the near earth orbital debris problem and the …...the near‐earth orbital debris problem and the...
TRANSCRIPT
The Near‐Earth Orbital Debris Problem and the Challenges for Environment Remediation
J.‐C. Liou, PhD NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, NASA/JSC, Houston, TX 77058, USA
The near‐Earth space environment has been gradually polluted with orbital debris (OD) since the beginning of space activities 55 years ago. Although this problem has been known to the research community for decades, the public was, in general, unaware of the issue until the anti‐satellite test conducted by China in 2007 and the collision between Cosmos 2251 and the operational Iridium 33 in 2009. The latter also underlined the potential of an ongoing collision cascade effect (the “Kessler Syndrome”) in the low Earth orbit (LEO, the region below 2000 km altitude). Recent modeling results have indicated that mitigation measures commonly adopted by the international space community will be insufficient to stabilize the LEO debris population. To better limit the OD population increase, more aggressive actions must be considered.
There are three options for OD environment remediation – removal of large/massive intact objects to address the root cause of the OD population growth problem, removal of ~5‐mm‐to‐1 cm debris to mitigate the main mission‐ending threats for the majority of operational spacecraft, and prevention of major debris‐generating collisions as a temporary means to slow down the OD population increase. The technology, engineering, and cost challenges to carry out any of these three options are monumental. It will require innovative ideas, game‐changing technologies, and major collaborations at the international level to address the OD problem and preserve the near‐Earth environment for future generations.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120012893 2020-03-07T07:22:59+00:00Z
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Near-Earth Orbital Debris Problem and the Challenges for Environment
Remediation
J.-C. Liou, PhDNASA Orbital Debris Program Office
Johnson Space Center, Houston, [email protected]
The 3rd International Space World ConferenceFrankfurt, Germany, 6-8 November 2012
2/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Outline
• Buildup of the Orbital Debris (OD) Population• Assessments of the Problem• Options for Environment Remediation• Challenges Ahead
3/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Buildup of the Orbital Debris Population
4/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
What Are Orbital Debris?
• Orbital debris are all human-made objects in orbit about the Earth which no longer serve any useful purpose
10 m 100 m 10 cm 1 m 10 m1 mm 1 cmSize (diameter)
R/Bs, S/C
Breakup Fragments
Mission-related Debris
Al2O3 (slag)Al2O3
Meteoroids
NaK
Paint Flakes MLI Pieces
Orb
ital D
ebris
Objects in the Near-Earth Environment
5/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
How Much Junk Is Currently Up There?
• Total mass: ~6300 tons LEO-to-GEO (~2700 tons in LEO)• Due to high impact speed in space (~10 km/s in LEO), even sub-mm debris
pose a realistic threat to human spaceflight and robotic missions
Softball size or larger (≥10 cm): ~22,000(most of them are tracked by the US Space Surveillance Network)
Marble size or larger (≥1 cm): ~500,000
Dot or larger (≥1 mm): >100,000,000(a grain of salt)
6/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Growth of the Cataloged Populations
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000
10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,00017,00018,000
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Num
ber o
f Obj
ects
Year
Monthly Number of Objects in Earth Orbit by Object Type
Total Objects
Fragmentation Debris
Spacecraft
Mission-related Debris
Rocket Bodies
FY-1C ASAT Test
Iridium-Cosmos
~1100 are operational
7/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
719
56
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Mas
s in
Orb
it (m
illio
ns o
f kg)
Year
Monthly Mass of Objects in Earth Orbit by Object Type
Total Objects
Spacecraft
Rocket Bodies
Fragmentation Debris
Mission-related Debris
Mass in Orbit
No sign of slowing down!
8/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
The Big Sky Is Getting Crowded
• Four accidental collisions between cataloged objects have been identified– The collision between Cosmos 2251 and the operational Iridium 33 in
2009 underlined the potential of the Kessler Syndrome
• The US Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) is currently providing conjunction assessments for alloperational S/C– JSpOC issues ~10 to 30 conjunction warnings on a daily basis, and
more than 100 collision avoidance maneuvers were carried out by satellite operators in 2010
• The International Space Station (ISS) has conducted 15 debris avoidance maneuvers since 1999– 4 times since April 2011
9/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Threat from Orbital Debris – One Example
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Window Replacement
EVA Suit Penetration
Radiator Penetration
Debris Diameter in Centimeters
RCC Penetration
TPS Tile Penetration
Cabin Penetration
Cargo Bay Damage
• Shuttle Loss of Crew and Vehicle (LOCV) risks from MMOD impact damage were in the range of 1 in 250 to 1 in 300 per mission The risks vary with altitude, mission duration, and attitude
OD to MM is about 2:1 at ISS altitude
Potential Shuttle Damage
10/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Projected Growth of the Debris Population
11/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Future Projection – The Worst Case Scenario(Regular Satellite Launches, but No Mitigation Measures)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts (>
10 c
m)
Year
Non-Mitigation Projection (averages and 1-σ from 100 MC runs)
LEO (200-2000 km alt)
MEO (2000-35,586 km alt)
GEO (35,586-35,986 km alt)
(Liou, 2010)
12/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Assessments of the Non-Mitigation Projection
• LEO: the non-mitigation scenario predicts the debris population (≥10 cm objects) will have a rapid non-linear increase in the next 200 years– This is a well-known trend (the “Kessler Syndrome”) that was
the motivation for developing the currently-adopted mitigation measures (e.g., passivation, the 25-yr rule) in the last 15 years
• MEO and GEO: the non-mitigation scenario predicts a moderate population growth– Only a few accidental collisions between ≥10 cm objects
are predicted in the next 200 years– The currently-adopted mitigation measures (including EOL
maneuvers in GEO) will further limit the population growth– Environment remediation is not urgent in MEO and GEO
13/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Will the Commonly-Adopted Mitigation* Measures Stabilize the Future LEO
Environment?
*Mitigation = Limit the generation of new/long-lived debris (NPR 8715.6A, NASA-STD-8719.14, USG OD Mitigation Standard Practices, UN Debris Mitigation Guidelines, etc.)
14/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
• Collision fragments replace other decaying debris through the next 50 years, keeping the total population approximately constant
• Beyond 2055, the rate of decaying debris decreases, leading to a net increase in the overall satellite population due to collisions
Future Projection – The Best Case Scenario(No New Launches Beyond 1/1/2006)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Year
Effe
ctiv
e N
umbe
r of O
bjec
ts (>
10cm
, LEO
)
Total
Intacts + mission related debris
Explosion fragments
Collision fragments
(Liou and Johnson, Science, 2006)
15/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Assessments of the Best Case (No New Launches) Scenario
• In reality, the situation will be worse than the “no new launches” scenario as– Satellite launches will continue– Major unexpected breakups may continue to occur
• Postmission disposal (such as a 25-year decay rule) will help, but will be insufficient to prevent the self-generating phenomenon from happening
• To preserve the near-Earth space for future generations, more aggressive measures, such as active debris removal (ADR*), must be considered
*ADR = Removing debris beyond guidelines of current mitigation measures
16/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Conclusions of the 2006 NASA Study
• “The current debris population in the LEO region has reached the point where the environment is unstable and collisions will become the most dominant debris-generating mechanism in the future.”
• “Only remediation of the near-Earth environment –the removal of existing large objects from orbit –can prevent future problems for research in and commercialization of space.”
- Liou and Johnson, Science, January 2006
17/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Options for Environment Remediation*
*Remediation = Removal of pollution or contaminants (i.e., old and new debris) to protect the environment
18/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Key Questions for Environment Remediation
• Where is the most critical region?
• What are the mission objectives?
• What objects should be targeted first?– The debris environment is very dynamic. Breakups of large
intacts generate small debris, small debris decay over time,…
• What are the benefits to the environment?
• How to do it?
The answers will drive the top-level requirements,the necessary technology development, and the implementation of the operations
19/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Target Selection
• The problem: LEO debris population will continue to increase even with a good implementation of the commonly-adopted mitigation measures– The root-cause of the increase is catastrophic collisions
involving large/massive intact objects (R/Bs and S/C)– The major mission-ending risks for most operational S/C,
however, come from impacts with debris just above the threshold of the protection shields (~5-mm to 1-cm)
• A solution-driven approach is to seek– Concepts for removal of massive intacts with high Pcollision
– Concepts capable of preventing collisions involving intacts– Concepts for removal of 5-mm to 1-cm debris
20/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Targets for Environment Remediation
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
0.1 1 10 100
Cumulative Num
ber
Size (cm)
Notional Size Distribution of LEO‐Crossing Objects
Main driver for population growth
1 cm
5 cm
10 cm
50 cm1 m
5 mm
Main threat to operational S/C
Degradation threat to operational S/C
~80% of all >5 mm debris are in the 5-mm to 1-cm regime
21/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Options for LEO Environment Remediation
• Removal of massive intact objects with high collision probabilities to address the root cause of the future debris population growth problem
• Removal of 5-mm to 1-cm debris to mitigate the main threat for operational spacecraft
• Prevention of major debris-generating collisions involving massive intact objects as a potential short-term solution
22/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Challenges for Environment Remediation
23/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Challenges for Small Debris Removal
• Targets are small– Approximately 5-mm to 1-cm
• Targets are numerous (>500,000)– For any meaningful risk reduction, removal of a significant
number of targets is needed
• Targets are not tracked by SSN
• Targets are highly dynamic– Long-term operations are needed
• Concepts proposed by various groups: large-area collectors, laser removal, tungsten dust, etc.
24/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Challenges for Collision Prevention
• To allow for actionable collision prevention operations– JSpOC must expand its conjunction assessments to include
R/Bs and retired S/C– Dramatic improvements to debris tracking and conjunction
assessment accuracy are needed
• To be effective, collision prevention operations must be applied to all conjunction warnings
• Targets are limited in number, but many are massive R/Bs or S/C (up to 9 metric tons dry mass)
• Concepts proposed by various groups: ballistic intercept, frozen mist, laser-nudging, etc.
25/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Targeting the Root Cause of the Problem
• A 2008-2009 NASA study shows that the two key elements to stabilize the future LEO environment(in the next 200 years) are– A good implementation of the commonly-adopted mitigation
measures (passivation, 25-year rule, avoid intentional destruction, etc.)
– An active debris removal of about five objects per year• These are objects with the highest [ M × Pcoll ]• Many (but not all) of the potential targets in the current
environment are spent Russian SL upper stages Masses: 1.4 to 8.9 tons Dimensions: 2 to 4 m in diameter, 6 to 12 m in length Altitudes: ~600 to ~1000 km regions Inclinations: ~7 well-defined bands
26/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Controlling Debris Growth with ADR
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210
Effective Num
ber of O
bjects (>10
cm)
Year
LEO Environment Projection (averages of 100 LEGEND MC runs)
Reg Launches + 90% PMD
Reg Launches + 90% PMD + ADR2020/02
Reg Launches + 90% PMD + ADR2020/05
(Liou, Adv. Space Res, 2011)
A good implementation of the commonly-adopted mitigation measures and an ADR of ~5 objects per year can “stabilize the future environment”
27/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Potential Active Debris Removal Targets
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Altitud
e (km)
Inclination (deg)
Top 500 Current R/Bs and S/Cs
Apogee
Perigee
SL-8 R/B (1400 kg)METEOR (2000 kg)
Cosmos (2000 kg)
SL-3 R/B (1440 kg)METEOR (2200-2800 kg)
Cosmos (2500 kg)
SL-16 R/B (8900 kg)Cosmos (3300 kg)
SL-8 R/B (1400 kg)
SL-8 R/B (1400 kg)
Cosmos (1300 kg)
Various R/Bs and S/Cs(SL-16 R/B, Envisat, etc.,1000-8900 kg)
Envisat
SL-8 2nd stage
(Liou, Adv. Space Res, 2011)
Active Debris Removal – A Grand Engineering Challenge for the Twenty-First Century
28/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Challenges for Large Debris ADR Operations
Operations Technology Challenges
Launch Single-object removal per launch may not be feasible from cost perspective
Propulsion Solid, liquid, tether, plasma, laser, drag-enhancement devices, others?
Precision Tracking Ground or space-based
GN&C and Rendezvous Autonomous, non-cooperative targets
Stabilization (of the tumbling targets) Contact or non-contact (how)
Capture or Attachment Physical (where, how) or non-physical (how),do no harm
Deorbit or Graveyard Orbit When, where, reentry ground risks
• Other requirements:– Affordable cost– Repeatability of the removal system (in space)?– Target R/Bs first?
29/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Forward Path
• There is a need for a top-level, long-term strategic plan for environment remediation– Define “what is the acceptable threat level”– Define the mission objectives– Establish a roadmap/timeframe to move forward
• The community must commit the necessary resources to support the development of innovative, low-cost, and viable removal technologies– Encourage multi-purpose technologies
• Address non-technical issues, such as policy, coordination, ownership, legal, and liability at the national and international levels
30/30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
JCL
Preserving the Environment for Future Generations
Pre-1957 2012 2212
• Innovative concepts and technologies are key to solve the ADR challenges
• International consensus, cooperation, collaboration, and contributions are needed for environment remediation