Space Debris Environment Impact RatingSystem1 University of Southampton2 PHS Space Ltd.H.G. Lewis1, S.G. George1, B.S. Sch...
Introduction: ACCORD• FP7-funded project: University of Southampton & PHS Space Ltd.• Aims:– Provide a mechanism for commu...
Environment Impact Rating System• Tool to evaluate how spacecraft design & operation impacts the long-term debris environm...
Environment Impact Rating SystemTwo aspects:1. Space “Health” Index– Provides context and calibration forenvironmental imp...
“Health” ~Assess the “health” of the space environment with respect to 2 goals:1. Widespread Implementation of Mitigation ...
1. Space “Health” IndexOutside influences affect achievement of goal:– „Pressures‟ cause deviation away from goal– „Resili...
1. Space “Health” Index• Focus, to-date, on LEO: divided into 35 regions:– 7 altitude bands (categorised by perigee)– 5 in...
Goal 1A: Protection of ServiceCompliance with mitigation guidelines & good practices that areimplemented to avoid loss dur...
Goal 1B: Legacy of ServiceCompliance with mitigation guidelines & good practices that areimplemented to preserve the space...
Goal 2: Benign Space Debris EnvironmentCurrent state of the debris environment and future trends:– Number of ≥ 10 cm debri...
Data SourcesDAMAGE Simulations:– Capacity of mitigation measures to limit creation of further debris• 16 Mitigation scenar...
Data Sourceshttp:// www.fp7-accord.eu
Quantify impact of a prospective spacecraft on the space environmentUser-Specified Inputs(for prospective spacecraft):– On...
Rating Parameters:1. Debris score for the prescribedorbital region(how “crowded” the region is)2. The capacity of appliedm...
Example:Generic Earth Observation SpacecraftInputs:• Mass: 1000kg• Altitude: 795km• Inclination: 98Applied Mitigation Meas...
Conclusions and Future Work• A prototype Environmental Impact Rating System for space systemshas been developed comprising...
Contact:Dr. Hugh G. LewisAstronautics Research GroupUniversity of SouthamptonUnited KingdomE: hglewis@soton.ac.ukT: +44 (0...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

ACCORD Prototype Impact Rating System

242 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
242
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • UNHIDE?
  • Future work and conclusions
  • ACCORD Prototype Impact Rating System

    1. 1. Space Debris Environment Impact RatingSystem1 University of Southampton2 PHS Space Ltd.H.G. Lewis1, S.G. George1, B.S. Schwarz1&P.H. Stokes2
    2. 2. Introduction: ACCORD• FP7-funded project: University of Southampton & PHS Space Ltd.• Aims:– Provide a mechanism for communicating the efficacy of current debrismitigation practices– Identify opportunities for strengthening European capability• Activities:– Surveying the capability of industry to implement debris mitigationmeasures– Reviewing the capacity of mitigation measures to reduce debris creation– Combining capability and capacity indicators within anenvironment impact rating systemAlignment of Capability and Capacityfor the Objective of Reducing Debris
    3. 3. Environment Impact Rating System• Tool to evaluate how spacecraft design & operation impacts the long-term debris environment• Communicate how mitigation measures and good design practices canimprove environmental impact• Based on a single score:– Combines measures of compliance, capacity and capability of variousmitigation techniques– Incorporates current state of debris environment• Final system will be available online as voluntary (and confidential)tool for industry• A prototype rating system for the LEO environment is presented here
    4. 4. Environment Impact Rating SystemTwo aspects:1. Space “Health” Index– Provides context and calibration forenvironmental impact rating– Score out of 1002. Environmental Impact Rating– Measure effect of future spacecraft on debrisenvironment– Input data provided by manufacturer/operator– Score out of 1004“Health” IndexEnvironmentalImpact RatingCalibration1.2.User InputsSPACECRAFT DATA, APPLIEDMITIGATION MEASURES
    5. 5. “Health” ~Assess the “health” of the space environment with respect to 2 goals:1. Widespread Implementation of Mitigation MeasuresA. Protection of ServiceB. Legacy of Service2. Benign Space Debris EnvironmentFor each goal, the index calculates a score (out of 100), which is ameasure of how well the goal has been realised1. Space “Health” IndexLeads to a measure of a “healthy” space environment tobe used in the impact rating calculationA measure of the long-term sustainability of outer spaceactivities
    6. 6. 1. Space “Health” IndexOutside influences affect achievement of goal:– „Pressures‟ cause deviation away from goal– „Resiliences‟ direct status towards goalFor each goal, the index calculates:• „Present‟ statusmeasured value, relative to a defined reference point• Predicted „Near-Future‟ statusestimated using trend of status over previous 5 years,pressures and resiliences6Technique adapted from Ocean Health Index Halpern et al. (2012, Nature)GoalPresentStatusNear-FutureLikely StatusMeasuredValueReferencePoint5 YearTrendPressuresResiliences
    7. 7. 1. Space “Health” Index• Focus, to-date, on LEO: divided into 35 regions:– 7 altitude bands (categorised by perigee)– 5 inclination bands:• Equatorial (0º-19º)• Intermediate (20º-84º)• Polar (85º-94º)• Sun-Synchronous (95º-103º)• Retrograde (104º-180º)• “Health” score derived for each goal in each region7Combined to give overall “health” of LEO(deg)
    8. 8. Goal 1A: Protection of ServiceCompliance with mitigation guidelines & good practices that areimplemented to avoid loss during operations– Impact shielding, collision avoidance• Reference:– 100% compliance for all measures by all spacecraft in region• Pressures:– Technical and financial challenges• Resiliences:– Availability of data, tools, techniques and supporting guidelines• Source of Data:– ACCORD industry survey, ACCORD compliance analysis
    9. 9. Goal 1B: Legacy of ServiceCompliance with mitigation guidelines & good practices that areimplemented to preserve the space environment– Post-mission disposal, passivation, limiting release of MRO• Reference:– 100% compliance for all measures by all spacecraft in region• Pressures:– Technical and financial challenges• Resiliences:– Availability of data, tools, techniques and supporting guidelines• Source of Data:– ACCORD industry survey, ACCORD compliance analysis
    10. 10. Goal 2: Benign Space Debris EnvironmentCurrent state of the debris environment and future trends:– Number of ≥ 10 cm debris objects• Reference:– Population of objects ≥ 10 cm on 1st May 2009– Population of objects ≥ 10 cm on 1st May 2014 (no collisions scenario)• Pressures:– Technical and financial challenges of implementing mitigation measures• Resiliences:– The requirement to comply with mitigation guidelines and standards• Source of Data:– MASTER 2009 population and DAMAGE future projection
    11. 11. Data SourcesDAMAGE Simulations:– Capacity of mitigation measures to limit creation of further debris• 16 Mitigation scenarios (PMD, PASS, MRO, CA; plus combinations)• Effectiveness of mitigation measure normalised between 0 (no mitigation)and 1 (full mitigation) in terms of no. objects & no. catastrophic collisionsACCORD Industry Survey– Technical and financial challenge of implementing mitigation measures(Capability)• Survey responses normalised to give score between 0 and 1– Level of implementation of mitigation measures among spacecraftmanufacturers and operators• Survey responses normalised to give score between 0 and 111
    12. 12. Data Sourceshttp:// www.fp7-accord.eu
    13. 13. Quantify impact of a prospective spacecraft on the space environmentUser-Specified Inputs(for prospective spacecraft):– On-Orbit Mass– Perigee Altitude– Orbital Inclination– Mitigation MeasuresImplemented– How Individual Measuresare Implemented in DesignLead to: 3 parameters, which combine togive single score for spacecraft (out of 100)2. Environmental Impact RatingDefinesLEORegionOrbit DataAltitudeInclinationMitigationMeasuresUsedHowMitigationMeasures areImplementedUserInputsRating Calculation
    14. 14. Rating Parameters:1. Debris score for the prescribedorbital region(how “crowded” the region is)2. The capacity of appliedmitigation measuresto limit the generationof new debris(from DAMAGE)3. How the prospective spacecraftaffects the “health” index in thegiven orbital region(re-calculate “health” index)2. Environmental Impact RatingEnvironmental Impact RatingDefinesLEORegionOrbit DataAltitudeInclinationMitigationMeasuresUsedHowMitigationMeasures areImplementedUserInputsCrowding ofDebris inLEO RegionCapacity ofMitigation toLimit FutureDebrisModificationto “Health”Index forLEO Region“Health”IndexAll scores expressed outof 100
    15. 15. Example:Generic Earth Observation SpacecraftInputs:• Mass: 1000kg• Altitude: 795km• Inclination: 98Applied Mitigation Measures:• Collision Avoidance• Passivation• Limiting MRO ReleaseImpact Rating: 23 %Change in “health” of region:Change in “health” of LEO:Suggested „actions‟ to improve rating+0.16 %+0.01%Representative „Certificate‟
    16. 16. Conclusions and Future Work• A prototype Environmental Impact Rating System for space systemshas been developed comprising two aspects:– Space “Health” Index– Environmental Impact Rating• Based on data gathered from industry and other sources, in addition tosimulations performed using DAMAGE• Future work:– Improve the assumptions made in the prototype– Community and industry engagement is anticipated (andwelcomed) to address these assumptions and ensure theapplicability of the finished system– Final system will be implemented in a web-tool and hosted client-side to ensure privacy16
    17. 17. Contact:Dr. Hugh G. LewisAstronautics Research GroupUniversity of SouthamptonUnited KingdomE: hglewis@soton.ac.ukT: +44 (0) 23 8059 3880W: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~hglewishttp:// www.fp7-accord.euFunding provided by the European Union Framework 7 Programme (Project No. 262824).Thanks to Carsten Wiedemann (TU Braunschweig), Adam White (University ofSouthampton), Richard Tremayne-Smith, and Holger Krag (ESA Space Debris Office)

    ×