ACCORD Aim: Provide a mechanism for communicating the efficacy of current debris mitigation practices & identifying opportunities for strengthening European capability Combining capability and capacity indicators within an Environmental Impact Rating System Alignment of Capability and Capacity for the Objective of Reducing Debris Communicating the Effectiveness of Space Debris Mitigation Practices The ACCORD Environmental Impact Rating System Simon George 1 Benjamin Schwarz 1, Hugh Lewis 1, Hedley Stokes Clean Space Workshop Tuesday 29 th October 2013

Environmental Impact Rating System Interactive tool to evaluate how design & operation of a prospective spacecraft may impact the space debris environment –Free, voluntary industry tool for spacecraft designers and operators –Final system will be implemented in a web-tool and hosted client-side to ensure privacy Communicate how mitigation measures and good design practices can improve environmental impact Assist spacecraft designers in achieving compliance with debris mitigation measures set out in IADC guidelines & ISO standards Clean Space Workshop Tuesday 29 th October 2013

User-Specified Inputs: Construction of Rating System Environmental Impact Rating Orbit Data Altitude Inclination Mitigation Measures Used How Mitigation Measures are Implemented Quantify impact of a prospective spacecraft on the space debris environment A single ‘score’ for a prospective spacecraft –On-Orbit Mass –Perigee Altitude –Orbital Inclination –Mitigation Measures Implemented –How Mitigation Measures are Implemented in Design Data derived from ACCORD industry survey of implementation of debris mitigation measures Clean Space Workshop Tuesday 29 th October 2013

“ Health ” ~ Assess the “health” of the space environment with respect to 2 ‘goals’: 1.Widespread Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2.“Benign” Space Debris Environment Space “Health” Index Leads to a measure of a “healthy” space environment to be used in the impact rating calculation A measure of the long-term sustainability of outer space activities Clean Space Workshop Tuesday 29 th October 2013 A measure of how well the goal has been realised For each goal, the index calculates a score (out of 100)

Rating Parameters: 1.Debris score for the prescribed orbital region (how “crowded” the region is) 2.The capacity of applied mitigation measures to limit the generation of new debris (from DAMAGE) 3.How the prospective spacecraft affects the “health” index in the given orbital region (re-calculate “health” index) 2. Environmental Impact Rating Environmental Impact Rating Defines LEO Region Orbit Data Altitude Inclination Mitigation Measures Used How Mitigation Measures are Implemented User Inputs Crowding of Debris in LEO Region Capacity of Mitigation to Limit Future Debris Modification to “Health” Index for LEO Region “Health” Index All scores expressed out of 100 Weighted average, giving preference to capacity score Final Rating

Inputs: Mass: 1000kg Altitude: 795km Inclination: 98  Applied Mitigation Measures: - Collision Avoidance - Passivation - Avoid Accidental Break-Up + Post-Mission Disposal Representative ‘Certificate’ Generates Client-Side PDF

Industry Engagement Astronautics Research Group Further Information: Dr. Hugh Lewis Contact: Invitation to test prototype rating system and provide feedback on its operation & design [exhibition area, or contact Dr. Hugh Lewis privately] Final system will be implemented in a web-tool and hosted client-side to ensure privacy All comments and feedback are welcomed See also: ACCORD poster in exhibition area Funding provided by the European Union Framework 7 Programme (Project No ). Thanks to Carsten Wiedemann (TU Braunschweig), Adam White (University of Southampton), Richard Tremayne-Smith, and Holger Krag (ESA Space Debris Office) Clean Space Workshop Tuesday 29 th October 2013

1. Space “Health” Index Outside influences affect achievement of goal: –‘Pressures’ cause deviation away from goal –‘Resiliences’ direct status towards goal For each goal, the index calculates: ‘Present’ status measured value, relative to a defined reference point Predicted ‘Near-Future’ status estimated using trend of status over previous 5 years, pressures and resiliences 8 Technique adapted from Ocean Health Index Halpern et al. (2012, Nature) Goal Present Status Near-Future Likely Status Measured Value Reference Point 5 Year Trend PressuresResiliences ADDITIONAL SLIDES

1. Space “Health” Index LEO: divided into 35 regions ~ –7 altitude bands (categorised by perigee) –5 inclination bands: Equatorial (0º-19º) Intermediate (20º-84º) Polar (85º-94º) Sun-Synchronous (95º-103º) Retrograde (104º-180º) GEO: divided into 288 regions ~ –72 longitude bands (±180 º from GMT) –4 inclination bands: [0º, 1-4º, 5-8º, 9-15º] –Accounts for GTO and graveyard orbits “Health” score derived for each goal in each region ADDITIONAL SLIDES

Goal 1A: Protection of Service Compliance with mitigation guidelines & good practices that are implemented to avoid loss during operations –Impact shielding, collision avoidance Reference: –100% compliance for all measures by all spacecraft in region Pressures: –Technical and financial challenges Resiliences: –Availability of data, tools, techniques and supporting guidelines Source of Data: –ACCORD industry survey, ACCORD compliance analysis ADDITIONAL SLIDES

Goal 1B: Legacy of Service Compliance with mitigation guidelines & good practices that are implemented to preserve the space environment –Post-mission disposal, passivation, limiting release of MRO Reference: –100% compliance for all measures by all spacecraft in region Pressures: –Technical and financial challenges Resiliences: –Availability of data, tools, techniques and supporting guidelines Source of Data: –ACCORD industry survey, ACCORD compliance analysis ADDITIONAL SLIDES

Goal 2: Benign Space Debris Environment Current state of the debris environment and future trends: –Number of ≥ 10 cm debris objects Reference: –Population of objects ≥ 10 cm on 1 st May 2009 –Population of objects ≥ 10 cm on 1 st May 2014 (no collisions scenario) Pressures: –Technical and financial challenges of implementing mitigation measures Resiliences: –The requirement to comply with mitigation guidelines and standards Source of Data: –MASTER 2009 population and DAMAGE future projection ADDITIONAL SLIDES

Data Sources DAMAGE Simulations: –Capacity of mitigation measures to limit creation of further debris 16 Mitigation scenarios (PMD, PASS, MRO, CA; plus combinations) Effectiveness of mitigation measure normalised between 0 (no mitigation) and 1 (full mitigation) in terms of no. objects & no. catastrophic collisions ACCORD Industry Survey –Technical and financial challenge of implementing mitigation measures (Capability) Survey responses normalised to give score between 0 and 1 –Level of implementation of mitigation measures among spacecraft manufacturers and operators Survey responses normalised to give score between 0 and 1 13 ADDITIONAL SLIDES