Estimation of the possibility of using electric propulsion system for large-sized orbital debris postmission disposal
Heading:
| 1Golubek, AV, 2Dron', MM, 3Petrenko, OM 1Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine 2Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine 3Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine; Space Electric Thruster Systems, Dnipro, Ukraine |
| Space Sci. & Technol. 2023, 29 ;(3):34-46 |
| https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2023.03.034 |
| Publication Language: English |
Abstract: The steady increase in the amount of large-sized orbital debris represents a substantial threat to satellite missions. Currently, many methods of cleaning near-Earth space with the use of various means based on various physical principles are considered. Out of them all, the active method using a rocket propulsion system is the most commonly implemented. Considering the high specific impulse, small size, and mass of electric propulsion systems, they are a particularly attractive choice as means of post-mission disposal. Despite their advantages, such systems have certain peculiarities that need to be considered in the process of designing and implementing modern post-mission disposal means. These peculiarities include the maximum time of a single firing of the electric propulsion system, the maximum time of the battery charging, and the time of operation of the control system.
The purpose of this work is the determination the capabilities of the modern Hall thrusters ST-25 and ST-40 developed by Space Electric Thruster Systems in solving the problem of post-mission disposal of large-sized orbital debris from low-Earth orbits taking into account the limitations on the power supply system. To achieve this goal, methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison, and computer simulation were used. In the course of the carried-out research, the following problems were solved. A scheme for post-mission disposal of large-sized orbital debris from low-Earth orbit was developed with consideration of the use of an electric propulsion system. The dependence was determined of the minimum delta-v increment required for post-mission disposal of an object within 25 years on the initial altitude of the orbit and the ballistic coefficient of the orbital debris. The upper boundary of the combinations of masses of orbital debris, the altitude of the initial orbit, and the ballistic coefficient were determined, for which post-mission disposal from near-Earth orbits is possible with the use of electric propulsion systems.
The obtained results can be used in solving problems of the development of modern means of active post-mission disposal of orbital debris with the use of Hall thrusters developed by Space Electric Thruster Systems.
|
| Keywords: active postmission disposal, electric propulsion system, orbital debris |
References:
1. Levin E., Pearson J., Carroll J. Wholesale debris removal from LEO. Acta astronautica, Volume 73, 100-108 (2012).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.11.014
2. Mark C.P., Kamath S. Review of active space debris removal methods. Space policy, Volume 47, 194-206 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.12.005
3. Sánchez-Arriaga G., Sanmartín J.R., Lorenzini E.C. Comparison of technologies for deorbiting spacecraft from low-Earth-orbit at end of mission. Acta astronautica, Volume 138, 536-542 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.12.004
4. Shan M., Guo J., Gill E. Review and comparison of active space debris capturing and removal methods. Progress in aerospace sciences, Volume 80, 18-32 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.11.001
5. Baranov A.A., Grishko D.A., Khukhrina О.I., Chen D. Optimal transfer schemes between space debris objects in geostationary orbit. Acta astronautica, Volume 169, 23-31 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.001
6. Dron' M., Khorolskyy P., Dubovik L., Hit'ko A., Velykyi I. Estimation of capacity of debris collector with electric propulsion system creation taking in a count energy response of the existing launch vehicles. Proceedings of the 63th International astronautical congress, 2694-2697 (2012).
7. Guerra G., Muresan A.C., Nordqvist K.G., Brissaud A., Naciri N., Luo L. Active space debris removal system. INCAS bulletin, Volume 9(2), 97-116 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.13111/2066-8201.2017.9.2.8
8. Ryden A.K., Fearn G.D. Minimising space debris: advanced propulsion for end-of-life disposal of satellites. Second European spacecraft propulsion conference. Proceedings of the conference, 633-640 (1997).
9. Pergola P., Andrenucci M. Electric propulsion tug for multi-target active space debris removal missions. Proceedings of the 65th International astronautical congress, 7674-7687 (2015).
10. Hakima H., Bazzocchi M.C.F., Emami M.R. A deorbiter CubeSat for active orbital debris removal. Advances in space research, Volume 61(9), 2377-2392 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2018.02.021
11. Huang S., Colombo C., Alessi E.M., Hou Z. Large constellation de-orbiting with low-thrust propulsion. Advances in the astronautical sciences, Volume 168, 2313-2334 (2019).
12. Leomanni M., Bianchini G., Garulli A., Giannitrapani A., Quartullo R. Orbit control techniques for space debris removal missions using electric propulsion. Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, Volume 43(7), 1259-1268 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G004735
13. Okamoto H., Yamamoto T. A novel concept of cost-effective active debris removal spacecraft system. Journal of space safety engineering, Volume 7(3), 345-350 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2020.07.014
14. Hakima H., Bazzocchi M. Low-thrust trajectory design for controlled deorbiting and reentry of space debris. IEEE aerospace conference proceedings (6-13 March 2021) (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO50100.2021.9438278
15. Huanga S., Colomboa C., Alessib E.M., Wanga Y., Houc Z. Low-thrust de-orbiting from low Earth orbit through natural perturbations. Acta astronautica, Volume 195, 145-162 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.02.017
16. Yemets V., Dron' M., Pashkov A. Method to preset gravity load of solid rockets. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, Volume 57(2), 309-318 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A34597
17. Yemets V., Dron M., Pashkov A., Dreus A., Kositsyna Y., Yemets M., Dubovyk L., Kostritsyn O., Zhuravel P. Method to preset G-load profile of launch vehicles. Proceedings of the 71st International Astronautical Congress (2020).
18. Forward R.L., Hoyt R.P., Uphoff C.E. Terminator tether: A spacecraft deorbit device. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, Volume 37(2), 187-196 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.2514/2.3565
19. Makihara K., Takahashi R. Survivability evaluation of electrodynamic tethers considering dynamic fracture in space-debris impact. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, Volume 53(1), 209-216 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33328
20. Alpatov A., Khoroshylov S., Bombardelli C. Relative control of an ion beam shepherd satellite using the impulse compensation thruster. Acta astronautica, Volume 151, 543-554 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.06.056
21. Khoroshylov S. Relative control of an ion beam shepherd satellite in eccentric orbits. Acta Astronautica, Volume 176, 89-98 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.06.027
22. Inamori T., Kawashima R., Saisutjarit P., Sako N., Ohsaki H. Magnetic plasma deorbit system for nano- and micro-satellites using magnetic torque interference with space plasma in low Earth orbit. Acta astronautica, Volume 112, 192-199 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.02.025
23. Shuvalov V.A., Gorev N.B., Tokmak N.A., Kuchugurnyi Yu.P. Drag on a spacecraft produced by the interaction of its magnetic field with the Earth's ionosphere. Physical modelling. Acta astronautica, Volume 166, 41-51 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.10.018
24. Degtyarev A., Kushnar'ov O., Baranov E., Osinovyy G., Lysenko Y., Kaliapin M. Yuzhnoye State Design Office and space debris removal. Spaceops conferences. (28 may - 1 june 2018, Marseille, France) (2018).
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-2384
25. Alpatov A., Palii O., Skorik О. The development of structural design and the selection of design parameters of aerodynamic systems for de-orbiting upper-stage rocket launcher. Science and innovations, Volume 13(4), 29-39 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.15407/scine13.04.029
26. Omar S., Guglielmo D., Bevilacqua R. Drag De-Orbit Device (D3) mission for validation of controlled spacecraft re-entry using aerodynamic drag. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Volume 163, 215-234 (2018).
27. Rasse B., Damilano P., Dupuy C. Satellite inflatable deorbiting equipment for LEO spacecrafts. Journal of space safety engineering, Volume 1(2), 75-83 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-8967(16)30084-2
28. Lücking C., Colombo C., McInnes C.R. Solar radiation pressure-augmented deorbiting: passive end-of-life disposal from high-altitude orbits. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, Volume 50(6), 1256-1267 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A32478
29. Scharring S., Wilken J., Eckel H. A. Laser-based removal of irregularly shaped space debris. Optical engineering, Volume 56(1), 1-7 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.56.1.011007
30. Yang Y., Klein E., Sagnières L. Tumbling object deorbiting using spaceborne laser engagement - a cubesat case study. Advances in space research, Volume 65(7), 1742-1757 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.01.002
31. Dron' M., Golubek A., Dubovik L., Dreus A., Heti K. Analysis of ballistic aspects in the combined method for removing space objects from the nearEarth orbits. Eastern-European journal of enterprise technologies, Volume 2, 5 (98), 49-54 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.161778
32. Golubek A., Dron' M., Dubovik L., Dreus A., Kulyk O., Khorolskiy P. Development of the combined method to de-orbit space objects using an electric propulsion system. Eastern-European journal of enterprise technologies, Volume 4, 5 (106), 78-87 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2020.210378
33. Lapkhanov E., Khoroshylov S.V. Development of the aeromagnetic space debris deorbiting system. Eastern-European journal of enterprise technologies, Volume 5, 5 (101), 30-37 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.179382
34. Alpatov A., Khoroshylov S., Lapkhanov E. Synthesizing an algorithm to control the angular motion of spacecraft equipped with an aeromagnetic deorbiting system. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, Volume 1, 5 (103), 37-46 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2020.192813
35. Golubek A.V. Methods and mathematical models of the combined removal of large-sized orbital debris objects. Extended abstract of doctor's thesis. Dnipro, 38 (2021). Retrieved from:
https://www.dnu.dp.ua/docs/ndc/dissertations/SRD08.051.15/autoreferat_60... [in Ukrainian].
36. Dron' M., Hilorme T., Golubek A., Dreus A., Dubovik L. Determining the performance indicators of employing combined methods for removing space objects from near-earth orbits. Eastern-European journal of enterprise technologies, Volume 1, 3 (115), 6-12 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2022.253096
37. Petrenko O., Voronovskyi D., Yurkov B., Tolok S., Kulagin S. Hall thruster ST-25 developed by space electric thruster systems (SETS). Paper SP2020_00266. Space propulsion 2020 conference (2021).
38. Petrenko O., Tolok S., Perepechkin A., Shcherbak D. Development status of the ST-40 Hall thruster. Paper SP2020_00056. Space propulsion 2020 conference (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.11.014
2. Mark C.P., Kamath S. Review of active space debris removal methods. Space policy, Volume 47, 194-206 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.12.005
3. Sánchez-Arriaga G., Sanmartín J.R., Lorenzini E.C. Comparison of technologies for deorbiting spacecraft from low-Earth-orbit at end of mission. Acta astronautica, Volume 138, 536-542 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.12.004
4. Shan M., Guo J., Gill E. Review and comparison of active space debris capturing and removal methods. Progress in aerospace sciences, Volume 80, 18-32 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.11.001
5. Baranov A.A., Grishko D.A., Khukhrina О.I., Chen D. Optimal transfer schemes between space debris objects in geostationary orbit. Acta astronautica, Volume 169, 23-31 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.001
6. Dron' M., Khorolskyy P., Dubovik L., Hit'ko A., Velykyi I. Estimation of capacity of debris collector with electric propulsion system creation taking in a count energy response of the existing launch vehicles. Proceedings of the 63th International astronautical congress, 2694-2697 (2012).
7. Guerra G., Muresan A.C., Nordqvist K.G., Brissaud A., Naciri N., Luo L. Active space debris removal system. INCAS bulletin, Volume 9(2), 97-116 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.13111/2066-8201.2017.9.2.8
8. Ryden A.K., Fearn G.D. Minimising space debris: advanced propulsion for end-of-life disposal of satellites. Second European spacecraft propulsion conference. Proceedings of the conference, 633-640 (1997).
9. Pergola P., Andrenucci M. Electric propulsion tug for multi-target active space debris removal missions. Proceedings of the 65th International astronautical congress, 7674-7687 (2015).
10. Hakima H., Bazzocchi M.C.F., Emami M.R. A deorbiter CubeSat for active orbital debris removal. Advances in space research, Volume 61(9), 2377-2392 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2018.02.021
11. Huang S., Colombo C., Alessi E.M., Hou Z. Large constellation de-orbiting with low-thrust propulsion. Advances in the astronautical sciences, Volume 168, 2313-2334 (2019).
12. Leomanni M., Bianchini G., Garulli A., Giannitrapani A., Quartullo R. Orbit control techniques for space debris removal missions using electric propulsion. Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, Volume 43(7), 1259-1268 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G004735
13. Okamoto H., Yamamoto T. A novel concept of cost-effective active debris removal spacecraft system. Journal of space safety engineering, Volume 7(3), 345-350 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2020.07.014
14. Hakima H., Bazzocchi M. Low-thrust trajectory design for controlled deorbiting and reentry of space debris. IEEE aerospace conference proceedings (6-13 March 2021) (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO50100.2021.9438278
15. Huanga S., Colomboa C., Alessib E.M., Wanga Y., Houc Z. Low-thrust de-orbiting from low Earth orbit through natural perturbations. Acta astronautica, Volume 195, 145-162 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.02.017
16. Yemets V., Dron' M., Pashkov A. Method to preset gravity load of solid rockets. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, Volume 57(2), 309-318 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A34597
17. Yemets V., Dron M., Pashkov A., Dreus A., Kositsyna Y., Yemets M., Dubovyk L., Kostritsyn O., Zhuravel P. Method to preset G-load profile of launch vehicles. Proceedings of the 71st International Astronautical Congress (2020).
18. Forward R.L., Hoyt R.P., Uphoff C.E. Terminator tether: A spacecraft deorbit device. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, Volume 37(2), 187-196 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.2514/2.3565
19. Makihara K., Takahashi R. Survivability evaluation of electrodynamic tethers considering dynamic fracture in space-debris impact. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, Volume 53(1), 209-216 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33328
20. Alpatov A., Khoroshylov S., Bombardelli C. Relative control of an ion beam shepherd satellite using the impulse compensation thruster. Acta astronautica, Volume 151, 543-554 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.06.056
21. Khoroshylov S. Relative control of an ion beam shepherd satellite in eccentric orbits. Acta Astronautica, Volume 176, 89-98 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.06.027
22. Inamori T., Kawashima R., Saisutjarit P., Sako N., Ohsaki H. Magnetic plasma deorbit system for nano- and micro-satellites using magnetic torque interference with space plasma in low Earth orbit. Acta astronautica, Volume 112, 192-199 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.02.025
23. Shuvalov V.A., Gorev N.B., Tokmak N.A., Kuchugurnyi Yu.P. Drag on a spacecraft produced by the interaction of its magnetic field with the Earth's ionosphere. Physical modelling. Acta astronautica, Volume 166, 41-51 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.10.018
24. Degtyarev A., Kushnar'ov O., Baranov E., Osinovyy G., Lysenko Y., Kaliapin M. Yuzhnoye State Design Office and space debris removal. Spaceops conferences. (28 may - 1 june 2018, Marseille, France) (2018).
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-2384
25. Alpatov A., Palii O., Skorik О. The development of structural design and the selection of design parameters of aerodynamic systems for de-orbiting upper-stage rocket launcher. Science and innovations, Volume 13(4), 29-39 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.15407/scine13.04.029
26. Omar S., Guglielmo D., Bevilacqua R. Drag De-Orbit Device (D3) mission for validation of controlled spacecraft re-entry using aerodynamic drag. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Volume 163, 215-234 (2018).
27. Rasse B., Damilano P., Dupuy C. Satellite inflatable deorbiting equipment for LEO spacecrafts. Journal of space safety engineering, Volume 1(2), 75-83 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-8967(16)30084-2
28. Lücking C., Colombo C., McInnes C.R. Solar radiation pressure-augmented deorbiting: passive end-of-life disposal from high-altitude orbits. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, Volume 50(6), 1256-1267 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A32478
29. Scharring S., Wilken J., Eckel H. A. Laser-based removal of irregularly shaped space debris. Optical engineering, Volume 56(1), 1-7 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.56.1.011007
30. Yang Y., Klein E., Sagnières L. Tumbling object deorbiting using spaceborne laser engagement - a cubesat case study. Advances in space research, Volume 65(7), 1742-1757 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.01.002
31. Dron' M., Golubek A., Dubovik L., Dreus A., Heti K. Analysis of ballistic aspects in the combined method for removing space objects from the nearEarth orbits. Eastern-European journal of enterprise technologies, Volume 2, 5 (98), 49-54 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.161778
32. Golubek A., Dron' M., Dubovik L., Dreus A., Kulyk O., Khorolskiy P. Development of the combined method to de-orbit space objects using an electric propulsion system. Eastern-European journal of enterprise technologies, Volume 4, 5 (106), 78-87 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2020.210378
33. Lapkhanov E., Khoroshylov S.V. Development of the aeromagnetic space debris deorbiting system. Eastern-European journal of enterprise technologies, Volume 5, 5 (101), 30-37 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.179382
34. Alpatov A., Khoroshylov S., Lapkhanov E. Synthesizing an algorithm to control the angular motion of spacecraft equipped with an aeromagnetic deorbiting system. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, Volume 1, 5 (103), 37-46 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2020.192813
35. Golubek A.V. Methods and mathematical models of the combined removal of large-sized orbital debris objects. Extended abstract of doctor's thesis. Dnipro, 38 (2021). Retrieved from:
https://www.dnu.dp.ua/docs/ndc/dissertations/SRD08.051.15/autoreferat_60... [in Ukrainian].
36. Dron' M., Hilorme T., Golubek A., Dreus A., Dubovik L. Determining the performance indicators of employing combined methods for removing space objects from near-earth orbits. Eastern-European journal of enterprise technologies, Volume 1, 3 (115), 6-12 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2022.253096
37. Petrenko O., Voronovskyi D., Yurkov B., Tolok S., Kulagin S. Hall thruster ST-25 developed by space electric thruster systems (SETS). Paper SP2020_00266. Space propulsion 2020 conference (2021).
38. Petrenko O., Tolok S., Perepechkin A., Shcherbak D. Development status of the ST-40 Hall thruster. Paper SP2020_00056. Space propulsion 2020 conference (2021).