Effect of perturbations on debris-to-debris orbital transfers: A quantitative analysis

被引:4
|
作者
Kumar, Kartik [1 ,2 ]
Hekma, Enne [2 ]
Agrawal, Abhishek [2 ]
Topputo, Francesco [3 ]
机构
[1] Dinam Srl, Via R Morghen 13, I-20158 Milan, Italy
[2] Delft Univ Technol, Kluyverweg 1, NL-2629 HS Delft, Netherlands
[3] Politecn Milan, Via G La Masa 34, I-20156 Milan, Italy
关键词
Space debris; Active debris removal; Mission design; Orbital perturbations; Lambert solver; SGP4; REMOVAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.asr.2016.12.015
中图分类号
V [航空、航天];
学科分类号
08 ; 0825 ;
摘要
We investigated the applicability of the Lambert solver (Izzo, 2014) for preliminary design of Multi-Target Active Debris Removal missions. Firstly, we computed approximate to 25 million debris-to-debris transfers using the Lambert solver for selected sets of debris objects in Low Earth Orbit, Geostationary Transfer Orbit, and Geosynchronous Orbit. Subsequently, we propagated the departure states of the Lambert transfers below selected Delta V cut-offs using the SGP4/SDP4 propagator (Vallado et al., 2006). We recorded the arrival position and velocity error vectors incurred by neglecting perturbations and analyzed the results for each orbital regime. Our results indicate that perturbations can play a significant role in determining the feasibility of debris-to-debris transfers. By using the Lambert solver and neglecting perturbations, the errors in the arrival position and velocity for individual legs can be large. The largest errors were obtained for transfers between debris objects in Sun-Synchronous Orbit (O(100) km error in magnitude of position vector and O(0.1) km/s error in magnitude of velocity vector). Hence, solely employing the Lambert solver to rank transfer legs could lead to incorrect choices for sequencing of multi-target trajectories. This is particularly relevant for transfers in Low Earth Orbit, where the effects of perturbations are the strongest. (C) 2016 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1289 / 1303
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] STANDSTILL ON ORBITAL DEBRIS POLICY
    WIRIN, WB
    AEROSPACE AMERICA, 1988, 26 (06) : 8 - 10
  • [22] Orbital debris research in the US
    Johnson, NL
    Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Space Debris, 2005, 587 : 5 - 10
  • [23] Orbital debris and the market for satellites
    Bongers, Aneli
    Torres, Jose L.
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2023, 209
  • [24] The reentry of large orbital debris
    Johnson, NL
    SPACE SAFETY AND RESCUE 1997, 1999, 96 : 285 - 293
  • [25] DECISION TIME ON ORBITAL DEBRIS
    LOFTUS, JP
    TILTON, EL
    TEMPLE, LP
    AEROSPACE AMERICA, 1988, 26 (06) : 16 - 18
  • [26] QUANTIFYING THE ORBITAL DEBRIS ENVIRONMENT
    DAO, P
    MCNUTT, R
    JONAS, FM
    SOLIZ, P
    YATES, KW
    ACTA ASTRONAUTICA, 1992, 26 (07) : 513 - 522
  • [27] APPARENT DENSITIES OF ORBITAL DEBRIS
    ANZMEADOR, PD
    RAST, RH
    POTTER, AE
    ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH-SERIES, 1993, 13 (08): : 153 - 156
  • [28] Removing orbital debris with lasers
    Phipps, Claude R.
    Baker, Kevin L.
    Libby, Stephen B.
    Liedahl, Duane A.
    Olivier, Scot S.
    Pleasance, Lyn D.
    Rubenchik, Alexander
    Trebes, James E.
    George, E. Victor
    Marcovici, Bogdan
    Reilly, James P.
    Valley, Michael T.
    ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH, 2012, 49 (09) : 1283 - 1300
  • [29] Orbital debris and space operations
    Spencer, DB
    AEROSPACE AMERICA, 1997, 35 (02) : 38 - 42