Space Debris

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 67–82

Collision Risk Mitigation in Geostationary Orbit

  • L. Anselmo
  • C. Pardini
Article

Abstract

The short- and long-term effects of spacecraft explosions, as a function of the end-of-life re-orbit altitude above the geostationary orbit (GEO), were analyzed in terms of their additional contribution to the debris flux in the GEO ring. The simulated debris clouds were propagated for 72 yrs, taking into account all the relevant orbital perturbations.

The results obtained show that 6–7 additional explosions in GEO would be sufficient, in the long term, to double the current collision risk with sizable objects in GEO. Unfortunately, even if spacecraft were to re-orbit between 300 and 500 km above GEO, this would not significantly improve the situation. In fact, an altitude increase of at least 2000 km would have to be adopted to reduce by one order of magnitude the long-term risk of collision among geostationary satellites and explosion fragments. The optimal debris mitigation strategy should be a compromise between the reliability and effectiveness of spacecraft end-of-life passivation, the re-orbit altitude and the acceptable debris background in the GEO ring. However, for as long as the re-orbit altitudes currently used are less than 500 km above GEO, new spacecraft explosions must be avoided in order to preserve the geostationary environment over the long term.

collision risk debris flux geostationary ring orbital perturbations satellite explosions satellite re-orbiting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J.L. Africano and T. Schildknecht. International Geostationary Observation Campaign. Report for AI-12.1, IADC-00-04, Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), 2000.Google Scholar
  2. L. Anselmo and C. Pardini. The Effects of Spacecraft and Upper Stage Breakups on the Geostationary Ring.The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 48: 1–23, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. V.A. Chobotov. Disposal of Spacecraft at End-of-Life. In Geosynchronous Orbit, in Astrodynamics 1989, AAS Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 71, Univelt Inc., San Diego, California, pages 377–391, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. W. Flury et al. Searching for Small Debris in Geostationary Ring – Discoveries with the Zeiss 1-metre Telescope. ESA Bulletin, 104: 92–100, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. G. Fusco and A. Buratti. Crowding of the Geostationary Orbit. Final Report, ESA Contract No. 5705/83/NL/PP (SC), RIPTO, Turin, Italy, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. M. Hechler and J.C. Van der Ha. Probability of Collisions in the Geostationary Ring. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 18: 361–366, 1981.Google Scholar
  7. Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC). Space Debris Issues in the Geostationary Orbit and the Geostationary Transfer Orbits. Presented to the 37th Session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, United Nations, Vienna, Austria, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. K. Jorgensen et al. Optical Observations of Geosynchronous Debris. In 52nd International Astronautical Congress, 1–5 October, Toulouse, France, Paper IAA-01-IAA.6.4.03, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. J.H. Kwok. The Artificial Satellite Analysis Program (ASAP). Version 2.0, JPL NPO-17522, Pasadena, California, USA, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. C. Pardini. Development of a Single Fragmentation Event Simulator (CLDSIM). Study Note of Work Package 3600, Study on Long Term Evolution of Earth Orbiting Debris, ESA/ESOC Contract No. 10034/92/D/IM(SC), Consorzio Pisa Ricerche, Pisa, Italy, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. C. Pardini. Model for the Initial Population. Study Note of Work Package 1, Space Debris Mitigation: Extension of the SDM Tool, ESA/ESOC Contract No. 13037/98/D/IM, Consorzio Pisa Ricerche, Pisa, Italy, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. C. Pardini and L. Anselmo. Assessing the Risk of Orbital Debris Impact. Space Debris, 1: 59–80, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. C. Pardini and L. Anselmo. SDIRAT: Introducing a New Method for Orbital Debris Collision Risk Assessment. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Space Dynamics, June 26–30, 2000, Biarritz, France, Paper MS00/23, pages 1–9, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. C. Pardini and L. Anselmo. On the Effectiveness of End-of-Life Re-Orbiting for Debris Mitigation in Geostationary Orbit. Space Debris, 1: 173–193, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. C. Pardini, L. Anselmo, A. Rossi, A. Cordelli and P. Farinella. A New Orbital Debris Reference Model. The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 46: 249–265, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. R.C. Reynolds. Review of Current Activities to Model and Measure the Orbital Debris Environment in Low-Earth-Orbit. Advances in Space Research, 10: 359–372, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. T. Schildknecht et al. Optical Survey for Space Debris in GEO. In 52nd International Astronautical Congress, 1–5 October, Toulouse, France, Paper IAA-01-IAA.6.4.02, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. S.Y. Su and D.J. Kessler. Contribution of Explosion and Future Collision Fragments to the Orbital Debris Environment. Advances in Space Research, 5: 25–34, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Anselmo
    • 1
  • C. Pardini
    • 2
  1. 1.Spaceflight Dynamics Section, CNUCE/CNRConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) – CNUCE InstitutePisa (PI)Italy
  2. 2.Spaceflight Dynamics Section, CNUCE/CNRConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) – CNUCE InstitutePisa (PI)Italy

Personalised recommendations