AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference 2016
DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-5513
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimization of End-Of-Life Disposal Maneuvers for Highly Eccentric Orbits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this sense, however, the time within which the orbit stability has been verified becomes an important parameter as the orbit may de-stabilize afterwards (Daquin et al, 2016). On the other side, it must be noted that re-entry need to be carefully designed according to casualty risk constraints on ground (Merz et al, 2015). This section will exploit the findings from the previous Sections to design the end-of-life disposal for XMM-Newton mission by enhancing the effect of the natural dynamics or lunisolar and J 2 perturbation.…”
Section: Re-entry or Graveyard Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this sense, however, the time within which the orbit stability has been verified becomes an important parameter as the orbit may de-stabilize afterwards (Daquin et al, 2016). On the other side, it must be noted that re-entry need to be carefully designed according to casualty risk constraints on ground (Merz et al, 2015). This section will exploit the findings from the previous Sections to design the end-of-life disposal for XMM-Newton mission by enhancing the effect of the natural dynamics or lunisolar and J 2 perturbation.…”
Section: Re-entry or Graveyard Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ESA operators manoeuvred INTEGRAL in 2015 such that it will perform a safe re-entry in 2029. The optimal manoeuvre design to enhance the effect of lunisolar perturbations [17,6] was used as starting point for the definition of the re-entry trajectory sequence [46].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While end-of-life (EOL) disposal options are well established for missions in LEO (atmospheric decay) and GEO (near circular graveyards), existing mitigation guidelines do not fully regulate the whole, usable circumterrestrial orbital space, such as high-eccentricity science missions (HEO); e.g., NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS) (Williams, 2012) and ESA's INTErnational Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory (INTEGRAL) (Eismont et al, 2003). The nonnegligible collision risks posed by these LEO-GEO transiting spacecraft has motivated both theoretical study and practical implementation (Armellin et al, 2015;Colombo et al, 2015;Merz et al, 2015). Even for the, seemingly more simple, inclined, nearly circular orbits of the navigation satellites, no official guidelines exist, and recent analyses have shown that the problem is far too complex to allow of an adoption of the basic geosynchronous graveyard strategy (Rosengren et al, 2015;Daquin et al, 2016;Celletti et al, 2016;Gkolias et al, 2016;Rosengren et al, 2017;Skoulidou et al, 2017) The precarious state of the four navigation constellations, perched on the threshold of instability, makes it understandable why past efforts to define stable graveyard orbits, especially in the case of Galileo,3 were bound to fail.…”
Section: The Cataloged Space Debrismentioning
confidence: 99%