Thermal analysis of space debris for infrared-based active debris removal

Abstract

In space, visual based relative navigation systems suffer from dynamic illumination conditions of the target (Eclipse conditions, solar glare...etc.) where most of these issues are addressed by advanced mission planning techniques. However, such planning would not be always feasible or even if it is, it would not be straightforward for Active Debris Removal (ADR) missions. On the other hand, using an infrared based system would overcome this problem, if a guideline to predict infrared signature of space debris based on the target thermal profile could be provided for algorithm design and testing. Spacecraft thermal design is unique to every platform. This means every ADR target will have a different infrared signature which changes over time not just only due to orbital dynamics but also due to its thermal surface coatings. In order to provide a space debris infrared signature guideline for most of the possible ADR targets, we introduce an innovative grouping system for thermal surface coatings based on their behaviour in Space environment. Through the use of this grouping system, we propose a space debris infrared signature estimation method which was extensively verified by our simulations and experiments. During our verifications, we have also found out very important problem so called "Signature Ambiguity" that is unique to Infrared Based Active Debris Removal (IR-ADR) systems which we have also discussed in our work.

Review of the robustness and applicability of monocular pose estimation systems for relative navigation with an uncooperative spacecraft

“…Finally, the infrared characteristics of the target spacecraft should be fully understood in order to maximize the performance of the NIR/TIR cameras. Although Yilmaz et al [30] proposed an infrared signature estimation method capable of characterizing the dynamical thermal behaviour of space debris, some effort is still required to assess its validity and to confirm whether an exact infrared appearance model of the target is needed for a robust relative navigation solution which relies on IR images.…”

Evaluating 3D local descriptors and recursive filtering schemes for LIDAR‐based uncooperative relative space navigation

“…Typical distances for close‐proximity operations range from a few meters up to tens of meters and depend on the sensors employed, the type of operation and the target size (Fehse, ). The need for autonomous navigation extends to a wide range of tasks such as controlled orbiting, docking, and close range rendezvous that are required for space missions such as active debris removal (Bonnal, Ruault, & Desjean, ; Yılmaz, Aouf, Majewski, Sanchez‐Gestido, & Ortega, ), celestial body exploration, for example, comets and asteroids (Cheng, ) and on‐orbit servicing (Flores‐Abad, Ma, Pham, & Ulrich, ).…”

“…In the context of close‐proximity space navigation, the sensors typically used are electro‐optical with the majority of current solutions relying on passive sensors using visual or infrared (IR; thermal) sensing devices in a monocular or stereo camera configuration, or alternatively three‐dimensional (3D) LIDAR for active systems (Opromolla, Fasano, Rufino, & Grassi, ). Indeed, current space relative navigation solutions involve 2D visual data in a monocular (Krämer, Hardt, & Kuhnert, ; C. Liu & Hu, ) or a stereo camera configuration (Li, Lian, Guo, & Wang, ; Maimone, Cheng, & Matthies, ; Tykkala & Comport, ; Cheng, Maimone, & Matthies, ), two‐dimensional (2D) IR data (Yılmaz et al, ) and 3D light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data (Galante et al, ; Gómez Martínez, Giorgi, & Eissfeller, ; Naasz & Moreau, ; Opromolla, Di Fraia, Fasano, Rufino, & Grassi, ; Opromolla, Fasano, Rufino, & Grassi, ; Opromolla, Fasano, Rufino, & Grassi, ; Sell, Rhodes, Woods, Christian, & Evans, ; Song, ; Volpe, Palmerini, & Sabatini, ; Woods & Christian, ). For a comprehensive review on spaceborne sensors for spacecraft pose determination the reader is referred to Opromolla et al ().…”

“…Utilizing sensors that exploit passive data, that is, visual or IR, can be an effective solution that is characterized by low hardware complexity, cost, and power consumption due to neglecting a transmitting device. Using visual and IR sensors can be an effective solution, however, IR has several advantages over the visual domain such as operating during day and night under several harsh illumination conditions like eclipse and solar glare (Yılmaz et al, ). Despite these advantages, the performance of IR odometry depends on the temperature of the Target platform, which is affected by both internal parameters, for example, heat dissipation of the platform's components and external parameters, for example, reflection of sun's radiation.…”

“…Despite these advantages, the performance of IR odometry depends on the temperature of the Target platform, which is affected by both internal parameters, for example, heat dissipation of the platform's components and external parameters, for example, reflection of sun's radiation. This temperature fluctuation can affect the robustness of the IR‐based local feature detection and matching technique presented in current literature (Yılmaz et al, ). On the contrary, 3D LIDAR‐based odometry outmatches its 2D counterparts (visual and IR) as it operates during day and night, is independent of the Target ’ s thermal properties, is capable of revealing the underlying structure of an object (Guo, Sohel, Bennamoun, Lu, & Wan, ), can provide full Target pose estimation (6‐DoF), can discriminate the target from the background, is robust in poor visibility conditions, and has a greater operating distance compared to the maximum stereo odometry range that poses acceptable accuracy (Opromolla et al, ).…”