Info

l-May-91

From History of On-orbit Satellite Fragmentations [4]

From History of On-orbit Satellite Fragmentations [4]

The cumulative size distributions of the events are shown in Figure 1. They are derived from observations from the US Space Surveillance Network. Fragments smaller than about 10 cm are beyond the sensitivity limit of the radars. Based on the data, it appears that a simple power-law size distribution is adequate to represent these events:

Figure 1. Seven on-orbit explosions and the new NASA explosion model.

Diameter (m)

Figure 1. Seven on-orbit explosions and the new NASA explosion model.

cum J

where Ncum is the number of fragments greater than diameter L (in meters), and sf is a scaling factor. Based on the available observations, the scaling factor is 1 for a regular rocket body; 0.1 for a Soviet/Russian Proton ullage motor; 0.1 for a Molniya orbit Soviet Early Warning satellite; 0.25 for an Ukrainian Tsyklon third stage; 0.3 for a Soviet Anti-Satellite (ASAT); 0.5 for a Soviet battery-related explosion; 0.6 for a Soviet Electronic Ocean Reconnaissance Satellite (EORSAT); and 2 for a Titan Transtage.

2.2. CoIIisional fragment size distribution

The previous EVOLVE breakup model assumed that there were two types of collisions: catastrophic and non-catastrophic. Fragments of a catastrophic collision followed two size distributions, a power-law distribution and a low-intensity explosion distribution. The two components varied with the projectile-to-target mass ratio [3]. The model was complex and again not supported by observational data.

Table 2 lists the hypervelocity impact experiments [5, 6, 7] and one on-orbit collision (P78/SOLWIND) used to derive the new fragment size distribution.

Table 2

Collision experiments/event used to derive the new fragment size distribution

Collision experiments/event used to derive the new fragment size distribution

Table 2

Name

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment