Select Page

Describe document here.  Make sure to use Bibliography category.  Please add tags.  Post is currently marked no index for search engines.

The following paper presents a novel taxonomy method for LEO space debris population. The goal of the method is to provide a new way of classifying low Earth orbit (LEO) space debris objects to support future ADR missions and aid decision making. The method is formulated in two layers. In the first layer, a taxonomic tree is used to identify the main class of an object, based on its most prominent dynamical and physical traits. In the second layer, the hazard of an object and its level of non-cooperativeness are identified and the selection of the most suited ADR capture method, from a safety perspective, is performed. This is done by defining the break-up risk index and levels of non-cooperativeness of targets, based on their passivation state, age, angular rate, physical properties of the capture interface, etc. Examples of application of the developed taxonomy are presented and conclusions are drawn regarding the best methods to be used for the main categories of LEO space debris under investigation for future ADR missions.

Original document located here – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308827905_Taxonomy_of_LEO_Space_Debris_Population_for_ADR_Selection

References

[1] D. J. Kessler, B. G. Cour-Palais, Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt, Journal of Geophysical Research 83 (A6) (1978) 2637–2646.
doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA06p02637

[2] J.-C. Liou, An active debris removal parametric study for LEO environment remediation, Advances in Space Research 47 (11) (2011) 1865–1876.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2011.02.003.

[3] J.-C. Liou, N. L. Johnson, N. M. Hill, Controlling the growth of future LEO debris populations with active debris removal, Acta Astronautica 66 (5-6) (2010) 648–653.
doi:  http://dx.doi.org10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.08.005

[4] M. Kaplan, B. Boone, R. Brown, T. Criss, E. Tunstel, Engineering Issues for All Major Modes of In Situ Space Debris Capture, in: AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference & Exposition, no. September, Space Department Applied Physics Laboratory, AIAA, Anaheim, California, USA, 2010, pp. 1–20.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-8863.

[5] M. H. Kaplan, Space Debris Realities and Removal, On-line (2010)
URL https://goo.gl/kYhtU4 – this is 404 link

[6] D. Mcknight, Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later : Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now, in: Proceedings of the 2010 AMOS Conference, Maui Economic Development Board, Maui, Hawaii, 2010, pp. 1–21.

[7] K. Wormnes, R. Le Letty, L. Summerer, H. Krag, R. Schonenborg, O. Dubois-Matra, E. Luraschi, J. Delaval, A. Cropp, R. L. Letty, L. Summerer, R. Schonenborg, O. Dubois-Matra, E. Luraschi, A. Cropp, H. Krag, J. Delaval, ESA technologies for space debris remediation, in: 6th European Conference on Space Debris, ESA, Darmstadt, Germany, 2013, pp. 1–2.

[8] C. Frueh, M. Jah, E. Valdez, P. Kervin, T. Kelecy, Taxonomy and Classification Scheme for Artificial Space Objects, in: 2013 AMOS (Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance) Technical Conference, Maui Economic Development Board, 2013.

[9] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, Online (August 2016).
URL http://goo.gl/q2GS2J

[10] M. P. Wilkins, A. Pfeffer, P. W. Schumacher, M. K. Jah, Towards an Artificial Space Object Taxonomy, in: 2013 AMOS (Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance) Technical Conference, Maui Economic Development Board, 2013.

[11] E. Mayr, Systematics and the origin of species, from the viewpoint of a zoologist, Harvard University Press, 1999.

[12] C. Frueh, Taxonomy and Classification for Artificial Space Objects: AMR Definition (2015).

[13] ECSS Secretariat, Space product assurance: Failure modes, effects (and criticality) analysis (FMEA/FMECA), On-line (2009).
URL http://www.ecss.nl/ IAC–16–A6.6.5.10.x33342

[14] C. Bonnal, J.-M. Ruault, M.-C. Desjean, Active debris removal: Recent progress and current trends, Acta Astronautica 85 (2013) 51–60.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.11.009

[15] M. Castronuovo, Active space debris removal – A preliminary mission analysis and design, Acta Astronautica 69 (9-10) (2011) 848–859.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.04.017.

[16] S. Matsumoto, Y. Ohkami, Y. Wakabayashi, M. Oda, H. Ueno, Satellite capturing strategy using agile Orbital Servicing Vehicle, Hyper-OSV, in: Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292), Vol. 3, IEEE, 2002, pp. 2309–2314.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2002.1013576.

[17] ECSS Secretariat, Space Enginering: Mechanisms, On-line (2009).
URL http://www.ecss.nl/

[18] W. Fehse, Sensors for rendezvous and navigation, in: M. J. Rycroft, W. Shyy (Eds.), Automated Rendezvous and Docking of Spacecraft, 2008th Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 2003, Ch. 7, p. 226.

[19] A. Rossi, G. B. Valsecchi, E. M. Alessi, The Criticality of Spacecraft Index, Advances in Space Research 56 (3)(2015) 449–460.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.02.027.

[20] N. Praly, M. Hillion, C. Bonnal, J. Laurent-Varin, N. Petit, Study on the eddy current damping of the spin dynamics of space debris from the Ariane launcher upper stages, Acta Astronautica 76 (2012) 145–153.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.03.004.

[21] L. Innocenti, CDF Study Report: e.Deorbit, e.Deorbit Assessment, Tech. rep., ESTEC – ESA, Noordwijk, The Netherlands (2012)