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
  • [41] A quantitative analysis of computed hypervelocity debris clouds
    Beissel, S. R.
    Gerlach, C. A.
    Johnson, G. R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING, 2008, 35 (12) : 1410 - 1418
  • [42] MODELING THE ATMOSPHERIC PERTURBATIONS IN THE DEBRIS PROBLEM
    ASHENBERG, J
    BROUCKE, RA
    SATELLITE ORBITS, 1993, 14 (05): : 79 - 82
  • [43] Elimination of the orbital debris threat: Using a ground laser to deorbit the debris objects
    Bekey, I
    SPACE SAFETY AND RESCUE 1997, 1999, 96 : 365 - 376
  • [44] Analysis of tape tether survival in LEO against orbital debris
    Bayajid Khan, Shaker
    Sanmartin, Juan R.
    ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH, 2014, 53 (09) : 1370 - 1376
  • [45] Economic analysis requirements in support of orbital debris regulatory policy
    Greenberg, JS
    CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ORBITAL DEBRIS AND NATURAL SPACE IMPACTORS, 1996, 2813 : 205 - 216
  • [46] Analysis of the response of a space surveillance network to orbital debris events
    Finkleman, David
    Oltrogge, Daniel L.
    Faulds, Anthony
    Gerber, Joseph
    SPACEFLIGHT MECHANICS 2008, VOL 130, PTS 1 AND 2, 2008, 130 : 427 - +
  • [47] ORBITAL DEBRIS MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
    LOFTUS, JP
    ANZMEADOR, PD
    REYNOLDS, R
    ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH-SERIES, 1993, 13 (08): : 263 - 282
  • [48] Laser Systems for Orbital Debris Removal
    Rubenchik, A. M.
    Barty, C. P. J.
    Beach, R. J.
    Erlandson, A. C.
    Caird, J. A.
    INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON HIGH POWER LASER ABLATION 2010, 2010, 1278 : 347 - 353
  • [49] Space based observations of orbital debris
    Alby, F
    Otrio, G
    Durin, C
    SPACE DEBRIS 2000, 2001, 103 : 35 - 46
  • [50] Modelling satellite vulnerability to orbital debris
    Elvidge, Michael
    Goheen, Kevin
    Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, 1995, 41 (03): : 108 - 116