Bulky space debris removal means review and selection

Theoretical mechanics


Аuthors

Pikalov R. S.*, Yudintsev V. V.**

Samara National Research University named after Academician S.P. Korolev, 34, Moskovskoye shosse, Samara, 443086, Russia

*e-mail: pickalovrs@gmail.com
**e-mail: yudintsev@gmail.com

Abstract

The near Earth space littering with space debris is one of the most important problems of modern astronautics. The sooner the active actions on removing the most dangerous bulky objects of space debris from the orbits start, the less risk that the situation in near Earth space would develop according Kessler catastrophic scenario.

The article presents the most known and well elaborated t thus far techniques of active near Earth space clearing from space debris. The considered techniques were separated in two groups, such as a group of passive techniques of removal from the orbit, and active techniques. Passive techniques of removal suppose application of various physical fields and media for the space debris deceleration. The active techniques implies creating an artificial impact on the space debris object on the part of a space tug. Active methods are separated by the type of the impact into contactless, implying remote force impact on the space debris object, and contact techniques with direct mechanic interaction between the tug and space debris.

Remote impact on the space debris object can be performed with a laser. Here, the material ablation effect under the action of laser radiation is employed to create a small reactive force. High-speed particles flow created by the ion thrusters of the space tug can also be used to create the force, affecting the debris. The flow of charged particles can be employed to transfer the charge to the space debris, and utilizing the electrostatic field formed around the it to push the debris away from the orbit. Non-contact methods are most safe for the space tug, but the acting forces level is low, which leads to a longer duration of the withdrawal process.

The techniques supposing direct mechanical interaction between the objects are most effective. The mechanical link is formed due to the capture of the space debris object by the tug. For capture either manipulators, or docking units, or net and harpoon can be employed. From our viewpoint, the most promising are capturing and transportation techniques with tether bond. These are most safe techniques for the tag. They allow control the impact level on the tug of the space debris object, especially if the space debris object rotates with significant angular velocity. The techniques forming rigid mechanical bond can be employed for capturing the objects, which do not possess significant kinetic moment.

Manipulators, special docking devices, nets, harpoons can be used to capture the space debris. In our opinion, the methods imply using of the tethered connection is most promising methods of active debris removal. These methods are most safe for the space tug, especially if the debris object rotates with high angular rate.

Keywords:

space debris, active debris removal, capturing, space tug, space tethered system

References

  1. Bolonkin A. New methods of removing space debris, 2014, available at: http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1403.0670v1.pdf

  2. Shan M., Guo J., Gill E. Review and comparison of active space debris capturing and removal methods, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2015, vol. 80, pp. 18 – 32.

  3. Trushlyakov V.I., Yutkin E.A. Omskii nauchnyi vestnik, 2013, no. 2, pp. 56 – 61.

  4. Pelton J.N. New solutions for the space debris problem, Springer, 2015, 94 p.

  5. Kessler D.J., Cour-Palais B.G. Collision frequency of artificial satellites: the creation of a debris belt, Journal of geophysical research, 1978, vol. 83, pp. 2637 – 2646.

  6. Wood A. Gravity by Alfonso Cuarón, Science Fiction Film and Television, 2014, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 441 – 444.

  7. Liou J.C. An active debris removal parametric study for LEO environment remediation, Advances in Space Research, 2011, vol. 47. no. 11, pp. 1865 – 1876.

  8. Bonnal C., Ruault J.-M., Desjean M.-C. Active debris removal: Recent progress and current trends, Acta Astronautica, 2013, vol. 85, pp. 51 – 60.

  9. Emanuelli M., Federico G., Loughman J., Prasad D., Chow T. Conceptualizing an economically, legally, and politically viable active debris removal option, Acta Astronautica, 2014, vol. 1, pp. 197 – 205.

  10. Anselmo L., Pardini C. Analysis of the consequences in low earth orbit of the collision between cosmos 2251 and iridium, 2009, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228975104

  11. 2009 satellite collision, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

  12. Schildknecht T. Optical surveys for space debris, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 2007, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 41 – 111.

  13. Palii A.S. Tekhnicheskaya mekhanika, 2012, no. 1, pp. 94 – 102.

  14. Danilova L.V. Aktual’nye problemy aviatsii i kosmonavtiki, 2014, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 267 – 268.

  15. Forward R.L., Hoyt R.P., Uphoff C.W. Terminator tether: a spacecraft deorbit device, Journal Spacecraft and Rockets, 2000, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 187 – 196.

  16. Hoyt R.P. The Terminator Tape: A cost-effective de-orbit module for end-of-life disposal of LEO satellites, In: AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition, Pasadena, California, USA, 14 – 17 September, 2009, pp. 6733.

  17. Pardini C., Hanada T., Krisko P.H. Benefits and risks of using electrodynamic tethers to de-orbit spacecraft, Acta Astronautica, 2009, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 571 – 588.

  18. Zaitseva O.N., Luk’yanchikov A.V., Pichkhadze K.M. Vestnik NPO im. S.A. Lavochkina, 2012, vol. 5, no. 16, pp. 12 – 18.

  19. Nock K.T., McRonald A.D., Aaron K.M. Balloon device for lowering space object orbits, US Patent no. 6830222, 14.12.2004.

  20. Andrenucci M., Pergola P., Ruggiero A. Active Removal of Space Debris. Expanding foam application for active debris removal. Final Report. ESA, 2011, 132 p. available at: http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/ARI%20Study%20Report/ACT-RPT-MAD-ARI-10- 6411-Pisa-Active_Removal_of_Space_Debris-Foam.pdf

  21. Pergola P., Ruggiero A., Andrenucci M., Summerer L. Low-thrust missions for expanding foam space debris removal, In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Electric Propulsion Conference, Wiesbaden, Germany, 11-15 September, 2011, pp. 13.

  22. McInnes C.R. Solar sailing: technology, dynamics and mission applications, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013, 296 p.

  23. Visagie L., Lappas V. Hybrid solar sails for active debris removal, ESA Ariadna study AO, 2011, vol. 6411, no. 10, pp. 1 – 59.

  24. Trofimov S.P. Uvod malykh kosmicheskikh apparatov s verkhnego segmenta nizkikh orbit s pomoshch’yu parusa dlya uvelicheniya sily svetovogo davleniya (The disposal of small spacecraft from the upper segment of the low orbits by using sails to increase force of light pressure), Moscow, IPM RAN, 2015, 32 p.

  25. Schmitz M., Fasoulas S., Utzmann J. Performance model for space-based laser debris sweepers, Acta Astronautica, 2015, vol. 115, pp. 376 – 383.

  26. Phipps C.R., Bonnal C. A spaceborne, pulsed UV laser system for re-entering or nudging LEO debris, and re-orbiting GEO debris, Acta Astronautica, 2016, vol. 118, pp. 224 – 236.

  27. Avdeev A.V., Metel’nikov A.A. Trudy MAI, 2016, no. 89, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=72840

  28. Ashurbeili I.R., Lagovier A.I., Ignat’ev A.B., Nazarenko A.V. Trudy MAI, 2011, no. 43, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=24856

  29. Avdeev A.V. Trudy MAI, 2012, no. 61, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=35496

  30. Phipps C.R. A laser-optical system to re-enter or lower low Earth orbit space debris, Acta Astronautica, 2014, vol. 93, pp. 418 – 429.

  31. Soulard R. ICAN: A novel laser architecture for space debris removal, Acta Astronautica, 2014, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 192 – 200.

  32. Liedahl D.A., Libby S.B., Rubenchik A. Momentum transfer by laser ablation of irregularly shaped space debris, AIP Conference Proceedings, 2010, vol. 1278, no. 1, pp. 772 – 779.

  33. Merino M. Ion beam shepherd satellite for space debris removal, Progress in Propulsion Physics, 2013, vol. 4, pp. 789 – 802.

  34. Kitamura S., Hayakawa Y., Kawamoto S. A reorbiter for large GEO debris objects using ion beam irradiation, Acta Astronautica, 2014, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 725 – 735.

  35. Bombardelli C. Dynamics of ion-beam-propelled space debris, In: International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Sao Jose dos Campos, Brasil, February 28 – March 4, 2011, available at: http://sdg.aero.upm.es/publications/pdf/2011/s8_p5_issfd22_pf_047.pdf

  36. Schaub H., Sternovsky Z. Active space debris charging for contactless electrostatic disposal maneuvers, Advances in Space Research, 2014, vol. 53, no.1, pp. 110 – 118.

  37. Gómez N.O. et al. Control analysis for a contactless de-tumbling method based on eddy currents: problem definition and approximate proposed solutions, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, San Diego, California, USA, 7-11 January 2016, pp. 642.

  38. Kumar K. Agora: Mission to demonstrate technologies to actively remove Ariane rocket bodies, Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, 12-16 October 2015, vol. 6, pp. 6.

  39. Schaub H., Moorer D.F. Geosynchronous large debris reorbiter: Challenges and prospects, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 2012, vol. 59, no. 1-2, pp. 161 – 176.

  40. Hiltz M., Rice C., Boyle K., & Allison R. Canadarm: 20 years of mission success through adaptation, Int. Symp. Artif. Intell. Robotics Autom. Space, 2001, vol. 1, pp. 1 – 8.

  41. Aikenhead B.A., Daniell R.G., Davis F.M. Canadarm and the space shuttle, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films, 1983, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 126 – 132.

  42. Sachdev S.S. Canadarm — a review of its flights, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films, 1986, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 268 – 272.

  43. Burns S., Razvi S. Evolution of the space station robotic manipulator, In: 58th International Astronautical Congress, Hyderabad, India, 24-25 September 2007, available at: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070010589.pdf

  44. Matsumoto S. Reconfigurable space manipulator for in-orbit servicing, In: Fourth International Conference and Exposition on Robotics for Challenging Situations and Environments, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 27 February – 2 March, 2000, pp. 88 – 94.

  45. Ma Z., Ma O., Shashikanth B.N. Optimal control for spacecraft to rendezvous with a tumbling satellite in a close range, In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Daejeon, South Korea, 9-14 October 2016, pp. 4109 – 4114.

  46. Xin M., Pan H. Nonlinear optimal control of spacecraft approaching a tumbling target, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2011, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 79 – 89.

  47. Dimitrov D.N., Yoshida K. Utilization of the bias momentum approach for capturing a tumbling satellite, Proceedings IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sendai, Japan, September 28 – October 2, 2004, vol. 4, pp. 3333 – 3338.

  48. Nagamatsu H., Kubota T., Nakatani I. Capture strategy for retrieval of a tumbling satellite by a space robotic manipulator, Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Osaka, Japan, 4-8 November, 1996, vol. 1, pp. 70 – 75.

  49. Nenchev D.N., Yoshida K. Impact analysis and post-impact motion control issues of a free-floating space robot contacting a tumbling object, Proceedings 1998 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Innovations in Theory, Practice and Applications, Victoria, BC, Canada, 13-17 October, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 913 – 919.

  50. Oki T., Nakanishi H., Yoshida K. Time-optimal manipulator control for management of angular momentum distribution during the capture of a tumbling target, Advanced Robotics, 2010, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 441 – 466.

  51. Yoshida K., Nakanishi H., Ueno H., Inaba N., Nishimaki T., Oda M. Dynamics, control and impedance matching for robotic capture of a non-cooperative satellite, Advanced Robotics, 2004, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 175 – 198.

  52. Concept for ADR of Kosmos 3M R/Bs: clamp configuration. URL: https://www.stardust2013.eu/Home/OurTeam/MarkoJankovic/MarkosProjects/tabid/5018/Default.aspx

  53. Zhang X., Huang Y., Han W., Chen X. Research of docking characteristic of flexible beam based on probe-cone docking mechanism, Procedia Engineering, 2012, vol. 31, pp. 857 – 862.

  54. Han W., Huang Y., Chen X. Research of impact dynamic modeling of flexible probe-cone docking mechanism based on Kane method, Archive of Applied Mechanics, 2015, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 205 – 221.

  55. Moody C.K., Probe A.B., Masher A., Woodbury T., Saman M., Davis J., Hurtado J.E. Laboratory Experiments for Orbital Debris Removal, In: AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, 5-10 February, 2016, pp. 1 – 12.

  56. Wormnes K., Le Letty, R., Summerer L., Schonenborg R., Dubois-Matra O., Luraschi E., Delaval J. ESA technologies for space debris remediation, In: 6th European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, on Monday, 22 April, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 1 – 8.

  57. Benvenuto R., Salvi S., Lavagna M. Dynamics analysis and GNC design of flexible systems for space debris active removal, Acta Astronautica, 2015, vol. 110, pp. 247 – 265.

  58. Aslanov V.S., Ledkov A.S. Dynamics of the tethered satellite system. Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2012, 331 p.

  59. Sharf I., Thomsen B., Botta E.M., Misra A.K. Experiments and simulation of a net closing mechanism for tether-net capture of space debris, Acta Astronautica, 2017, vol. 139, pp. 332 – 343.

  60. Shan M., Guo J., Gill E. Deployment dynamics of tethered-net for space debris removal, Acta Astronautica, 2017, vol. 132, pp. 293 – 302.

  61. Forshaw J.L., Aglietti G.S., Salmon T., Retat I., Roe M., Burgess C., Chaumette F. Final payload test results for the Remove Debris active debris removal mission, Acta Astronautica, 2017, vol. 138, pp. 326 – 342.

  62. Mori H., Izumiyama T., Hashimoto K., Kawamoto S., Hirako K. U.S. Patent Application, no. 15397348, 2017.

  63. Trushlyakov V.I., Makarov Yu.N., Olejnikov I.I., Shatrov Ya.T. Patent RU 2531679. 27.10.2014.

  64. Cercós L., Stefanescu R., Medina A., Benvenuto R., Lavagna M., González I., Wormnes K. Validation of a Net Active Debris Removal simulator within parabolic flight experiment, In: 12th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space, Montreal, Canada, 17-19 June, 2014, available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55248523.pdf

  65. Aslanov V.S., Alekseev A.V., Ledkov A.S. Trudy MAI, 2016, no. 90, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=74644

  66. Dudziak R., Tuttle S., Barraclough S. Harpoon technology development for the active removal of space debris, Advances in Space Research, 2015, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 509 – 527.

  67. Aslanov V.S., Yudintsev V.V. Trudy MAI, 2017, no. 97, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=83566

  68. Aslanov V.S. Oscillations of a spacecraft with a vertical elastic tether, AIP Conference Proceeding, 2010, vol. 1220, pp. 1 – 16.

  69. Aslanov V.S., Yudintsev V.V. Vestnik Moskovskogo aviatsionnogo instituta, 2018, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 7 – 17.

  70. Aslanov V.S., Yudintsev V.V. Dynamics, analytical solutions and choice of parameters for towed space debris with flexible appendages, Advances in Space Research, 2015, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 660 – 667.

  71. Troger H., Alpatov A.P., Beletsky V.V., Dranovskii V.I., Khoroshilov V.S., Pirozhenko A.V., Zakrzhevskii A.E. Dynamics of tethered space systems, CRC Press, 2010, 223 p.

  72. Aslanov V.S., Pikalov R.S. Trudy MAI, 2017, no. 92, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=76750

  73. Kupreev S.A. Trudy MAI, 2015, no. 84, available at: https://www.trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=63053

  74. Kupreev S.A. Trudy MAI, 2016, no. 88, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=69696

  75. Jasper L., Schaub H. Input shaped large thrust maneuver with a tethered debris object, Acta Astronautica, 2014, vol. 96, pp. 128 – 137.

  76. Aslanov V.S., Yudintsev V.V. Dynamics of large debris connected to space tug by a tether, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2013, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1654 –1660.

  77. Aslanov V.S., Yudintsev V.V. Dynamics of large space debris removal using tethered space tug, Acta Astronautica, 2013, vol. 91, pp. 149 – 156.

  78. Aslanov V.S. Chaos Behavior of Space Debris During Tethered Tow, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2015, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 2399 – 2405.

  79. Hovell K., Ulrich S. Attitude stabilization of an unknown and spinning target spacecraft using a visco-elastic tether, In: 13th Symposium on Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 11-13 May, 2015, pp. 1 – 8.

  80. O’Connor M.J., Clearly S., Hayden D. Debris de-tumbling and de-orbiting by elastic tether and wave-based control, In: 6th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques, Darmstadt, Germany, 14-17 March, 2016, available at: https://indico.esa.int/indico/event/111/session/14/contribution/183/material/paper/0.pdf

  81. Cleary S., O’Connor W.J. Control of space debris using an elastic tether and wave-based control, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2016, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1392 – 1406.

  82. Jasper L., Schaub H. Tethered towing using open-loop input-shaping and discrete thrust levels, Acta Astronautica, 2014, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 373 – 384.


Download

mai.ru — informational site MAI

Copyright © 2000-2024 by MAI

 Вход