Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft An Assessment of NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
14 Compiled List of Findings and Recommendations
14 Compiled List of Findings and Recommendations
Pages 94-100
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 94... ...
CHAPTER 2: ORBITAL DEBRIS ENVIRONMENT: DETECTION AND MONITORING Finding: The current lack of radar cross-section calibrations using fragments from a larger range of materials used in modern satellites and rocket bodies, as well as non-fragmentation debris, represents a significant source of uncertainty in interpreting key measurements of the orbital debris environment. Finding: NASA's orbital debris programs do not include the capability to monitor with in situ instrumen tation the penetrating flux of objects smaller than a few millimeters.
|
From page 95... ...
Recommendation: The NASA meteoroid and orbital debris programs should establish a baseline effort to evaluate major uncertainties in the Meteoroid Environment Model regarding the meteoroid envi ronment in the following areas: (1) meteoroid velocity distributions as a function of mass; (2)
|
From page 96... ...
Recommendation: Although NASA should continue to allocate priority attention and resources to col lision risks and conjunction analysis, it should also work toward a broad integrative risk analysis to obtain a probabilistic risk assessment of the overall risks present in the MMOD domain in which all sources of risk can be put in context. Finding: The calculation and communication of information about uncertainty are critical to properly assessing operational alternatives based on calculated risks posed by orbital debris.
|
From page 97... ...
Recommendation: In regard to debris reentry risk, NASA should provide confidence bounds on and uncertainty estimates of the resulting risk levels for use in both the Debris Assessment Software and Object Reentry Survival Analysis Tool. Finding: The reentry hazard programs used by NASA and the European Space Agency to determine the risk to people on the ground from reentering debris differ in how those thresholds are defined.
|
From page 98... ...
Eventually, this effort could provide data to upgrade current MMOD models -- the Meteoroid Environment Model, Orbital Debris Environment Model, and BUMPER. CHAPTER 11: ISSUES EXTERNAL TO NASA Finding: NASA's Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices, including the "25-year rule," and NASA's Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris do not uniformly apply to non-NASA missions, launches, and payloads.
|
From page 99... ...
CHAPTER 13: PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE Finding: The long-lived problem of growth in the orbital debris population as a result of debris self collision and propagation requires that NASA take a long-term perspective to safeguard the space environment for future generations. Finding: Although the meteoroid and orbital debris environment may be manageable at present, debris avoidance, mitigation, surveillance, tracking, and response all require money.
|
From page 100... ...
Recommendation: NASA should join with other agencies to develop and provide more explicit informa tion about the costs of debris avoidance, mitigation, surveillance, and response. These costs should be inventoried and monitored over time to provide critical information for measuring and monitoring the economic impact of the meteoroid and orbital debris problem, signaling when mitigation guidelines may need revision, and helping to evaluate investments in technology for active debris removal.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.