No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Simulation of the orbital decay of a spacecraft in low Earth orbit due to aerodynamic drag
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 October 2021
Abstract
Orbiting objects in space are exposed to the risk of collision with space debris over their lifetime. Space debris orbiting in space experiences orbital decay due to various orbital perturbations. This work considers only orbital perturbations due to aerodynamic forces, which spacecraft experience due to the presence of a rarefied atmosphere, causing tumbling motion and orbital decay. Analysis of the orbital decay of a spacecraft is carried out by considering the variation of the drag coefficient as a function of its shape, motion and angle-of-attack. An in-house Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) solver is modified for aerodynamic analysis of a spacecraft orbiting in the free molecular regime in low Earth orbit. In addition, an orbital dynamics model is developed to simulate the tumbling motion of a spacecraft and its orbital decay. The orbital decay trajectory is predicted for two sample spacecrafts using the aerodynamic coefficients obtained from the in-house DSMC solver as inputs to the orbital decay model. This study analyses and explores in detail the effects of the aerodynamic coefficients and shape of a spacecraft on its orbital decay.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
References
Rossi, A. and Valsecchi, G.B. Collision risk against space debris in Earth orbits, Celestial Mech. Dyn. Astron., 2006, 95, (11), pp 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meja-Kaiser, M. Space Law and Hazardous Space Debris, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omar, S.R. and Bevilacqua, R. Spacecraft collision avoidance using aerodynamic drag, J. Guidance Control Dyn., 2020, 43, (3), pp 567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liou, J., Matney, M., Vavrin, A., Manis, A. and Gates, D. NASA ODPO’s large constellation study, Orbital Debris Q. News, 2018, 22, (3), pp 4.Google Scholar
Kessler, D.J. and Cour-Palais, B.G. Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 1978, 83, (A6), pp 2637–2646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yehia, A.A. An analytical theory for avoidance collision between space debris and operating satellites in LEO, Appl. Math. Model., 2013, 37, (18), pp 8283–8291.Google Scholar
Grossir, G., Puorto, D., Ilich, Z., Paris, S., Chazot, O., Rumeau, S., Spel, M. and Annaloro, J. Aerodynamic characterization of space debris in the VKI Longshot hypersonic tunnel using a free-flight measurement technique, Exp. Fluids, 2020, 61, (7), pp 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King-Hele, D. and Walker, D. The last minutes of satellite 1957
$\beta$
(Sputnik 2), Nature, 1958, 182, (4633), pp 426–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
$\beta$
(Sputnik 2), Nature, 1958, 182, (4633), pp 426–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarKing-Hele, D., Walker, D. and Neirinck, P. The decay of COSMOS 253 rocket over England, Tech Rep, Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough (England), 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monogarov, K.A., Melnikov, I.N., Drozdov, S.M., Dilhan, D., Frolov, Y.V., Muravyev, N.V. and Pivkina, A.N. Pyrotechnic approach to space debris destruction: From thermal modeling to hypersonic wind tunnel tests, Acta Astronautica, 2020, 172, pp 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, J., Li, Z., Li, X. and Shi, W. Monte Carlo simulation of spacecraft reentry aerothermodynamics and analysis for ablating disintegration, Commun. Comput. Phys., 2018, 23, (4), pp 1037–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Peng, A., Ma, Q., Dang, Q., Tang, X. and Sun, X. Gas-kinetic unified algorithm for computable modeling of Boltzmann equation and application to aerothermodynamics for falling disintegration of uncontrolled Tiangong-No. 1 spacecraft, Adv. Aerodyn., 2019, 1, (1), pp 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, A., Li, Z., Wu, J. and Jiang, X. Implicit gas-kinetic unified algorithm based on multi-block docking grid for multi-body reentry flows covering all flow regimes, J. Comput. Phys., 2016, 327, pp 919–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Ma, Q. and Cui, J. Finite element algorithm for dynamic thermoelasticity coupling problems and application to transient response of structure with strong aerothermodynamic environment, Commun. Comput. Phys., 2016, 20, (3), pp 773–810, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De-Lafontaine, J. and Garg, S. A review of satellite lifetime and orbit decay prediction, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Sect. C Eng. Sci., 1982, 5, (3), pp 197–258.Google Scholar
De-Lafontaine, J. and Garg, S. A review of satellite lifetime and orbit decay prediction, Tech Rep, University of Toronto, 1980.Google Scholar
Park, S.H., Kim, H.D. and Park, G.Orbit, orbital lifetime, and reentry survivability estimation for orbiting objects, Adv. Space Res., 2018, 62, (11), pp 3012–3032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterne, T.E. An atmospheric model, and some remarks on the inference of density from the orbit of a close earth satellite, Astron. J., 1958, 63, pp 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J.J.F. and Alford, R.L. Semianalytic theory for a close-Earth artificial satellite, J. Guid. Control, 1980, 3, (4), pp 304–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, C.C. and Platt, M.H. An accurate and efficient tool for orbit lifetime predictions, Proceedings of the 1st AAS/AIAA Annual Spaceflight Mechanics Meeting, AAS, Houston, 1991, pp 11–24.Google Scholar
Dutt, P. and Anilkumar, A.K. Orbit propagation using semi-analytical theory and its applications in space debris field, Astrophys. Space Sci., 2017, 362, (2), pp 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cefola, P.J., Phillion, D. and Kim, K.S. Improving access to the semi-analytical satellite theory, pre-print AAS 09-341, AAS/AIAA Astrodynamic Specialist Conference, Pittsburg, PA, 2009.Google Scholar
Afful, M.A. Orbital Lifetime Predictions of Low Earth Orbit Satellites and the Effect of a DeOrbitSail, Masters Thesis: Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University, 2013.Google Scholar
San-Juan, J.F., San-Martn, M., Pérez, I. and López, R. Hybrid perturbation methods based on statistical time series models, Adv. Space Res., 2016, 57, (8), pp 1641–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallado, D.A. Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications, vol. 12, Springer Science and Business Media, 2001.Google Scholar
Dell’Elce, L., Arnst, M. and Kerschen, G. Probabilistic assessment of the lifetime of low-earth-orbit spacecraft: uncertainty characterization, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 2015, 38, (5), pp 900–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, A. Comparison of national space debris mitigation standards, Adv. Space Res., 2001, 28, (9), pp 1447–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M.V., Weaver, M.A. and Baker, R.L. A probabilistic paradigm for spacecraft random reentry disassembly, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 2005, 90, (2), pp 148–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z., Hu, R., Qu, X., Wang, X. and Wu, Z. Space debris reentry analysis methods and tools, Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2011, 24, (4), pp 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochelle, W.C., Kinsey, R.E., Reid, E.A., Reynolds, R.C. and Johnson, N.L. Spacecraft Orbital Debris Reentry: Aerothermal Analysis, Tech Rep, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1997.Google Scholar
Lips, T., Fritsche, B., Koppenwallner, G. and Klinkrad, H. Spacecraft Destruction during Reentry-Latest Results and Development of the SCARAB Software System, Adv. Space Res., 2004, 34, (5), pp 1055–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, E.J., Cho, S., Lee, D.J., Kim, S. and Jo, J.H. A study on re-entry predictions of uncontrolled space objects for space situational awareness, J. Astron. Space Sci., 2017, 34, (4), pp 289–302.Google Scholar
Lips, T. and Fritsche, B. A Comparison of commonly used re-entry analysis tools, Acta Astronaut., 2005, 57, pp 312–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrifield, J., Beck, J., Markelov, G. and Molina, R. Simplified aerothermal models for destructive entry analysis, 8th European Symposium and Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, 2015.Google Scholar
Sim, H.S. and Kim, K.H. Reentry survival analysis of tumbling metallic hollow cylinder, Adv. Space Res., 2011, 48, (5), pp 914–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, P., Minisci, E., Vasile, M., Walker, A.C. and Brown, M. An open source hypersonic aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic modelling tool, 8th European Symposium and Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, 2015.Google Scholar
Chinnappan, A.K., Kumar, R., Arghode, V.K., Kammara, K.K. and Levin, D. Correlations for aerodynamic coefficients for prolate spheroids in the free molecular regime, Comput. Fluids, 223, 2021, pp 104934
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinnappan, A.K., Kumar, R. and Arghode, V.K. Modeling of dusty gas flows due to plume impingement on a lunar surface, Phys. Fluids, 2021, 33, pp 053307
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, G.A. Molecular Gas Dynamics and the Direct Simulation of Gas Flows, Clarendon, 1994.Google Scholar
Li, Z., Fang, M., Jiang, X. and Wu, J. Convergence proof of the DSMC Method and the gas-kinetic unified algorithm for the Boltzmann equation, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 2013, 56, (2), pp 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Li, Z., Wu, J. and Peng, A. Coupled Navier–Stokes/direct simulation Monte Carlo simulation of multicomponent mixture plume flows, J. Propulsion Power, 2014, 30, (3), pp 672–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Cai, C. and Li, Z. Efficient DSBGK simulations of the low speed thermal transpiration gas flows through micro-channels, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Trans., 2020, 119, pp 104924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, R. and Chinnappan, A.K. Development of a multi-species, parallel, 3D direct simulation Monte-Carlo solver for rarefied gas flows, Comput. Fluids, 2017, 159, pp 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinnappan, A.K., Kumar, R., Arghode, V.K. and Myong, R.S. Transport dynamics of an ellipsoidal particle in free Molecular gas flow regime, Phys. Fluids, 2019, 31, (3), pp 037104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambre, P.A. and Schaaf, S.A. Flow of Rarefied Gases, vol. 4971, Princeton University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Cook, G.E. The Effect of aerodynamic lift on satellite orbits, Planet. Space Sci., 1964, 12, (11), pp 1009–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pontieu, B. Database of photometric periods of artificial satellites, Adv. Space Res., 1997, 19, (2), pp 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King-Hele, D. Theory of Satellite Orbits in an Atmosphere, vol. 4, Butterworths, 1964.Google Scholar
Wertz, J.R., Everett, D.F. and Puschell, J.J. Space Mission Engineering: the New SMAD, vol. 1, Microcosm Press, 2011, Hawthorne, CA.Google Scholar
Kennewell, J. Satellite orbital decay calculations, Australian Space Weather Agency, 1999, pp 1–11.Google Scholar
Griffith, B. and Boylan, D. Postflight (AS-202) Apollo command module aerodynamic simulation tests,” Tech Rep, Arnold Engineering Development Center Arnold AFB TN, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G.E. Satellite drag coefficients, Planet. Space Sci., 1965, 13, (10), pp. 929–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar