Spacecraft Design-for-Demise implementation strategy &amp; decision-making methodology for low earth orbit missions

Waswa, Peter M.B.; Elliot, Michael G.; Hoffman, Jeffrey A.

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2012.11.020

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The complete set of governing Eqs. (3) - (8) can be integrated in time to obtain the position and the velocity of the spacecraft at every time instant along the trajectory.…”

Section: Equations Of Motionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On average between 10% to 40% of the spacecraft initial mass survives re-entry [7]. As a consequence, in order to exploit the advantages of an uncontrolled re-entry strategy in terms of its simplicity and its cost (necessity of new AOCS modes and the possibility to move to a bigger launcher) [7,8] and still meet the casualty risk constraint, design solutions that favours the demisability of the spacecraft and its components can be adopted. This approach is known as designfor-demise, which is the procedure to consider, since the early stages of the mission planning, design options that will allow the demise of the spacecraft in the atmosphere.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Demisability and survivability sensitivity to design-for-demise techniques

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper is concerned with examining the effects that design-for-demise solutions can have not only on the demisability of components, but also on their survivability that is their capability to withstand impacts from space debris. First two models are introduced. A demisability model to predict the behaviour of spacecraft components during the atmospheric re-entry and a survivability model to assess the vulnerability of spacecraft structures against space debris impacts. Two indices that evaluate the level of demisability and survivability are also proposed. The two models are then used to study the sensitivity of the demisability and of the survivability indices as a function of typical design-for-demise options. The demisability and the survivability can in fact be influenced by the same design parameters in a competing fashion that is while the demisability is improved, the survivability is worsened and vice versa. The analysis shows how the design-for-demise solutions influence the demisability and the survivability independently. In addition, the effect that a solution has simultaneously on the two criteria is assessed. Results shows which, among the design-for-demise parameters mostly influence the demisability and the survivability. For such design parameters maps are presented, describing their influence on the demisability and survivability indices. These maps represent a useful tool to quickly assess the level of demisability and survivability that can be expected from a component, when specific design parameters are changed.  Abbreviations DRAMA: Debris Risk Assessment and Mitigation Analysis MASTER: Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference MIDAS: MASTER-based Impact Flux and Damage Assessment Software LMF: Liquid Mass Fraction PNP: Probability of no-penetrationamong these mitigation measures is the limitation of the long-term presence of spacecraft and upper stages in the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geostationary Orbit (GEO) protected regions [5]. This in turn means that a spacecraft has to be removed from its operational orbit after its decommissioning, either by placing it in a graveyard orbit or by allowing it to re-enter into the Earth's atmosphere. For LEO spacecraft, the preferred scenario is to design a disposal by re-entry within 25 years from its decommissioning in order for the mission to comply with the 25-year rule [6]. However, when a spacecraft is to be disposed through re-entry it has also to satisfy the requirement for the limitation of the risk of human casualty on the ground associated to the debris surviving the re-entry. This can be either achieved performing a controlled re-entry, where the spacecraft is guided to impact in the ocean or not populated areas, or through an uncontrolled re-entry, where the vehicle is left to re-enter without any guidance. In the latter case, the surviving mass of the spacecraft has to be low enough to comply with the regulation on the casualty risk expectation that has to be below the threshold of 10 -4 . Controlled re-entries ha...

show abstract

“…The complete set of governing Eqs. (3) - (8) can be integrated in time to obtain the position and the velocity of the spacecraft at every time instant along the trajectory.…”

Section: Equations Of Motionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Demisability and survivability sensitivity to design-for-demise techniques

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Performing a controlled re-entry (i.e., the spacecraft undergoes an actively performed de-orbit maneuver to impact within an uninhabited area) is not always an option due to the increased costs and issues of technical reliability associated therewith [4,9]. Therefore, a passive approach is arguably preferable, wherein the spacecraft's constituent components burn up to a degree that the ground risk emanating from the sum of residual debris items is considered non-critical [4,10,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Fast Thermal 1D Model to Study Aerospace Material Response Behaviors in Uncontrolled Atmospheric Entries

Pirrone

Agabiti

Pagan³

et al. 2022

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A preliminary thermal 1D numerical model for studying the demise behavior of stainless steel 316L, silicon carbide (SiC) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) during uncontrolled atmospheric entry is proposed. Test case modeling results are compared to experimental data obtained in the framework of ESA Clean Space initiative: material samples were exposed to different heat flux conditions using the Plasma Wind Tunnel (PWT) facilities at the Institute of Space Systems (IRS) of the University of Stuttgart. This numerical model approximates the heating history of the selected materials by simulating their thermal response and temperature profiles, which have trends similar to the experimental curves that are found. Moreover, when high heat flux conditions are considered, the model simulates the materials’ mass loss due to the ablation process: at the end of the simulation, the difference between the experimental and the modeled results is about 17% for CFRP and 35% for stainless steel. To reduce the model’s uncertainties, the following analysis suggests the need to consider the influence of adequate material thermophysical properties and the physical-chemical processes that affect the samples’ temperature profile and mass loss.

show abstract

“…Hence, the need to eliminate further increase of nonfunctional objects is obvious. Any mission that potentially creates a risk of increasing the debris population should include PMD means and bed designed for demise when applicable [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%