Comparative Assessment of Target Capture Techniques for Space Debris Removal with CubeSats

Abstract

The use of CubeSats for space debris removal represents a possible avenue for enabling non-governmental operators to become involved in the maintenance of space. While their small size and inexpensive components reduce barriers to entry for universities and companies, certain technical challenges are magnified by CubeSats' low inertia and power limitations. One such area is target capture, in which an approaching CubeSat must establish a secure contact point with a debris object prior to beginning the detumbling or deorbiting process. This paper discusses nets, harpoons, and robotic arms as three possible strategies for target capture. Each method is examined to identify key regimes of possible feasibility for CubeSat applications. A dynamics model is introduced and utilized to simulate the relative motion of a CubeSat tethered to a debris object, a situation encountered with both harpoon and net capture. Di erences in potential operating regimes are highlighted for the three methods, and conclusions are drawn about their possible realms of e ectiveness. I. Nomenclature Abbreviations ADCSAttitude determination and control subsystem ADR Active debris removal CONOPS Concept of operations TeRBoDOT Tethered Rigid Body Dynamics Observation Tool Subscripts and Superscripts AE (.) Vector (.)| C Indicates quantity (.) at time C

Design of an Integrated Platform for Active Debris Removal

“…Although the proposed methods for active debris removal (ADR) have their own advantages, they also have prominent shortcomings, and thus it is difficult for them to meet mission requirements in practice. In the capture phase, a robotic arm is only suitable for capturing non-spinning or slow-spinning targets of regular shapes and is unable to capture non-cooperative targets with a high spinning rate [1][2][3][4]; a tethered net is suitable for non-cooperative spinning targets and has been verified by experiments in a microgravity environment [5], but its technical maturity is too low, and the net closing mechanism is not reliable [6,7]; a harpoon can be used repeatedly, but it may generate more and more small debris during its collision with the target, and it may ricochet when the target is spinning or has a thick shell [8][9][10]. In the deorbit phase, a post-capture phase, passive deorbit methods such as drag sails not only have strict requirements in the space environment, but also have long-running operations [11,12].…”