determining risk from fragmentation events
DESCRIPTION
UNCLASSIFIED. Determining Risk from Fragmentation Events. Roger C. Thompson The Aerospace corporation. Systems Engineering Division The Aerospace Corporation 5 April 2011. UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED. Outline. Background – s pace d ebris and risk m odeling Debris environment - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
© The Aerospace Corporation 2011
Determining Risk from Fragmentation Events
Roger C. ThompsonThe Aerospace corporation
Systems Engineering DivisionThe Aerospace Corporation5 April 2011
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
Outline
•Background – space debris and risk modeling•Debris environment•The Aerospace Corporation’s experience in space debris and risk
modeling– Launch collision avoidance– Debris Analysis Response Team (DART)
•The Aerospace Corporation’s research and development– Methodologies– Software
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
3
Space Debris and Collision Risk Modeling
•Space debris has been growing operational concern for years– ISS Conjunctions, Mar 09– Iridium 33 / Cosmos 2251 collision, Feb 09– USA 193, Feb 08– Chinese ASAT test, Jan 07– On-orbit collisions (e.g. US rocket body / Chinese launch debris, Jan 05)– Multiple recent breakup events (e.g. SL-12, Mar 09, Briz-M, Feb 07)– Launch vehicle debris shedding (e.g. Delta IV / DMSP-17, Nov 06)
Aerospace models risk FROM– Cataloged objects– Background environment– Debris-producing events
Aerospace models risk TO– New launches (LCOLA)– Resident, active spacecraft (DART)– Specific close approach scenarios
as requested
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation4
Space Debris Analysis
Debris Producing Event:• Collisions• ASATs• On-orbit breakups• Launch shedding
Characterize Debris Event:• Identify objects• Generate modeled debris• Determine breakup time
and location• Background models
Resident Space Object Catalog
Tracking Data:Aerospace Fusion CenterAFRL, NROC, JSPOC,ESA, NASA, AFSPC, SSN
Other space environment Other intelligence
Determine Risk, Create Products:• LCOLA• DART products• COLA• Anomaly resolution• Ops support
Figure is UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation5
Debris Environment
• Space debris comes from multiple sources
– Background debris (naturally occurring or manmade – too small to track)
– Cataloged debris (launch and deployment related – trackable)
– Debris producing events (explosions, collisions)
• Debris producing events generate a moderate number of large debris particles which will get cataloged and a huge number of smaller debris particles which will never be tracked or cataloged
– Smaller particles will eventually dissipate and become part of a slightly enhanced background
– Prior to dissipation, they pose an unseen, elevated risk to resident spacecraft
Size Class Quantity Impact
10 cm or larger
Hundreds • Tracked and cataloged by space surveillance network
•Catastrophic damage to spacecraft
1 cm to10 cm
Tens of thousands
•Most can’t be tracked•Catastrophic damage
to spacecraft
3 mm to1 cm
Millions •Can’t be tracked• Localized damage
only
Smaller than 3 mm
Millions •Can’t be tracked•Minimal if any damage
to spacecraft
Table is UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation6
Background Models
• All active spacecraft implicitly accept risk from “background” of small, untrackable objects: micrometeoroids, man-made debris
• Two major background models
– NASA ORDEM 2000– ESA MASTER 05
• Neither model includes recent major breakup events
– ORDEM update being evaluated
• Aerospace applies both models to provide risk points of reference
Average risk/day in LEO = 3x10-6
Figure is UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation7
LCOLA Support Overview
•Aerospace provides Launch Collision Avoidance (LCOLA) analyses for NRO, SMC, and NASA (Goddard Spaceflight Center) launches– Support specifically required by Mission Directors for all NRO &
SMC missions– NASA support coordinated through OSL– Support to both rehearsals and launch
•Software development began in 1996– Probability of collision would open more launch opportunities– Protection would be consistent with distance-based blackouts
•Launch-on-Minute (LOM) or Launch-on-Second (LOS)
•Range Safety, Space Safety, and Mission Assurance COLAintegrated into a single simple report
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation8
DART – Debris Event Quick Response CONOPS
Trajectory reconstruction
(Aerospace Fusion Center)
Government customers
Aerospace Process
Generate reportsAerospace customer interface
Asset list
Asset list
Iterate as new data becomes available
Model database
NASA
Target determination
Debris generation
Collision risk assessment
Mission Ground
Sites
Figure is UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
External information
taskingevents
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation9
Debris Generation
•Typical ASAT event will produce over 4 million particles (discrete element sets)– Mass distribution
•Cumulative number of fragments of a given mass and larger
– Spread velocity distribution •Fragment velocities relative to center of
mass of debris cloud•Determines extent of and density
variations within debris cloud– Area/mass distribution
•Function of constituent material densities
Mass Distribution
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
1.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
Mass (kg)
Cum
ulat
ive
Num
ber o
f Fr
agm
ents
Spread Velocity Distribution
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Spread Velocity (m/s)
Num
ber o
f Fra
gmen
ts >
1 c
m
Fragment Average Cross-sectional AreaSingle Material
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02
Mass (kg)
Aver
age
Cros
s-Se
ctio
nal A
rea
(m2)
Figures are UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
Collision Risk Assessment
A cSatellite withcross-section Expanding
debris cloud
N enc Fi ( )di0
t
p col 1 e Nenc
Cumulative fluence(average no. impacts,summed over layers)
Collision probability
Path traversed bysatellite throughdebris cloud
Local debrisdensity
enc
Local debris relativeencounter velocity
Probabilistic Continuum Model of Debris Cloud
Figure is UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation11
Sample DART ReportIridium collision – Worst case 100% Fragmentation
Dec
reas
ing
Ris
k
1.E-12
1.E-11
1.E-10
1.E-09
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-031-day cumulative
risk for ≥ 1 cm Average Risk = 4.7e-7 Maximum Risk = 3.1e-6 Avg. Background (ORDEM2000) Avg. Background (Master2005)
Table is UNCLASSIFIED
IRIDIUM 33 collision withCOSMOS 2251
10 Feb 2009 16:55:59.8 UTC
SSC Name Risk25159 ORBCOMM-4 3.0E-0628893 SINAH-1 2.9E-0624793 IRIDIUM-07 2.8E-0624883 ORBVIEW-2 1.8E-0624841 IRIDIUM-16 1.6E-0624840 IRIDIUM-13 1.5E-0625171 IRIDIUM-54 1.2E-0625531 IRIDIUM-83 1.2E-0625077 IRIDIUM-42 1.2E-0625041 IRIDIUM-40 1.1E-06
Top 10 Worst
Graphic is UNCLASSIFIED
Each scatter dot represents a space asset
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Space Risk for 10-11 Feb
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation12
Risk Analyses
•Multiple reports are generated at various stages in timeline
•Many reports aim at providing an understanding of risk for individual or groups of spacecraft
• Reports vary with circumstances of breakup, issue being explored
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
21-F
eb
24-F
eb
27-F
eb
1-M
ar
4-M
ar
7-M
ar
10-M
ar
13-M
ar
16-M
ar
19-M
ar
Average 3-day Cumulative Satellite Risk
Maximum 3-day Cumulative Satellite Risk
Background (ORDEM2000)
Background (ESA Master2005)
Risk values assume a 10 m2
satellite cross-sectional area.
Average risk over 565 satellites examined
Maximum risk for a single satellite out of the 565 satellites examined
Graphic is UNCLASSIFIED
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Mid-Incl LEO Communications Sun-Synchronous Crit-Incl LEO
Ris
k M
ultip
lier
.
> 10 cm1 cm - 10 cm1 mm - 1 cm
0.0E+00
5.0E-11
1.0E-10
1.5E-10
2.0E-10
2.5E-10
3.0E-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Time since breakup (days)
Impa
ct p
roba
bilit
y ra
te (p
er s
ec)
Debris cloudBackground debris
Figures are UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation13
Debris Field Evolution
•Many reports, plots, animations address the evolution of the debris field
• SOAP displays shown real-time at NROC, JSpOC
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Days from Intercept
Part
icle
s in
Orb
it
10cm or larger1cm or larger3mm of larger
Figures are UNCLASSIFIED
Debris not to scale
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation14
Chinese vs. US Impact Events
January 2007 Chinese ASAT Event
Intercept Altitude
Only 10% of the particles have decayed in 60 days, and only 18% in one year. In 5 years, only 31% have decayed, and 69% are still in orbit.
The colors represent the density of debris within an altitude band. Higher density means higher probability of encounter for satellites in that band. The density drops as debris is cleaned out by the atmosphere. Time is measured from the impact.
77% of particles decay in 1 day, 90% in 17 days, and over 99% in 97 days. Less than 0.01% remain in orbit after a year.
February 2008 US Intercept
Intercept Altitude Par
ticle
s pe
r 50
km a
ltitu
de s
hell
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Figure is UNCLASSIFIED Figure is UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation15
Comparison to Tracked Debris
Collision+ 60 days
Debris notto scale
•Tracking, cataloging of debris still underway
– 1949 objects cataloged (as of 14 March 2011)
– COSMOS debris count is almost 3 times the Iridium count
•Models matched reasonably well 2 months after collision
– Less than half of the current object count had been cataloged 60 days after event
•~95% of debris is still in orbit
Iridium
Cosmos
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Figure is UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
Ballistic Missile Intercept Simulations
• Characterize risk prior to actual events– Debris is short-lived, event will be over before DART can respond
• Analyses focus on the risk from intercept-generated debris to – Resident space objects – People and vehicles on the ground from the reentry of the debris into
the atmosphere• Debris risk will be dependent on altitude, latitude, and the geometry of the
intercept(s)• Four orbit classes defined to assess risk to RSOs
– Sun-synchronous, ~98 inclination– Mid-inclination (45)– Critically-inclined (63)– Communications, ~85 inclination
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
Methodology
• For each orbit class– Vary altitudes from 422 - 1122 km (6800 – 7500 km radius)– Eight different altitudes, 100 km increments
• Location of satellite in orbit will be important– Debris is short-lived, but density is relatively high– Satellites will be in the wrong place/wrong time or miss the event
entirely• Create a Walker constellation for each altitude
– 36 planes (every 10 in RAAN)– 36 satellites in each plane (every 10 in Mean Anomaly)
• Total of 10,368 satellites in each orbit class– Provides an estimate of wrong place/wrong time risk in addition to
collision risk from debris encounters
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
Methodology (cont’d)
• Perform Collision Risk Assessment (slide 10)– For each debris particle
•Propagate all 10,368 satellites over the life of the debris objects•Use an exaggerated cross-sectional area to obtain a statistically
significant number of “hits”•Particle flux is a function of the number of “hits” and the volume
swept out by the sphere•Probability is calculated from particle flux
• Fraction of satellites encountering any debris divided by total satellites represents risk (%) of being in the wrong place at the wrong time
• Probability of collision is the calculated risk if the satellite does encounter debris
– Maximum and minimum probabilities reported to characterize the distribution/spread of the debris
– Compare to background risk from untracked objects to determine elevated risk
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
Sample Results – Probability of Collision
• Late Boost Intercept
•Mid-Course Intercept
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
Sample Results – Relative Risk for 12 Cases Sun-Synchronous Orbits
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
12451260128013001320134013601380140014201440146014801500152015401560158016001620164016601680170017201735
Mission Elapsed Time (sec)
Orb
ital L
ifetim
e (d
ays)
SES-2 SECO-2
Other Related Activities• Delta IV debris shedding analyses
– Model development from on-board video– Risk assessment for DSP-23, L-49, L-26
• Upper stage and satellite disposal analyses– Minimize collision risk for disposed GPS,
HEO, and GEO objects for 100+ yrs• Established the Center for Orbital Reentry and
Debris Studies (CORDS) in 1997
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
0 30 60 90 120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
Satellite orbit RAAN (deg)
Impa
ct p
roba
bilit
y
Debris cloud riskBackground risk
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
26000
28000
30000
2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 2125 2150 2175 2200Year
Apo
gee/
Perig
ee A
ltitu
de (k
m)
MEANPROP Apogee
MEANPROP PerigeeTRACE Apogee
TRACE Perigee
GPS current operational range upper bound
GPS current operational range lower bound
GPS current operational range
NAVSTAR 29 disposal orbit evolution
Debris cloud risk vs. satellite RAAN
L26 debris lifetime vs. shedding time
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation22
Aerospace Debris and Risk Models Compared with MDA, NASA
•MDA, NASA, Aerospace conducted joint study in summer 2007 to compare modeling approaches and results– Motivated by FY-1C event– Each breakup model is based on empirical data from ground- and space-
based tests, but not the same tests– Each model has been in use for a number of years for applications
specific to the developing organization• Each model uses a different set of input parameters
•Approach was to compare individual model results with data measured/collected from two real world events– Highlight areas for potential model improvements
•Study yielded good agreement, joint report briefing issued
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation23
Debris Cloud Risk Model ComparisonAerospace and STEPAL Risk Models
• Plot shows impact risk posed to ISS vs. intercept time for a hypothetical intercept scenario, ISS RAAN = 0, initial mean anomaly = 289.014°
• Results are based on KIDD breakup model (fragments with mass >= 3 mm Al sphere)
Impact Risk Posed to ISS vs. Intercept Time (3mm debris data)
1.0E-131.0E-121.0E-111.0E-101.0E-091.0E-081.0E-071.0E-061.0E-051.0E-041.0E-031.0E-021.0E-011.0E+00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Intercept time relative to nominal (hrs)
Impa
ct p
roba
bilit
y
STEPAL Model
Aerospace Model
Vulnerability Area = 30m2 Cross Sectional Area Of ISS
Figure is Unclassified
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation
Model Comparison Conclusions
•For a missile intercept case, MDA predictions were the most consistent of the three models with measurement data
•For a satellite intercept case, the NASA and Aerospace predictions were more consistent with measurement data (RCS)– NASA/Aerospace showed the best agreement in debris RCS for larger
debris– MDA showed the best agreement in debris RCS for smaller debris– Aerospace showed the best agreement with debris tracks
•Risk analysis will be scenario dependent
Overall, the best agreement between model-to-measured data is found when the intercept event matches the events comprising the
empirical data upon which the model is based
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation25
DART Experience
•2 satellite intercepts (FY-1C and USA-193) and 1 satellite collision (Iridium 33)
•4 launch debris cloud risk assessments•14 real world close approaches•29 exercises•Special analyses where processes applied to answer specific
questions•Model comparison with MDA and NASA
– NASA: NASA Standard breakup model/SBRAM risk assessment tool– MDA: KIDD breakup model/REBLE risk assessment tool– Bottom line: satellite risk assessments agree within an order of
magnitude•Current usage has all been below 1000 km
– Includes ballistic missile intercept simulations
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
[email protected] Analysis and Simulation26
Summary of Aerospace Debris Analysis Activities
•High profile of recent debris event have raised significant concerns about space debris– Govt support to Commercial and Foreign Enterprises (CFE) is of
particular concern
•Aerospace has active research programs addressing multiple aspects of space debris and space situational awareness
•DART and LCOLA processes undergoing continuing evolution– Goal is to evolve initial laboratory capabilities into more operational,
sustainable capability– Use prototype capabilities as guide to Govt acquisition, operations
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED