they should be in densely populated regions and have a large cross-sectional area) Should have high collision probabilities (e.g.The selected objects should have a high mass (they have the largest environmental impact in case of collision).Studies at ESA and NASA show that with a removal sequence planned according to a target selection based on mass, area, or cumulative collision risk, the environment can be stabilised when on the order of 5–10 objects are removed from LEO per year (although the effectiveness of each removal decreases as more objects are removed).Īctive removal is efficient Simulation of the GEO environment with & without mitigation measuresĪctive removal can be more efficient in terms of the number of collisions prevented versus objects removed when the following principles are applied for the selection of removal targets, which can be used to generate a criticality index and the according list: A controlled deorbit could be performed (as large removal targets typically are also most critical in terms of on-ground risk).Decommissioned objects could also be removed.The most critical objects (those that would generate the most fragments in case of any collision, and that have a higher collision risk) could be removed from the environment first.
Therefore, in order to reduce the number of big objects in LEO, the only option is to actively remove large objects now in orbit and having a long remaining lifetime in space. Therefore, limiting the launch rate or a further reduction of the allowed lifetime in orbit after the end of the mission (which would be two options to reduce the overall number of intact objects in space) do not seem feasible, because they cannot be mandated.įor all new objects, strong compliance with post-mission mitigation measures would allow maintaining the number of intact objects at a level similar to the current one, and avoid having to deal with more objects in addition to those already in orbit. Limiting launch rates neither feasible nor helpful
0 kommentar(er)
