 The simulation shall target objects with the highest scores.

24

Agenda

• Context Analysis • Stakeholder Analysis • Problem Statement • Concept of Operations • Method of Analysis

– Object Categorization – Network Analysis – Utility Analysis – Design of Experiment

• Project Plan

25

Project Objective

Determine recommendations for best strategies for the remediation of orbital

debris in terms of cost, risk, effectiveness, and schedule.

26

Method of Analysis

27

Method of Analysis

1. Object categorization: effectiveness distributions of ADR designs for types of debris

2. Network analysis: shortest-path network analysis for access and maneuvering to debris

3. Utility analysis: quality (political viability, path length, etc.) vs total life-cycle costs

28


29


• Object Types: – Operational satellites

– Defunct satellites

– Rocket bodies

– Fragments

• Metrics: – Mass

– Velocity

– Rotation

30

• Linear Decreasing:

– V(𝑋) = 1 −𝑀𝑎𝑥−𝑋

𝑀𝑎𝑥−𝑀𝑖𝑛

• Exponential Decreasing:

– V(𝑋) = 𝑒−𝜆𝑋


31


32

Operational Satellites

Mass Velocity Rotation

ADR Design Min Max Mean (1/𝜆) Mean (1/𝜆)

Net 0.1 1500 2 1

Harpoon 4 2000 3 2

PacMan 0.5 500 1.5 1.5

Robotic Arm 1 2250 0.7 2.2

3 Coordinated EM 0.1 4000 4 3

COBRA IRIDES 1 5000 3 3.4

Object ID

Mass Velocity Rotation Net

Score Harpoon

Score

11111 153 8 4 0.139 1.199

11112 35 4 0 1.159 1.560

11113 5 6 2 0.188 1.425

11114 195 3 1 0.721 1.413

11115 16 7 3 0.091 1.325

11116 77 3 3 0.324 1.218

11117 2 1 3 0.658 1.086

11118 164 7 4 0.158 1.189

11119 48 2 5 0.407 1.004

11120 184 1 4 0.747 0.950

11121 97 8 5 0.090 1.147

11122 118 3 3 0.352 1.206

11123 32 3 5 0.251 1.070

11124 167 5 5 0.200 1.094

2. Network Analysis

33

2. Network Analysis

• Objective Function:

– 𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = ( 𝑂𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑗

𝑚𝑗 −𝐿𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖 −∆𝑉𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖)

𝑛𝑖

• Variables:

– 𝑥𝑖𝑗 𝑡 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑖 𝑡𝑜 𝑗 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡

• Constraints:

– 𝑂𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑖 ≥ 5 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠

– 𝑂𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑖 ≤ 𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛

– 𝑂𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑖 ≥ 0.7 ∗ 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑂𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒

34

2. Network Analysis

35

2. Network Analysis

• 𝑋 𝑡 =

0 𝑥12(𝑡)𝑥21(𝑡) 0

⋯ 𝑥1𝑛(𝑡)

⋮ ⋱ ⋮𝑥𝑚1(𝑡) ⋯ 0

• 𝑥𝑖𝑗 𝑡 = ∆𝑉 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑗

• These matrices vary over time depending on where the objects are in space

36

3. Utility Analysis

37

3. Utility Analysis

38

3. Utility Analysis

39

Object Score

Path Length Risk TRL

Political Viability U(t) LCC

Weights 0.106 0.144 0.306 0.2 0.244

Alt1 10.5 8 3.6 7 4.5 5.8646

Alt2 8.4 9 5.6 6 6.5 6.686

Alt3 7.2 6 5.2 5 4.5 5.3164

Design of Experiment

40

Network Constraints Utility Function Weights

Experiment Min Object

Score Min

Reached Object Score

Path Length

Safety Reliability TRL Agreeability Verifiability

E1 0.7 of max 5 0.106 0.144 0.156 0.15 0.2 0.119 0.125

E2 0.75 of

max 5 0.106 0.144 0.156 0.15 0.2 0.119 0.125

E3 0.6 of max 5 0.106 0.144 0.156 0.15 0.2 0.119 0.125

E4 0.65 of

max 5 0.106 0.144 0.156 0.15 0.2 0.119 0.125

…

Agenda

• Context Analysis • Stakeholder Analysis • Problem Statement • Concept of Operations • Method of Analysis • Project Plan

– WBS – Budget – Earned Value Management – Critical Path – Project Risks

41

WBS

42

Budget

• We estimate 1275 hours of work on this project from beginning to end.

• At $30 per hour, this gives us a working budget of $38,250.

• Using an overhead and profit multiplier of 2.0, we come to an overall project budget for $76,500.

43

CPI/SPI

44

EV

45

Critical Path

46

Project Risks

47

Risk Description Mitigation Strategy

Quantitative requirements

elicitation

Stakeholders are not

forthcoming with

requirements

Develop requirements

independently and later ask

for verification

Political feasibility metrics and

calculations

Determining a solid,

quantifiable metric for

political feasibility is not

simple

Make contact with political

insurance underwriters to

gain further knowledge

Acquiring datasets Datasets can be unreliable,

using differing definitions, or

sometimes wholly

contradictory

Prepare for a large amount of

data cleaning before use

Modeling (coding) Modeling complex orbital

networks may prove

technically difficult

Further research into

feasibility, previous similar

work, and discussion with

experienced SEOR faculty

Verification of accuracy The time scale for our project

is too long for any immediate

verification of results

Be honest with this weakness

in our presentation of data,

and include generous error

bounds where appropriate

Future Work

• Data collection on ADR designs for effectiveness distributions

• Collect latest information on orbital population – Object Categorization metrics

– Object trajectories

• Data collection on X(t) matrices (time-sensitive arc lengths)

• Explore expansion of parameters for DoE

• Implement model designs in code

48

BACKUP SLIDES

49

Debris Risk

• Risk = Probability x Severity – Space Debris Risk = Collision Probability x Mass

– Mass has an effect on damage caused and creation of debris

• Large number of small objects vs small number of large objects

50

Source: D. Bensoussan, WSRF, 2012

Current and Proposed Systems

51

National Governments Commercial Industry Civil Organization

USA Transport companies NASA

Russia System manufacturers RFSA

Europe Insurance companies ESA

China CNSA

IADC

Stakeholders

52

Stakeholders objectives

Process Objective Stakeholder

Pre-launch

1 Research, collect data, and overall guidance

Civil organizations

2 Approve space policy, and provide fundings

National governments

3 Agreement, verification National governments

4 Design and build spacecraft Commercial industry

53

Stakeholders objectives

Process Objective Stakeholder

Pre-launch

5 Assessment of spacecraft design, and covering launch

risk

Commercial industry

Launch

6 Determine launch type Civil organizations

7 provide launch services Commercial industry

In-orbit life

8 Monitor progress Civil organizations

9 Space surveillance, and detection of movement of

objects in space

Commercial industry

54

Stakeholders Tensions

55

Type Stakeholders Tension

Political Russia, U.S, EU

Russia has most debris, and doesn’t want anybody

to remove it

Political Russia, China Some methods have dual use, some countries would suspect

Political/Technical international concern Inaccuracy of falling objects in

some methods

Commercial Insurance, commercial industry costs of risk management and

commercial companies

Commercial Insurance Competitiveness

Stakeholders Tensions

56

Type Stakeholders Tension

Financial Space agencies and

governments Fundings

Civil organizations IADC Regulations about re-entry

controlled plan

Nature and probability of collisions

All Space agencies concerned, while others want to make

profit in present time

Stakeholder Tensions

57

Type Stakeholders Problem

Political Russia, U.S, EU Russia’s debris

Political Russia, China Some methods have dual

use, some countries would suspect

Political/Technical International concern Inaccuracy of falling

objects in some methods

Commercial Insurance, commercial

industry

Costs of risk management by insurance companies,

while commercial companies manage to

reduce costs

Gap Analysis

Without remediation, the number of objects and collisions will continue to

climb, even without additional launches.

58

Source: AAS, 2010 Source: J. C. Liou, 2011

Gap Analysis

• 90% Post Mission Disposal (PMD) does not halt growth of population

• 90% PMD along with 2 high-risk objects removed per year slows but does not halt growth

• 90% PMD coupled with 5 high-risk objects removed per year leads to a stable environment

59

Source: J. C. Liou, 2011

60

ADR Techniques Factors

Robotic Arm Robotic Arm with De-orbit Kit

Throw Net COBRA IRIDES Three Coordinated Electromagnetic

Spacecraft

Size/Maneuverability Deployed length: 3.7m 80 kg

314 kg Total area of 3,600 m

2 connected to a

tether with a length of 70 m

Number of Debris Payload

Single Single Single Single Single

Mass of Debris Payload Up to 6,000 kg Up to 7,000 kg Up to 10,000 kg

Risk • cannot offer a safe removal of debris target via controlled entry

• the limited time available between final burn and entry for activities like debris release, arm retrieval and closing of aft hatch

• complex and heavy ADR payload design

• failure of shooting a net

Power Generation An estimated peak power demand of

360W

Star-20 engine from Alliant Techsystem Inc. (ATK) and total impulse

of 722 kNs

61

Object locations

X(t) matrices

Constraints

Network Analysis

Object Scores

Effectiveness Distributions

Utility Analysis

design and evaluation of an orbital debris remediation system · 2015. 12. 9. · use plume...

Documents