Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Active debris removal — where it appears

Capturing a defunct satellite or rocket body in orbit and lowering it to burn up in the atmosphere. The targets tumble and carry no fittings for capture, so matching the motion of a grapple point, not reaching the orbit, sets most of the cost.

Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

How much future debris each removal prevents. The share of the derelict population's expected future fragment production removed, against the number of objects removed, out of 1858, for three orders of removal: by the ranking weight — collision rate times fragments times fragment lifetime — by mass alone, and at random. Removing the 200 top-ranked objects removes 70 per cent; the top fifty alone, 45 per cent; the top ten, 19. Removing by mass does nearly as well at first and falls behind, because mass is most of the weight and altitude the rest. Removing at random, fifty objects remove 3.5 per cent. The population is synthetic, built to the published inventory's broad shape; the concentration of risk in a few tens of heavy upper stages is the finding the real analyses also make.

Fifty objects that hold most of the future

Low Earth orbit holds thousands of dead satellites and spent rocket stages, and the debris of the future will come mostly from their collisions. But not in equal shares. A derelict's contribution is the chance it is hit, times the fragments it would make, times how long they would stay up — and all three favour the heaviest objects in the most crowded, highest orbits. Ranked that way, a few tens of rocket bodies near 850 kilometres carry nearly half the risk, and the arithmetic of cleaning space becomes the arithmetic of choosing them.

spaceflight · Orbital debris What it costs to follow a turning grapple point. The velocity a chaser must spend each minute to hold station on a grapple point carried round by a flat spin, ω²r × 60 s, against the spin rate in degrees per second, for points 1, 3, 10 m from the spin axis, both axes logarithmic. The dashed line is what holding station 10 m from a target in a 400 km orbit costs in the same units, from the orbital dynamics alone: 2.3 mm/s per minute. At 1° per second, a point 3 m out costs 5 cm/s per minute — 24 times the orbital term; at 5° per second, 1.4 m/s per minute, 595 times. The cost rises as the square of the rate, so a target spinning twice as fast is four times as expensive to follow, and above a few tenths of a degree per second the orbit — the whole subject of the approach up to this point — has become the small correction.

A grapple point that moves faster than the orbit

Every rendezvous problem up to the last few metres is orbital mechanics: two bodies in nearly the same orbit, drifting apart and together under gravity. A derelict satellite tumbling at a few degrees a second changes the problem entirely. Holding station on a point of its surface costs more each minute than a week of orbital station-keeping, the moment to grab it comes and goes in seconds, and a free tumble never repeats — so the orbit becomes a small correction to a problem in rotation.

spaceflight · Rendezvous Removals a year, set almost entirely by one percentage. The number of derelicts that must be removed each year to hold a shell at 50 per cent of its critical count, against the fraction of disposals that fail, for a 650-satellite constellation at 800, 1000, 1200 km. Because a dead satellite at these heights stays up for centuries, almost every failure has to be removed by hand, and the removal rate is very nearly the failure rate: at 1200 km, 13 a year if ninety per cent of disposals succeed and 1.3 if ninety-nine do. The removal budget is therefore set by an engineering reliability rather than by the orbital environment, and a percentage point of reliability is worth a fixed number of removal missions a year for as long as the constellation flies. Five removals a year is enough for this shell only above 96.2 per cent reliability.

A removal rate set by one percentage

How many dead satellites have to be taken out of a high orbit each year is decided less by the orbit than by how often a satellite fails to dispose of itself. Above eight hundred kilometres a derelict stays for centuries, so the removal rate needed to keep a shell stable is very nearly the failure rate, and moving disposal reliability from ninety per cent to ninety-nine cuts the work tenfold.

spaceflight · Orbital debris

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Kessler syndromeOrbital debrisOrbital lifetimePost-mission disposalAngular momentumAtmospheric dragBreakup modelThe Clohessy–Wiltshire equationsCollision probabilityCollision rateInertia tensorMoment of inertia

All concepts