1、IW Ob95534 O002082 Ob8 Special Copyright Notice I992 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT American Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAIAA SP-016 92 0675534 000091B 5Lb AlAA SP-016-1992 Special Projec
2、t L Orbital Debris Mitigation Techniques: Technical, Legal, and Economic Aspects COPYRIGHT American Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAIAA SP-016 92 Ob95534 O000919 452 AIAA SP-O 1 6- 1992 Special Project Report Orbital Debris Mitigation Techniques: Te
3、chnical, Economic, and Legal Aspects Prepared under the auspices of the AIAA Standards Program and the Technical Committee on the Legal Aspects of Aeronautics and Astronautics Abstract This AIAA Special Report addresses the minimization of the orbital debris hazard from an interdisciplinary perspect
4、ive. It reviews a broad range of existing and proposed debris mitigation techniques and presents the results of an AIAA survey of industry and government. It discusses a number of important economic issues associated with orbital debris and provides a first-order economic assessment of the mitigatio
5、n techniques. Finally, the report describes the existing regulatory hework and addresses several options for implementing those techniques, both nationally and internationally. This report is not an AIAA Position Paper. COPYRIGHT American Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsLicensed by Informat
6、ion Handling Services4 i I ii SP-OLb 92 Ob95534 0000920 L34 Orbital debris mitigation techniques : technical, economic, and legal aspects / a special study of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics ; performed under the auspices of the Standards Program and the Technical Committee on
7、 the Legal Aspects of Aeronautics and Astronautics. P. cm. At head of title : Special Project Report Includes bibliograpical references. 1. Space debris I. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Standards Program Orbital Debris Study Group. II. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro
8、nautics Technical Committee on the Legal Aspects of Aeronautics and Astronautics. TL1499.072 1992 “AIAA SP-016-1992. ISBN 1-56347-023-3 (pbk.) 629.4-dc20 92-3610 CIP Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 370 LEnfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC 20024 Copyright O 1992 Ameri
9、can Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, m an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. printed in the United Stares of America COPYRIGHT American Institute of Aeron
10、autics and AstronauticsLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAIAA SP-OLb 92 m Ob95534 0000921 O00 CONTENTS FOREWORD v PARTICIPANTS . vi EXECUTIVESUMMARY 1 1 . INTRODUON . 9 Endnotes 10 2 . THEORBITALDEBRISHAZARD 11 Debris Qtegories 16 Endnotes 18 3 . TECHNICAL ASPECTS 19 SurveyResults . 19 Descri
11、ption of Proposed Mitigation Techniques 19 Analysis of Survey Responses 21 Summary of Survey Results . 27 Preliminary Assessment of Design and Operational Practices . 27 Endnotes 29 4 . ECONOMICASPECTS 31 Economic Impact of Debris and Its Mitigation . 31 Cost-Benefit Tradeoffs . 32 Distribution of W
12、inners and Losers . 32 Scope and Timing . 33 Impacts on Technological Innovation . 34 Preliminary Conclusions . 34 Endnotes 36 5 . LEGALASPECTS 37 Introduction 37 Domestic Legal and Regulatory Considerations . 37 Authority of Governmental Agencies to Regulate Space Debris 38 iii COPYRIGHT American I
13、nstitute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAIAA SP-OLb 92 Ob95534 O000922 Tq7 m AIM SP-016-1992 Options for Incorporating Orbital Debris Mitigation Requirements into the U.S. Regulatory Framework . 41 Intmational Law and Regulation . 44 Current Status of Orbital
14、 Debris in International Law 44 International Forums . 44 Options for Incorporating Orbital Debris Mitigation Requirements into the International Regulatory Framework . 46 Endnotes 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY 49 APPENDIX A: AIAA Survey of Orbital Debris Mitigation Techniques 51 Figures and Tables Figure 2-1 Num
15、ber of Cataloged Space Objects in Orbit as of 27 September 1991 12 Figure 2-2 Projected Growth of Cataloged Debris (larger than 10 cm). 1990.2010 13 Catastrophically as a Result of Random Collisions 14 Figure 2-4 Sources and Lucations of Orbital Debris 17 Table 3-1 Summary of Survey Responses by Cat
16、egory . -22 Figure 5-1 Reprint of U . S . Space Command Regulation 57.2 . 40 Figure 2-3 Rate that Payloads and Spent Rocket Stages Can Be Expected to Breakup Table 4-1 preliminary Technical and Economic Assessment of Debris Mitigation Techniques . . 35 COPYRIGHT American Institute of Aeronautics and
17、 AstronauticsLicensed by Information Handling ServicesAIAA SP-OLb 92 m Ob95534 0000923 983 m AIAA SP-016-1992 Foreword This study was initiated in May 1989 under the combined ausrices of the AIAA Stan- dards Program Orbital Debris Study Group and the Technical Committee on the Legal Aspects of Aeron
18、autics and Astronautics. Significant contributions were also made through the Space Operations and Support Technical Committee. The primary charge to the Study Group was to make a preliminary assessment of the existing and planned orbital debris mitigation techniques in the civilian sector from an i
19、nterdisciplinary perspective that would examine technical, economic, and legal/regulatory aspects. The purpose was to provide guidance to the AMA Standards Program on the mitigation techniques most promising for technical standardization and to recommend national and international regulatory options
20、. The Study Group and its discipline panels held a series of meetings between May 1989 and November 1991, during which we re- ceived briefings by government representa- tives from the National Aeronautics Altoria Bell for secretarial services; and the following individuals who took the time to revie
21、w this report: Jeff Anderson, Howard Baker, Walter Flury, Joel Greenberg, Larry Heacock, Dan Jacobs, Don Kessler, Joe Loftus Paul Maley, Barry Matsurnori, Norman Metzger, Paul Mizera, Ray Nieder, Jack OBrien, Andrew Potter, and Ronald Roehrich. Paul F. Uhlir, Study Group Chairman COPYRIGHT American
22、Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsLicensed by Information Handling ServicesParticipants AIAA Orbital Debris Study Group Steering Committee Paul Uhlir, National Academy of Sciences, (Study Group Chaixman, Economics Panel Chairman, and Legal Panel Co-Chair) (Technical Panel Chairman) Panel Co-C
23、hair) James Kaidy, Bpoz, Allen, that is, they are used to improve spacecraft survivability in a worsening debris environment while also preventing the creation of more debris by protecting the spacecraft from collisions. A comprehensive strategy for ad- dressing the orbital debris problem requires c
24、onsideration of both reac- tive adaptation measures and proac- tive mitigation techniques. This study focuses on the latter approach, however, because the Study Group considers this to be in more urgent need of attention. The Study Group conducted a survey of in- dustry and civil government agencies
25、 and or- ganizations to obtain information on debris mitigation techniques as they relate to each debris class. For each class of debris, sev- eral specific mitigation techniques were pro- vided as options. Survey respondents were asked to indicate which of the listed mitigation techniques they were
26、 already using or were considering for implementation. The following is a summary of the commonly practiced techniques and those favored by respondents for future implementation. 1 COPYRIGHT American Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsLicensed by Information Handling Servicesi AIAA SP-016-92 S
27、ome design and operational techniques already are being used with varying degrees of acceptance: 1) Discarded rocket bodies: * Expulsion of excess propellants and pressurants * Minimization of independent launch vehicle parts allowed to reach orbit * Securing parts to the upper stages * Use of the C
28、ollision Avoidance on Launch (COLA) program. 2) Spacecraft that have terminated their missions: * De-orbit and controlled reentry of low Earth orbit (LEO) spacecraft * Orbit maneuvering to shift spacecraft or components into disposal (grave- yard) orbits (not a long-term solution). 3) Operational de
29、bris released from space- craft during their missions: * Lanyards attached to all potentially releasable items such as camera lens and instrument covers, equipment used by astronauts in extravehicular activities, and other material * Structural attachment of otherwise detachable elements. 4) Fragmen
30、ts originating from explosions or collisions * Increased shielding In addition to the above, other mea- sures appear to have widely acknowl- edged potential. Among these are: 1) Discarded rocket bodies: * Use of separation devices * Use of the Computation of Miss Between Orbits (COMBO) program * Enh
31、ancement of the accuracy of the * Selection of launch times and dates to exploit natural forces for more rapid reentry of debris into the atmosphere. 2) Spacecraft that have terminated their missions: * Retrieval and/or reuse of spacecraft * Use of active beacons for spacecraft muprogram detection a
32、nd avoidance. 3) Operational debris released from space- craft during their missions: * Storing of trash and human waste, and return with logistics flights * De-orbiting trash and human waste for incineration in the atmosphere. 4) Fragments originating from explosions or collisions * Protecting and
33、preventing hardware * Designing for graceful degradation of * Incorporating adequate shielding * Use of low fragmentation materials. No formally adopted technical design or operations standards, guides, or even recommended practices currently exist for the mitigation of orbital debris. Nevertheless,
34、 the survey conducted through this study and supplemented by a review of the literature shows there are already a number of voluntarily adopted and widely practiced techniques. Although certain techniques are more commonly practiced than others, there is an increased awareness of the need to use the
35、m and a trend toward their continuation, both within the public and private sectors. The very existence of these voluntarily adopt- ed design and operational techniques for reducing the amount of artificial debris in Earth orbit leads to several conclusions. One is that both the government and the p
36、rivate sectors recognize that debris poses a potential hazard to operations in Earths orbital envi- ronment. This is not a new finding in the context of government policies. Several re- cent government reports have focused on the problem and have strongly supported imple- mentation of debris mitigat
37、ion techniques. The finding is significant, however, in terms of private sector actions, because any design or operational practices in that sector have been developed voluntarily, rather than in re- sponse to any government regulations or agreements, indicating some level of corpo- rate self intere
38、st. Debris mitigation practices that have been adopted separately by two or more elements from exploding components and systems COPYRIGHT American Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsLicensed by Information Handling Servicesmanufacturers or operators and that have been shown to be effective ind
39、icate the most promising areas to be pursued in the near future. This is especially the case for mitigation techniques practiced by the space agencies or companies of more than one na- tion. That a certain mitigation technique has been successfully used in the operational and commercial space enviro
40、nment provides a presumption in favor of its technical feasibility and cost effectiveness. This, in turn, makes such a technique a logical candi- date for closer investigation as a potential in- dustry or regulatory standard. Nevertheless, no particular debris mitigation technique currently practice
41、d by any portion of the industry provides a sufficiently com- pelling rationale for that technique to become an industry-wide standard without further in- vestigation and analysis. A number of tech- nical and economic tradeoffs still need to be considered. The Study Group has identi3ed four categori
42、es of debris mitigation measures that are the most promising candidates for near-term standardiza- tion, based on a preliminary technical assessment of the survey results and the current knowledge of the debris environment. These categories of techniques have been selected be- cause of their demonst
43、rated accep- tance among a number of spacecraft manufacturers and operators, and because of their potential effectiveness in reducing the debris hazard. 1 ) Venting of residual fuel and pres- surants from discarded rocket bodies. Debris from exploded rocket bodies (34 breakup events recorded as of 1
44、991) accounts for over 1900 of the cataloged objects in Earth orbit. The venting of residual fuel and pressurants is a relatively simple and inexpensive technique already used in many U.S., European, Russian, and Japanese launches, but it has not been adopted by all launching government agencies or
45、companies. 2) Boosting of satellites from AlAA SP-016-92 geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) into disposal orbits. The satellite popula- tion in geosynchronous orbit is growing rapidly. The GE0 is unique for com- munications purposes and for synoptic re- mote sensing observations, making it an im- port
46、ant strategic and economic location. More GE0 satellites have been deployed over the past decade than in all previous years combined, and the launch rate is expected to increase. There is no natural cleansing mech- anism, such as atmospheric drag, so that any hardware deposited in GE0 may remain in-
47、 definitely. A large number of GE0 satellite operators in the U.S. and in other countries already use a variety of boosting techniques, some more effectively than others, near the end of useful life of their spacecraft. These techniques need to be evaluated fully from technical and economic standpoi
48、nts so that a common approach with a minimum set of effective performance standards can be instituted. 3) De-orbiting spent hardware. The majority of all orbital debris consists of rocket bodies and payloads abandoned after their use. If left in space, this class of debris may provide a significant
49、portion of the source material for a self-perpetuating se- quence of collisions in the future. De-orbit- ing objects like these could significantly reduce the risk of collisions and the creation of hazardous fragmentation. 4) Reducing operational debris. Operational debris accounts for approxi- mately 12 percent of all cataloged objects in Earth orbit. Operators of expendable launch vehicles, satellite, and piloted vehicles al- ready have taken some corrective actions to reduce this type of debris. Their practices should be examined to determine the design penalties and cost tradeoff
