Collision Avoidance Operations for LEO Satellites Controlled by GSOC

Aida, Saika; Kirschner, Michael; Wermuth, Martin; Kiehling, Reinhard

doi:10.2514/6.2010-2298

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, if an owner/operator provides the internally determined (most likely via Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers) more precise orbit information to JSpOC, this assessment can be refined. However, several space agencies, such as ESA, NASA, JAXA, CNES and DLR have already developed their own operational frameworks/systems for conjunction assessment and collision avoidance operations 8,[12][13][14][15] . The procedures differ slightly from each other though they are very similar in terms of operational frameworks.…”

Section: B Collision Avoidance Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on their catalogue of objects bigger than 10 cm, standardized operations flows for collision avoidance exist for all major space agencies 8,[12][13][14][15] . In addition, Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is providing space weather information for satellite operators 19 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mission Operations to Improve Space Mission Protection

Yaglioglu¹

2012

SpaceOps 2012 Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the number of satellite launches increases, debris problem has become a significant issue. From universities and small companies to space agencies, operators have different strategies to deal with this problem as well as the space weather. This study reviews the current practice of satellite operators concerning security measures regarding space weather and space debris risks. The relevant background for conjunction analysis and collision avoidance is provided. Existing mission operations structures at various space agencies and operators around the world are investigated. Risks and vulnerabilities are summarized for orbits at different altitudes and improvements in operations are suggested for various scale operators.

show abstract

Section: B Collision Avoidance Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mission Operations to Improve Space Mission Protection

Yaglioglu¹

2012

SpaceOps 2012 Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Propagation errors of ephemerides generated from USSTRATCOM TLEs and those generated by numerical orbit propagation were investigated by comparing the orbits with the precise orbits of locally operated satellites CHAMP and GRACE-1 (at an altitude of 270-430 km, and 460-500 km respectively). By using the long period of data, the dependency of the prediction accuracy on the altitude as well as the solar flux was obtained as shown in [4]. This analysis was extended for TerraSAR-X to get the prediction error at a higher altitude of 510 km.…”

Section: Orbit Prediction Accuracy Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Collision risk assessment and operational experiences for LEO satellites at GSOC

Aida¹,

Kirschner²

2012

JAESA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The German Space Operations Center (GSOC) is monitoring close approaches of the operational satellites against the tracked space objects. Contrary to the controlled satellites, precise orbit information is not available for a massive space objects. Currently, the TLE (Two-Line Elements) catalogue maintained by the USSTRATCOM (US Strategic Command) constitutes the only publicly available and reasonably comprehensive orbit information, which has been used for such a monitoring. In addition to TLEs, warnings from the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) can be recently used as another source for the proximity prediction. Although JSpOC provides orbit information including covariance information with a relatively higher accuracy, its availability is limited and the accuracy is still not enough for a maneuver decision and also for a proper planning of an avoidance maneuver. An orbit refinement using a radar tracking is therefore foreseen in case of a critical close approach. This paper describes the operational collision avoidance system, followed by the discussion of the orbit prediction accuracy of the TLE propagation as well as the numerical propagation from the operational point of view. The radar tracking accuracy is additionally presented for a comparison. A recent close approach of TerraSAR-X is presented as an example of the event handling together with the radar tracking results performed for the debris, followed by the operational experiences for the last 1.5 years.

show abstract

“…Ref. 15). Depending on approach geometry and risk estimate a ground radar tracking campaign can be made to re-asses the risk.…”

Section: Space Debris Collision Avoidancementioning

confidence: 99%

Flight Dynamics Operations of the Tandem-X Formation

Kahle¹,

Schlepp²,

Aida³

et al. 2012

SpaceOps 2012 Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since end of 2010 the German TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X satellites are routinely operated as the first configurable single-pass Synthetic Aperture Radar interferometer in space. The two 1340 kg satellites fly in a 514 km sun-synchronous orbit. In order to collect sufficient measurements for the generation of a global digital elevation model and to demonstrate new interferometric SAR techniques and applications, more than three years of formation flying are foreseen with flexible baselines ranging from 150 m to few kilometers. As a prerequisite for the close formation flight an extensive flight dynamics system was established at DLR/GSOC, which comprises of GPS-based absolute and relative navigation and impulsive orbit and formation control. Daily formation maintenance maneuvers are performed by TanDEM-X to counterbalance natural and artificial disturbances. The paper elaborates on the routine flight dynamics operations and its interactions with mission planning and ground-station network. The navigation and formation control concepts and the achieved control accuracy are briefly outlined. Furthermore, the paper addresses nonroutine operations experienced during formation acquisition, frequent formation reconfiguration, formation maintenance problems and space debris collision avoidance, which is even more challenging than for single-satellite operations. In particular two close approaches of debris are presented, which were experienced in March 2011 and April 2012. Finally, a formation break-up procedure is discussed which could be executed in case of severe onboard failures.

show abstract

Collision Avoidance Operations for LEO Satellites Controlled by GSOC

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Mission Operations to Improve Space Mission Protection

Mission Operations to Improve Space Mission Protection

Collision risk assessment and operational experiences for LEO satellites at GSOC

Flight Dynamics Operations of the Tandem-X Formation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About