Space Debris and Progress in Active Debris Removal Techniques: A Literature Review

Ethan Tang
Abstract

This review provides an update on current developments of active debris removal (ADR)

solutions and will focus on their advantages and deficiencies. The characteristics unique to solutions

with high adoption viability will be highlighted and provide insight into what direction ADR development

should take in the future. This insight will help in promoting the early implementation of ADR

technologies before the future cost of cleaning up orbital debris becomes prohibitive. Existing studies

have been conducted by various space agencies as well as practical experiments that will be synthesized

together for a comprehensive review. Among the many factors explored in determining successful

solutions, it will become evident that cost should be the most important determinant of viability.

Introduction

Space debris and its negative consequences on space related development and activities is well

documented and modeled. However, the growth of space debris has continued to accelerate over the

last few decades. This has been due to the increase in launches and cascading effect of debris collision.

The continued negative trend has led to current adoption of mitigation procedures and collision

avoidance maneuvers (CAM), but these do nothing to solve the underlying problem. In Options and

Challenges for OD Environment Remediation, Liou demonstrates the continued growth of debris even in

the best-case scenario where no new launches were conducted, which becomes significantly amplified

once the increasing number launches are accounted for. Even worse, the cascading effect can generate

significant increases in the population density of orbital debris and has proven difficult to model. This

effect was evident during the intentional destruction of the Fengyun-1C satellite by an anti-satellite

(ASAT) weapons test, which generated two years’ worth of debris in a single event [2].
 Internationally, space agencies have recognized the need for a more direct approach that

involves ADR to stabilize the environment. They realize that completely removing space debris is not

currently feasible and that the damage to operational equipment occurs from small debris. This is due to

the difficulty in tracking objects smaller than 10cm preventing CAM from being used [5]. The focus is

instead on high-value targets that are the most cost-effective. These targets tend to be large debris that

generate significant debris and are at a high risk of potential collision. Liou notes that about 5 of these

high-value targets need to be removed a year combined with current mitigation procedures to stabilize

debris growth, but other agencies have noted that 10-15 objects may be necessary [1,3]. This points to

ADR solutions that do not need to be adapted for general purpose use, which is not only more difficult,

but costlier. Instead, ADR solutions that can remove these targets cheaply will prove integral to

maintaining the stability of the debris population.

Current Practices

In Cost and Risk Assessment for Spacecraft Operation Decisions Caused by the Space Debris

Environment, Schaub notes that there exist 4 responses to debris during a mission: take no action,

respond by dodging, follow mitigation guidelines, or begin remediation. He further notes that despite

the 4 responses, the operator community relies solely on two responses whereby they take no action or

use CAM. Most of the responses taken by space operators are to do nothing. This either means

increased protection in the form of costlier shielding will be needed or the chance for critical failure of

equipment is taken as it is cheaper to send up a replacement satellite than protect it [5]. If the choice is

made to implement CAM, the cost in the form of spent propellant is still far cheaper than mitigation or

remediation. CAM can only be implemented if the debris is being tracked and as the debris field grows,

the cost of building more comprehensive systems has steadily risen.

 However, the increasing concern over the continued growth of debris has led to best practices

by responsible parties to implement the 25-year rule, which is an unenforced guideline that

recommends that satellites demonstrate intent to remove the equipment within 25-years. This is done

through deorbiting the satellite or by moving it to higher graveyard orbits. This is often coupled with

passivation techniques that were adopted after high-energy impacts with energized equipment proved

particularly devastating for fragmentation. Mitigation has shown to be useful in slowing the growth, but

ineffective in preventing the eventual destabilization of the orbital regions.

Active Debris Removal

Deploying Clouds of Frozen Mist, Gas, or Aerogel

In Removing orbital debris with lasers, Phipps briefly explores the viability of utilizing clouds of

frozen mist, gas, or aerogel to deorbit debris through the drag created by interaction with debris, which

would slow debris enough to cause ablation with Earth’s atmosphere. Phipps notes that it would be very

difficult to control these methods as they will disperse and cause unintended consequences such as

effecting operational equipment. A method to sidestep the dispersion is to utilize gas balloons, but the

400 balloons necessary to clean the region would affect space for useful assets and cost 1.6 trillion to

put into space due [3]. Aerogels would fair slightly better as the necessary aerogel slab 50 centimeters

thick and 13 kilometers wide would be 80 kilotons and require 2.4 billion, but is still too expensive. This

method is imprecise, effecting a large region at enormous cost to both current operators utilizing

targeted regions and the parties responsible for getting the aerogel into space.

Mechanical Grappling and Nets

Multiple methods have been suggested that involve mechanical methods of interacting with

debris that would deorbit debris. Phipps estimates that it would cost $27 million per large object, which

is cheaper than the blanket solution mentioned previously and far more selective. In RUSTLER:
Architecture and Technologies for Low-cost Remediation of the LEO Large Debris Population, Hoyt

advocates the use of the Grapple, Retrieve, and Secure Payload (GRASP) system that combines

mechanical grappling with the use of the Terminator Tape, which enhances aerodynamic drag and

induces passive electrodynamic drag through the interaction with Earth’s magnetic field. He states that

the most common difficulty with grappling debris is the tumbling motion, but the GRASP system side

steps this as the grappler uses of lightweight inflatables that encloses the debris and does not need a

convenient grappling location. The system is designed for multiple uses, but can take up to 25 years to

successfully deorbit microsatellites from up to 850 kilometers [4]. However, smaller objects that are less

than 500 kilograms can be disposed of at low cost [4]. As noted previously, high-value targets are largely

composed of larger debris and while this method is selective, the time needed for deorbiting prevents it

from being utilized to immediately stabilize the orbital regions.

Laser Orbital Debris Removal

Phipps believes that the most effective ADR method is through lasers due to its cost

effectiveness and flexibility. A pulsed laser orbital debris removal (LODR) system would be able to target

both small and large debris from the ground through plasma jets that slow objects for atmospheric

ablation [3]. He specifically refers to pulsed laser removal as low intensity lasers provide are inefficient

in the momentum transfer needed to achieve noticeable results and continuous heating generates

undesired side effects that can generate more debris [3]. Phipps touts the ability of LODR to target small

debris rapidly once paired with current tracking systems and the reusability of the system. He

acknowledges that a single pass of debris through a LODR’s field of view will not be enough to deorbit

larger debris, but notes that there are multiple targets that will continuously pass through the field of

view as they orbit around Earth and this allows for multiple targeting of entire constellations of debris,

which he estimates to take 4.9 years to clear an entire region. Small debris would cost a few thousand

and larger debris a million [3]. However, it should be noted that in the more recent Current Status of
Research and Development on Active Debris Removal at JAXA, Kawamoto states that large objects in

crowded LEO regions are still too heavy to remove by lasers using current technologies at acceptable

costs, which points to the technology that Phipps considered to be ready for implementation has still

not been fully developed.

Electrodynamic Tethering

Kawamoto points to electrodynamic tethering (EDT) to be the most cost-effective of the various

ADR solutions. The technology works through an electromotive force within a conductive tether as it

moves through Earth’s magnetic field. This generates a Lorentz force when electrons are emitted from

one end of the tether [1]. This means that EDT can become incredibly efficient through a propellant free

system, which reduces the weight of the system and allows high mobility between various orbits. EDT

would be paired in conjunction with a small size satellite to minimize launch costs and minimize the

impact of the satellite on the debris field in the case of failure. Kawamoto notes a few difficulties like

mechanical grappling, which involve the difficulty of connecting to complicated tumbling and issues with

docking with non-cooperative targets through the lack of markers or signals. Once connected, the EDT

system could either move targets to an orbital graveyard for future consideration or deorbit the object.

JAXA has an implementation of this system that has been demonstrated through the H-II Transfer

Vehicle and predicts a 1 year time line for deorbiting large LEO debris with a 10 kilometer tether.

Conclusion

The solutions covered in this review cover the most popular technologies currently explored for

remedying the growth of space debris. It is evident that implementation of ADR solutions is required

soon to prevent the modeled growths of the orbital debris population from occurring. A key factor in

holding back adoption of these solutions has been the enormous costs of implementation. This arises

mainly due to attempting to make a solution multi-purpose or through inherent imprecision as

demonstrated with laser orbital debris removal and aerogels, respectively. However, only high-value

targets at risk for collision need to be removed to stabilize the region and as such precise deorbiting

provided through methods like JAXA’s electrodynamic tethering application should be explored instead.

This allows stabilization to be achieved with the removal of a limited number of large targets per year

driving down total cost of implementing ADR solutions.

There are additional costs to consider besides economic ones due to complex nature of space

operations. The LODR system could be prove to be interpreted as a political risk if interpreted as a

weapon and should be built with international understanding of its purpose [3]. Furthermore, the

deorbiting of large debris will often result in intact objects impacting Earth [2]. This means care should

be taken as to prevent reentry ground risk and minimize risk of harm. However, no blame is assessed for

leaving debris in orbit because there exists no technology to remove it. This is counter intuitive because

it means the largest polluters have no incentive to help develop technology as the biggest polluters will

need to pay for the removal themselves [1].

References

1. S. Kawamoto, Y. Ohkawa, et al., Current Status of Research and Development on Active Debris

Removal at JAXA, Proc. 7th European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, (2017,

April 18-21).

2. J.-C. Liou, Options and Challenges for OD Environment Remediation, Canadian Space Agency, St

Hubert, Quebec, Canada (2012, March 28).

3. Claude R. Phipps, Kevin L. Baker, Stephen B. Libby, et al., Removing orbital debris with lasers,

Adv. Space Res. 49 1283–1300 (2012).

4. Hoyt, R. RUSTLER: Architecture and Technologies for Low-cost Remediation of the LEO Large

Debris Population, Proc. NASA/DARPA Orbital Debris Conference (2009).

5. Hanspeter Schaub, Cost and Risk Assessment for Spacecraft Operation Decisions Caused by the

Space Debris Environment, 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada. (2014)