Earth, Moon, and Planets

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 29–51 | Cite as

Determination of the area and mass distribution of orbital debris fragments

  • Gautam D. Badhwar
  • Phillip D. Anz-Meador
Article
Received:

Abstract

An important factor in modeling the orbital debris environment is the loss rate of debris due to atmospheric drag and luni/solar perturbations. An accurate knowledge of the area-to-mass ratio of debris fragments is required for the calculation of the effect of atmospheric drag. In general, this factor is unknown and assumed values are used. However, this ratio can be calculated for fragments for which changes in the orbital elements due to atmospheric drag as a function of time are known. This is the inverse of the technique used to determine the atmospheric density from the decay of satellites with accurately known area-to-mass ratios. These kinds of propagation programs are routinely used in predicting the decay of an orbiting vehicle. In this work the area-to-mass ratio of about 2600 fragments arising from the breakup of 24 artificial satellites have been determined. An analysis of the data on about 200 objects (rocket bodies, scientific satellites, etc.) with known mass, size, and shape has also been made. The value of the radar cross-section (RCS), as measured by the Eglin radar operating at 70 cm wavelength, has been correlated to the effective area of these objects. The measurements of the area-to-mass ratio of these objects then provide a calibration of the actual to the calculated mass. It has been shown that the debris mean mass, m, is related to the mean effective area, A, by a power law relation, m = k A1.86. However, for a given effective area the mass distribution is very broad. Moreover, the cumulative mass distribution, N(>m), can be expressed as N(>m) = D(m + b), where D, b, and c are constants. The asymptotic slope, c, of low intensity explosions is on the average lower than the slope for high intensity explosions, but there is considerable spread of this slope in each class. Part of the flattening, as indicated by the finite value of the parameter, b, can be understood as arising out of the spread in the RCS values due to the tumbling motion of the fragments and effects related to the detectability of the fragment by the Eglin radar. It has been established that the mass in a given breakup calculated using this technique is in good agreement with the expected mass value. These results can be used in modeling the breakups of other artificial earth satellites and safety analysis.

Keywords

Radar Mass Distribution Effective Area Orbital Element Artificial Satellite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, A.: 1965, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, pp. 297–330.Google Scholar
  2. Badhwar, G. D., Potter, A. E., Reynolds, R. C., and Anz-Meador, P. D.: 1988, Characteristics of Satellite Breakups from Radar Cross-section and Plane Change Angle, J. Spacecraft and Rockets 25(6), 420–426.Google Scholar
  3. Cook, G. E.: 1965, Satellite Drag Coefficients, Planet Space Sci. 13, 929–946.Google Scholar
  4. Cour-Palais, B. G. and Crews, J. E.: 1987, ‘Hypervelocity Impact and Upper Stage Breakups’, Upper Stage Breakup Conference, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
  5. Culp, R. D. and Dickey, M. R.: 1987, The Correlation Between Radar Cross Section and Ballistic Coefficient for Orbiting Objects, AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Kalispell, Montana, published by AAS Publications Office, P.O. Box 28130, San Diego, CA 92128.Google Scholar
  6. Dale Bess, T.: 1975, Mass Distribution of Orbiting Man-Made Space Debris, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23665, Report L-10477.Google Scholar
  7. Gaposchkin, E. M. and Sridharan, R.: 1988, FPS-85: A Radar That Refuses to Die, 1988 Space Surveillance Workshop, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Gray, A. A., Jr.: Delta Project Office, NASA/Goddard Space light Center, Greenbelt, MD. Personal correspondence.Google Scholar
  9. Henize, K.: 1988, private communication.Google Scholar
  10. Jacchia, L. G.: 1971, Revised Static Models of the Thermosphere and Exosphere with Empirical Temperature Profiles, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Special Report No. 332.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, N. L.: 1987, A Preliminary Analysis of the Fragmentation of the SPOT-1 Ariane Third Stage, Teledyne-Brown Engineering TR CS87-LKD-003.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, N. L. and Nauer, D. J.: 1984, ‘History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentations’ 3/e. Teledyne-Brown Engineering TR CS88-LKD-001.Google Scholar
  13. Kerr, D. E.: 1951, Propagation of Short Radio Waves; McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 457–608.Google Scholar
  14. Kessler, D. J. and Cour-Palais, B. G.: 1978, Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt, J. Geophys. Res. 83, 2637–46.Google Scholar
  15. King-Hele, D. G., Walker, D. M. C., Pilkington, J. A., Winterbottom, A. N., Hiller, H., and Perry, G. E.: 1987, The R.A.E. Table of Earth Satellites 1957–1986, Stockton Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Mueller, A. C.: 1981, The Decay of the Low Earth Satellite, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company Report — 17520.Google Scholar
  17. Potter, A. E., Henize, K., and Talent, D.: 1987, ‘Albedo Estimates for Debris From Various Satellite Breakups’, Paper presented at the Upper Stage Breakup Conference, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
  18. Powell, J. W.: 1981, The Space Test Program, JBIS 34, 175–180.Google Scholar
  19. Powell, J. W.: 1987, The Space Test Programme-An Update, JBIS 40, 513–18.Google Scholar
  20. Robinson, C. A. jrJr.: 1983, USAF Will Begin Antisatellite Testing, Aviation Week and Space Technology, pp. pp20–22.Google Scholar
  21. Taft, L. G., Beatty, D. E., Yakutis, A. J., and Randall, P. M. S.: 1985, Low Altitude One Centimeter Space Debris Search at Lincoln Laboratory's (MIT) Experimental Test System, Adv. Space Res. 5(2), 35.Google Scholar
  22. Turnill, R. (ed.), 1984, Jane's Spaceflight Directory, Jane's Publishing Company, Limited, London.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, A.: 1979, Delta Digest, Spaceflight 21(10), 413–19.Google Scholar
  24. Zook, H. A., Flaherty, R. E., and Kessler, D. J.: 1970, Meteoroid Impacts on the Gemini Windows, Planet. Space Sci. 18, 953–964.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gautam D. Badhwar
    • 1
  • Phillip D. Anz-Meador
    • 2
  1. 1.NASA Johnson Space CenterHoustonU.S.A.
  2. 2.Lockheed-ESCHoustonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations