Literature Review for Passive Means of Deorbiting

Jason Vaughn, Nelia Reiter, Nicholas Ledbetter, Christopher Cable, Brendan Trang, Ryan Robinson
The Polytechnic School,
Arizona State University,
Mesa AZ, 85212

Abstract
In this literature review, we present a variety of methods to solve the increasing risk of space
debris collisions with working satellites. The collection of debris threatens future use of critical
orbits in the 300-800 km range. Deorbiting has proven to be the most effective method for debris
mitigation because these solutions are passive and require minimal power. Many solutions have
been proposed, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Various technologies and cost
restrictions impact optimal solution viability. There also exists the underlying risk of further
collisions intensifying the validity of the Kessler effect. Due to the constraints and inherent risk
with active propulsion methods of deorbit, this review will specifically consider the passive
means for deorbiting with a brief overview of propulsion and its limitations and strengths.
 Nomenclature
ATP = Area Time Product
ATM = Area-to-Mass ratio
A=Area
aSRP=acceleration due to solar radiation pressure
Fs=solar energy flux density at spacecraft distance (W/m2)
BT= Transverse magnetic field
R= Typical resistivity of the tether
r = Resistivity of the tether
d=Density of the tether
mT= Mass of the tether
P= Power being generated by the tether
L= Length of the tether
S=Specific Conductivity
ME=Mass of the Earth
G= Earth’s Gravity
r= Radial distance from the point to the center of the Earth
RE= Radius of the Earth
mB=mass of the tether ballast
BE=Strength of the magnetic field on the magnetic equator at the center of the Earth
FD=Drag force on electromagnetic tether
Δt=Deorbiting time
Γ=Gradient field strength
LEO = Low Earth Orbit
MOD = Micro Orbital Debris
H = Hamiltonian model for orbital phase space
ꭤ = A variable used in the Hamiltonian Model that relates phase space to the SRP effect.
k= A variable used in the Hamiltonian model that relates phase space the J2 effect.
SEDS = Small Expendable Deployer System
vm= Velocity with respect to the transverse magnetic field
ν=Drag Coefficient
ΔV= change in velocity
ISP=rocket specific impulse
gstandard = standard gravity of Earth, 9.80665m/s^2

I. Introduction

The objective of this review is to research the pre-existing technologies and approaches
to space debris mitigation. The focus is to deorbit spent vehicle stages and nonfunctioning
satellites. Several options are analyzed for various risks, weight, ability to deorbit several bodies
of debris within the lifespan of the orbiter, and viability. Recent studies demonstrated that the
problem of space debris is slowly becoming more and more impeding for future use of orbital
space. Many simulations suggest that the number of objects in orbit might grow, even when no
further objects are added to space, due to collisions caused by fragments generated by other
collisions. This collisional cascading may potentially lead to a chain reaction situation, with no
further possibility of human intervention and with a substantial increase of the hazard level for
space operations. This feedback collision effect has been highlighted for the first time in 1978 by
Kessler and Cour-Palais and has become popularized as the Kessler syndrome even without ever
having had a strict definition. Recently, Kessler itself has concluded that there is little doubt that
the so-called Kessler syndrome will be a significant source of future debris, stressing at the same
time that even if the growth of orbital debris has slowed, we are still not capable of preventing
the growth in the debris population from random collisions [1]. Figure 1 shows the catalogued
population of objects in space in the last 54 years. It can be noticed that there is a high presence
of fragmentation debris, compared to the number of spacecrafts or rocket bodies. In fact, several
studies found that “derelict spacecraft and orbital stages now outnumber active spacecrafts by
more than 5 to 1” [2].
Figure 1: Yearly increase in number of tracked objects in Earth orbit [3].
1 𝐴 𝑉
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝐴𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = − 2 𝜌𝐶𝑑 𝑚 𝑉 2 (|𝑉|) (1)

The acceleration due to atmospheric drag in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) between 500 and
1000 Km Altitude can be described using Equation 1. The equation is an average drag caused
by the atmosphere and is a function of both atmospheric density and area to mass ratio (ATM) of
rocket body. ρ (kg/m^3) Stands for atmospheric density which is modeled by Equation 4 and is
a function of temperature (*C) and pressure (KPa), which in turn are a function of altitude (m) as
shown in Equation 2 and 3. The second factor that affects drag is ATM. Figure 2 shows how a
Landsat 5 Satellite with a low ATM of .005 (m^2/kg) has a longer orbital lifetime than a 1 mm
Aluminum sphere. This drag equation is an effective approximation for all objects in LEO
between 500 and 1000 Km with a calculable coefficient of drag (Cd)
For Altitude (h) > 25000 m

𝑇(ℎ) = −131.21 + .00299ℎ (2)

𝑇 + 273.15 −11.388 (3)

𝑃 = 2.488 [ ]
216.6
For all cases:
𝑃 (4)
𝜌=
[. 2869×(𝑇 + 273.15)]
Figure 2: A graphical representation of orbital lifetimes of several different space bodies in
relation to their initial orbital altitude.
II. Concepts
Means of capture for the debris provides a unique challenge for the debris that is orbiting
in an uncontrolled fashion with rotation occurring in any axis. Each body of debris also presents
a variance in external structural integrity depending on material composition, time in orbit, and
orbital altitude. Debris in a lower orbit interacts with oxygen more frequently and therefore is
more prone to oxidation. In this review, several primary options for capture of spacecraft have
been presented i.e. capture by nets of varying varieties, harpoons, and expanding foams.
Capture Concept: Nets
Nets with different geometries and constructions can be packed into a net ejector mechanism,
which ejects a net from a canister. The net is pulled open by the inertia of masses placed
strategically in corners; as well as by a radial velocity. Figure 3 shows a diagram of the net
being ejected from its canister. A study performed by European Space Agency (ESA) performed
multi-body simulations, for the capture phase as well as the deorbiting phase.
Figure 3: Cross section of canister holding the net and tether and the ejector mechanism. Note
that the center of the net and the tether are both attached to the cover [4].
The simulations were performed to address key concerns related to using a net and tether
for space debris capture and deorbiting. The main concerns were if the net would properly
entangle the target, the level of force transmitted to the target, and how the compound system
affects the dynamics of the subsequent pulling phase. In the study, the net itself was baselined to
be 16 by 16 meters with a mesh size around 20 centimeters. The net would be constructed from a
high strength-to-weight ratio material such as Dyneema R. In each corner of the net would be a
mass to pull the net open during deployment. In this concept, there were four ejector tubes at an
angle with the container holding the net itself in the middle. One possible modification from the
baseline concept could be that the net itself, and not just the masses, would be ejected towards
the target to avoid a back-and-forth
oscillation, and to ensure that it
would reach its maximum size.
Figure 4 shows the net ejector
concept. The net would reach its full
size just prior to impacting the target
debris, and would wrap around it
passively due to the motion of the
corner masses. While the simulations
showed that a fully passive net
closure is likely to be sufficient, and
could also implement a simple
closing mechanism consisting of
winches in two of the corner masses
with a thread between them. Once the
target debris is fully wrapped up in
the net, the tether would be tensioned
by the chaser and the de-orbiting
would commence.
Figure 4: Multibody simulation of net
being ejected and grasping an
arbitrary satellite [4].
Capture Concept: Harpoon
The tethered harpoon debris capture technique was considered for a range of potential
targets, such as launch vehicle, spent upper stages, and large satellites more than 1 ton. For the
rocket bodies, the harpoon must be capable of reliably penetrating up to potentially 3mm thick
Aluminum 7000 series plate. Surfaces will also, rarely be flat and a degree of rotation (tumbling)
may be possible. These three-factors have driven the choice of the target geometries. For the
large satellites, the harpoon must be able to cope with the conditions shown in Table 1 [4]. After
testing two separate harpoon tip designs, it was noticed additional debris were created upon exit
of the pierced material. The petal like shape of the deformation in the Al caused a piece of the Al
to break free from the structure in randomly occurring events. Penetration angle and velocity
caused variance in the size of the separated portion. Only a small amount of debris was generated
consisting of a few flecks (sub-mm size) of aluminum. The debris was internal to the target and
therefore would not escape the target satellite or rocket body. Subsequent examination indicated
that the main deformation was due to crushing of the peeled internal skin causing fragments to
break off inside the target. If the harpoon method were to be used, further testing would need to
be conducted to determine if an alternate tip geometry could prevent new debris creation [5]. A
major limitation to consider would be the targeting of a spent booster in its central mass which
might not have undergone pacification to de-pressurize its fuel tanks. This could be problematic
in the form of an explosive creation of many pieces of debris.
Table 1: describes possible conditions that harpoons must pierce for optimal capture

Condition Type Variations

Al Honeycomb Core Panel Aluminum Skin 2x1mm

2x2mm
Al Honeycomb Core Panel Carbon Fiber Reinforced 2x1mm
Plastic Skin 2x1.6mm
2x2.15mm
Al Panel Double-Thickness 4mm

Capture Concept: Robotic Grappling Arm

Robotic grappling arms present another solution however, they are not viewed as the
most practical or viable. A fly-around by a debris-removal vehicle or grappling the object by a
robot arm is difficult or impossible when the target debris object is rotating at high speed. This
condition means it is a necessity to slow its rotation to a rate at which capture can be
accomplished by a robotic arm accompanied by a visual feedback control. A conceptual robot
arm to capture space debris that uses a new force/torque control method for capturing tumbling
non-cooperative targets is being developed. To achieve successful capture using a robot arm in
such situations, the robot arm must be designed to buffer and brake residual motions shown in
Figure 5 and these motions cannot be anticipated beforehand. Its structural flexibility and joint
compliance control buffer the residual motion [6]. The risk of non-capture, damage to the device,
lower reliability, or impact pose significant setbacks to the viability of this technology.
Figure 5: Image of concept extensible folder arm with EDT fixed at the root [6].
Capture Concept: Expanding Foam
Expanding foam is considered a new development in space debris mitigation. The main
element of its effectiveness is the increase in surface area which increases the drag profile of the
space body as shown in Figure 6. Expanding foam is a lightweight method that nucleates around
the space body forming elliptical shapes. This foam increases the space bodies’ area-to-mass
ratio (ATM) which is critical in passive debris mitigation. As the area increases, bodies in low
earth orbit (LEO) experience a larger drag force from the increased surface area which is created
by the foam. This passive system has many inherent benefits, such as the ability to be stowed on
new rocket bodies entering low earth orbit and to be deployed at the end of life. This method
works as both a preventative and a passive system. This system would be very effective for
larger rocket bodies, working on bodies that weigh close to 1 ton, but will work on rocket bodies
of any size. The key to the effectiveness of the foam is the large expansion rate as well as the
exceptionally low mass of the foam itself. The foam that has the best qualities for this application
is a polymeric foam. This foam was modeled with considerations for external and internal
pressure differences [2]. A model was developed as shown in Equation 5 that describes the
increase in radius of our expanding foam bubble which is important in our ATM ratio.

𝑃𝐵 −3𝑃∞ 𝑃𝐵 1/3 (5)

𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑅𝐵 [(1 − ) 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( 𝑡) + ]
𝑃∞ 4𝜇 𝑃∞
 In this equation, RB represents inner bubble radius at that instant, PB represents internal
bubble pressure and P∞ represents pressure of liquid matrix of the foam. These 3 factors
determine the expansion rate, radially of the foam encapsulation method. This is also a function
of time t, and µ representing coefficient of friction.
There are several risks involved with launching expanding foam in space. These risks stem from
increasing the cross-sectional area of the rocket body. As the cross-sectional area increases, the
rocket bodies’ orbital path becomes more prone to impacts. The chances that the deorbiting
device causes collision increases proportionally with the increase in cross-sectional area of the
affected rocket body. This means that the size of the path that the body creates is larger and
therefore more likely to be at risk. The device itself is relatively fragile. It is very possible for the
device to deploy prematurely during launch. This premature deployment would present a
problem before the device reaches orbit. Lastly, risks can occur during deployment from the
launch vehicle to the space body. If the device does not properly attach to the space body, what
was once a relatively massless zero-point becomes a new body with a large surface area which
defeats the purpose of the device.
Factors that need to be considered pertaining to this device include: effectiveness of increase in
drag, amount of debris mitigated per spacecraft launch, and risk to reward ratio of the device
which will be explained later. An examination of the amount of increase in drag per rocket body
must be completed to ascertain the utility of this device. Using the Equation 6 for atmospheric
drag force,

1 𝐴 𝑉̅ (6)
𝑎𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = − 𝜌𝐶𝑑 𝑉 2
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
2 𝑚 |𝑉̅ |
where ρ stands for the atmospheric density, V is the value of the object’s velocity relative
to the atmosphere, Cd is the drag coefficient where examples are provided in Table 2, and A is
the reference area (the cross-sectional area) for which the drag coefficient is given. One needs to
calculate the necessary final cross-sectional area of the foam after expansion. Another factor is
the number of times the device can be deployed per launch and decide if the cost of this device is
worth consideration. Finally, we must extrapolate data from the increase in surface area to the
decrease of the time spent in space and decide if this method is worthwhile.
Table 2: A description of several coefficients of drag for objects in regular atmosphere

Object Drag Coefficient (Cd)

Tesla Model S .24

Toyota Prius .25
Usain Bolt 1.2
Eiffel Tower 1.8
Figure 6: (Left) Launch vehicle approaches space body. (Middle) Launch vehicle deploys foam
mitigation device. (Right) Foam expansion completely engulfs space body in a circular foam
construct [2].
Drag Concept: Sails
Another interesting approach is using sails that include aero brakes, gas filled enclosures, and
rigid bodied boom-supported sail designs. These devices try to maximize the surface area to
mass ratio (ATM) in order to significantly augment the aerodynamic drag coefficient (C D). Drag
augmentation is most effective in altitudes below 700 km but can alter the lifetime orbital
behavior of a satellite up to 1200 km. A significant risk for these types of devices is the increased
surface area which exposes the deorbiting system to more collisions. Unlike some other methods,
however, these systems are mainly “soft bodied” and if collided with by MODs would produce
low energy collisions which would help avoid catastrophic collision and could even maintain
functionality of the device. Complete failure of these devices occur around 20-40 (J/g) as
described in Table 3, which results in a puncture. The thin sails continue to function even after
being punctured by MODs, while the enclosed structures can have up to 1-2 punctures, based on
the energy of the particle, before it will start leaking gas. Some of the enclosed structures have
means to fill small holes and stop leaks, but the major prevention is by rigidizing them. After
rigidizing the structure though, impacts will then have higher energies resulting in more possible
catastrophic collisions. Figure 7 shows the high and low energy collision areas on some de-
orbital devices. These sails are passive drag enhancers and require minimal power to deploy
because the booms are spring-powered. The only necessary power is used for communication to
the host satellite for boom activation and more advanced configurations have controls. These
devices, compared to other solutions, can be varied easily to fit the specifics of the mission or
object in order to deorbit our target to meet metrics. For example, if our goal is to increase the
natural decay of a satellite object by 10x we could adjust the size of our device to enhance drag,
design for multiple payloads deployed on a single target, or even by adjusting the sail length
through an extendable boom.
Table 3: Shows the Energy Mass Ratio produced from different collisions produced from
MODS [11].

Type of Collision EMR (J/g)

Upper Threshold for Fragmentation 35-45

Lower Threshold for Fragmentation 10-15

MOD vs thin envelope non-rigidized 1.7

MOD vs thin envelope rigidized 18-36

MOD vs Tether 0.26

MOD vs Boom 17-35

Values in Table 3 were calculated with a satellite of 1200 kg and a cross sectional area of
4.4 meters squared. The film is assumed to be a 6.25-µm-thick. The projectile has 2 x 106 J of
energy. A definition of EMR (J/g) is used to determine when a complex structure would
completely fragment, a series of experiments over many years were conducted to determine the
threshold of impact energy to mass ratio (EMR) of the target that would result in the target
completely fragmenting.
Figure 7 shows the different areas for high and low energy collisions. A high energy collision
refers to a collision resulting in multiple
pieces with their own energies. A low
energy collision refers to a collision
resulting in no additional pieces,
minimal damage, and the collided
objects are mostly the same. An
advantage of the Ultrathin Envelope and
Film Aerobrake is that despite collisions
in the green zones they will most likely
maintain functionality while the tether
and tapes will most likely be cut, unless
significantly designed to withstand.

Figure 7: A map of collision points on a relative

design with severity listed.
Figure 8. “The Icarus DAS consists of a thin aluminum frame, fitted around one of the external
panels of the spacecraft, in which four trapezoidal Kapton sails and booms are stowed and
restrained by a tough band” [14].
The booms for these devices such as the Icarus DAS shown in Figure 8 can be constructed out
of either metal, semi-rigid inflatable structures, structures that harden in the presence of UV
light, or through chemical reaction. Benefits of the non-rigid booms is that prior to deployment
they are easier to store and produce lower energy collisions. These sails are thin (2-6 µm)
lightweight sheets and are durable enough to avoid rupture after puncture from MODs. Popular
materials are sheets of treated aluminum or Kapton. The entire device is stored in a folded
position and tightly packed into a cylindrical or square shape as seen in Figure 9. The sail itself
can be designed to change orientation in
order to maneuver the satellite, either
adjusting spin or drag coefficients, in
order to achieve stable motion.
Deployment of the mast and sail is all
spring powered and is activated by
cutting a cable from remote control by
the host satellite. In addition, these
devices can have reflective surfaces to
gain slight positive effects for de-orbit
through solar radiation pressure. Even
when punctured, as long as the damage is
minimal enough after the collision (ie:
small puncture) the device will lose
efficiency but keep functionality. A
hybrid design was theorized that involves
8 booms instead of 4 taking on the shape
of an octagon and using 8 sails. This
design can be seen in Figure 10 and
maximizes the surface area possible
while minimizing high energy impact Figure 9: Shows the configuration for a de-orbital
zones. In the DAS project scope, they sail stack. In stored configuration [12].
analyzed tumbling bodies and
determined if a body is tumbling, that it is better to have a set of perpendicular sails around the
body to account for the omni-directional rotation. For the scope of this project it would be hard
to account for direction of the sail after placement so a similar strategy would be beneficial.

Figure 10: Shows a different concept of Aero Brakes. The device consists of a mast, with sails
and booms extending out in different directions. [13]
Drag Concept: Aero Brakes
Aero brakes work very similarly to the boom-supported sails discussed previously. In Figure 11
an example is provided. It should be noted the center boom (the mast) must be made from a very
strong material as it must withstand buckling and endure several forces. Extending out from the
mast, two smaller booms can be attached and these booms can be manufactured from the same
material as the aero sails. The aero brake also can withstand damage from MOD’s (if minimal)
and retain functionality without losing efficiency. The combination of an inflatable boom and
ultrathin sails leads to an efficient increase in the area to mass ratio; therefore, enhancing drag.
These also brakes have the benefit of
covering less total surface area while
providing drag on tumbling objects as
they account for the random motion.
The decreased surface area along the
orbital plane in comparison to
traditional sails can help to mitigate
collisions. Compared to traditional
sails (DAS for example), the risks for
center booms for an aero brake
include high energy collisions. A
collision will most likely result in Figure 11: An aero brake example with a 2 main booms
fragmentation and the creation of supporting aero sails on each boom.
additional debris.
Figure 12: Echo II made by NASA is a large inflatable rigidized envelope designed for
communication. [11]
Drag Concept: Solar Sails
Solar sails are essentially giant balloons that capture the effects of both solar radiation pressure
and aerodynamic drag to successfully deorbit objects. Figure 12 shows Echo II, a large hardened
inflatable space envelope that was specifically designed for radio communications by NASA
during the 1960’s. It was the first inflatable
structure that could rigidize after inflation. Solar
Sails, unlike the other two drag devices, can
utilize solar radiation pressure at higher altitudes,
where drag is weaker, to alter the orbit of the
body to fall within ranges where drag can be the
dominant force. This idea was initiated in the era
when satellites weren’t always designed to
deorbit themselves through passive means.
Instead they used end-of-life maneuvers to
deorbit by aligning their solar panels with the
sun, thus increasing their eccentricity and
accelerating the object through its orbit. After
they started to face away from the sun it rotated
its solar panels again, this time turning away and
deaccelerating its orbital velocity. This motion
adjusts the path from being circular to more and Figure 13: Artist concept of CubeSat with
more elliptical. Until its perigee (low point) is deployed deorbiting balloon
within a range where the drag can dominate. A
passive method using the same effect would be to use the earth's own shadow as the “off” state
and create a device fueled by solar radiation pressure. This is where the spherical shape takes
place as largest surface area exposed along the orbital path is maximized for drag. For solar
radiation, to maximize the surface area exposed to the sun, easiest method is a sphere. The
deorbit maneuver can be split into two different phases. Phase 1 is the longest and during this
phase solar radiation pressure effects dominates vastly over aerodynamic drag. From a
mathematical perspective, an orbit that lies in an ecliptic plane and which is only disturbed by
the effects of solar radiation pressure and the oblateness effect of the earth can be described by
Equation 7.
𝐾 (7)
𝐻 = −√1 − 𝑒 2 + 𝛼𝑒 cos 𝜑 −
3√1 − 𝑒 2

where φ represents the angle between the incoming solar radiation and the orbital perigee [11].
The α refers to the influence of solar radiation pressure on the orbit of the object, and K is related
to the oblateness effect, or J2 effect. Oblateness and J2 effect can be described by Equation 8
and 9.

3 𝑎 (8)
𝑎= 𝑎𝑆𝑅𝑃 √
2𝑛𝑐 𝜇

3 𝜇 (9)
𝐾= 𝐽2 𝑅𝐸 2 √ 7
2𝑛𝑐 𝑎

where aSRP is the acceleration the object experiences due to solar radiation pressure, RE is the
average radius of the Earth, J2 is the oblateness coefficient, µ is the gravitational parameter of the
Earth (km3/s2), and ne is the orbital eccentricity. The equation for aSRP is shown in Equation 10
and is necessary for calculations for Equation 8 and 9.
𝐹𝑆 (10)
𝑎𝑆𝑅𝑃 = 𝑐𝑅 𝜎
𝑐
σ represents the area-to-mass ratio of a spherical spacecraft, K is a parameter of the semi-major
axis of the orbit, and cR is the coefficient of reflectivity. With this they were able produce
different simulations of different surface area to mass ratios to achieve an optimal solution. An
expression was derived to determine the minimum required area-to-mass ratio to deorbit from
initially circular conditions.
𝑘 (11)
𝐻𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐 = −1 −
3
Using Equation 11, an analytical solution was derived that could compare deorbit times and area
to mass ratio effectively optimizing necessary radius and weight.
Drag Concept: Solar Sails
A couple of design benefits to Solar Sails is by being both light and compact during storage they
have a high area to mass ratio. It will take only a little gas to inflate the balloon fully due to
extremely low pressures. Although susceptible to punctures, some enclosures can be designed in
a way to maintain functionality while still minimizing damage. This can be designed in two
ways. It can either avoid piercings through rigidizing and will instead sustain dents and take
higher energy impacts. Or the other option is to leave it susceptible to piercings and using a
Hoberman Sphere frame. The chosen balloon material needs to be puncture resistant because of
this in most cases rigidizing elements are used. These elements include “shape-memory metals,
foams, and hardening resins. The latter include resins which harden when coming into contact
with UV-Light, or when cooled or heated [13]” [9] The device discussed in this paper used a
polypropylene which has a molding temp of 190℃ and a glass transition temp of -10℃. It was
assumed the balloon was stored inside the vessel and maintained room temperature. The
enclosure itself was made of a 10µm tick, silvered, aluminum-oxide metal coated with a Kapton
film. The reasoning behind this is it’s tested reliability in space and the mass efficiency needed
for these objects to function well.
Drag Concept: Tethers
Tethers are one of the many
ways to deorbit satellites that
can be a separate payload that
can deploy from a LEO (Low
Earth Orbit) satellite allowing
it to deorbit itself. The main
concept of the tether is that it
is a several-kilometer-long
wire with a ballast at the end.
The wire collects electrons
while the ballast acts like an
electron emitter and that
creates a current along the
wire. That current creates a
Figure 14: Space Tether Assembly from NASA Space Tether magnetic field which results in
Handbook a drag force fromEarth’s
magnetic field which slows the
satellite down. There have been tether projects used in the past by NASA and several other
research companies, one of which was called SEDS (Small Expendable Deployer System), a
team that deployed a tether payload. The SEDS payload shown in Figure 14 consisted of the
tether (usually 5-10 km long), brake system, deployer, and electronics box. All the components
except for the brake-post are in contact with the tether and coated with Teflon. The brake system
consisted of a brake-post, stepper motor, tensiometer, temperature sensor, pyro-cutter, and exit
guide. The deployer consisted of a baseplate, core, the tether, and a canister where the tether is
wound around the core which is coated with a hard-anodized material and the canister is used as
a protective cover for the tether. The electronics box housed the sensors and motor drivers where
the sensors, consisting of LEDs, counted the turns of the deployed tether and check when the
tether is fully deployed and the motor drivers control the brake system. SEDS had relative
success with this concept in its first tether mission in that it could deorbit a LEO satellite and also
accurately predict where it would land based on its trajectory, unfortunately during the second
tether mission the tether came into contact with a micrometeorite which damaged the tether’s
systems [9].

Figure 15: A Terminator tether diagram listing various features of the tether itself [18].
Another tether that had success with an electrodynamic tether concept shown in Figure 15 is the
Terminator Tether. This tether concept proved to be a success and extrapolating from their data,
Equation 12 can be used to describe removal of kinetic energy from satellites via drag.
(𝑉𝑚 𝐵𝑇 )2 (12)
𝑃 = 𝑚𝑇
𝑟𝑑
where mT is the mass of tether, BT is the strength of the transverse magnetic field, Vm is the
velocity of the tether with respect to the magnetic field and r is the resistivity of the tether and d
is the density of the tether. Other equations include finding the specific conductivity S of the
material of the tether, shown in Equation 13
1 (13)
𝑆=
𝑟𝑑
finding the typical resistance R of the tether shown in Equation 14,

𝑟𝑑𝐿2 (14)
𝑅=
𝑚𝑇

the tether length vector L which is shown in Equation 15,

𝐿 = 𝐿(𝑟 cos 𝛼 + 𝑣 sin 𝛼) (15)

the strength of the gradient field Γ as described in Equation 16,

GM𝐸 (16)
Γ=
𝑟3
the maximum Drag Force FD available from the maximum electrodynamic force shown in
Equation 17
𝑚𝐸 + 𝑚 𝑇 (17)
𝐹𝐷 = −6ΓL ( ) sin 𝛼 cos 2 𝛼
4
and the deorbiting time of derelict space bodies as shown in Equation 18
𝑀𝑆 𝑅 (18)
∆𝑇 =
[12𝐿 𝐵𝐸 𝑅𝐸 2 cos 𝛼 (cos2 𝛼)]
2 2

There are several common risks for this type of system. There is the risk of damage and
fracturing, creating more debris, critical failure of the system (not able to deploy the tether for
example), and not being able to deorbit the satellite. Most of these risks, especially the risk of
creating more debris, stem from the sheer size of the tether (5-10 km in length) and the fact that
it is a payload on a satellite so if it were to get damaged then the system would face failure.
Due to the recent successes of other tether projects though, this concept has proven that it will
work. The issue with this device again is safety as well as the risks associated with it. The SEDS
project may have proven that the tether can be a success but it has also proven there are still
dangerous risks concerning the concept. Major risks are critical failure of the system due to
damage (this is a payload on a satellite so repairing it would be out of the question) and the risk
of fracturing and creating more debris would be great considering the overall length of the tether
(5-10km). It would be a great concept to keep in mind if other deorbiting concepts have greater
risks.
Drag Concept: Expandable Structures
Expandable structures refer to the use of articulated structures composed of thin rods connected
by hinged linkages as shown in Figure 15. An example of this can be seen in the mechanism of
the average umbrella. Such structures have the benefit of being able to be stored in a folded
configuration, occupying little volume, yet able to expand to fill a much larger volume of space
when deployed [10]. When coupled with the use of a thin-film connective membrane, these
structures have the potential to be employed as drag-enhancing deorbit devices. By attaching
such a device to the side of orbiting debris, the area-to-mass ratio (ATM) of the debris would be
increased upon expansion of the mechanism. Devices such as this, being composed of thin rods,
run the risk of fragmenting under high stress, thus creating further debris in orbit. The large
number of articulated joints associated with this type of mechanism also increases the probability
that one or more joints will fail upon deployment. Since the expansion capability of this type of
mechanism is dependent on the interconnection of many joints, failure of a relatively few links
could result in incomplete device expansion, thus
failing to increase drag to the target coefficient
while simultaneously increasing the area of
unusable space. This method seems to be
potentially viable, however being an articulated
system, it comes with substantial risk of failure.
Propulsion
Perhaps the most direct, though by no means
simplest, route of mitigating the risk posed by
artificial space debris is the option of using rocket
propulsion to deorbit or reposition potential
collision hazards. Numerous satellites and rocket
upper stages possess propulsive capabilities,
granting, at least limited on-orbit maneuverability, Figure 15: Example of folding thin rod
which can be used, typically at the end of the expandable structures
vehicle’s mission, to accelerate the deorbit of the vehicle. Compared to some of the other
systems considered here, the propulsive option tends to be more complex and requires more
complex supplemental systems. Guidance becomes a relevant consideration, requiring additional
hardware to enable tracking of the vehicle’s orientation in order to ensure engine burns occur in
the correct direction. Rocket engines themselves tend to be quite complex pieces of equipment,
requiring fuel valves, ignition systems, pumps, and other mechanisms in various combination
depending on the exact specifications of the engine. Every additional moving part constitutes an
additional potential point of failure. Propulsive option also require substantial mass, due to the
additional required hardware compared to other alternatives, and the propellant. Figure 16
provides an idea as to the fuel mass fractions required as determinable through the required
change in velocity and Tsiolkovsky’s ideal rocket equation.
𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 (19)
𝛥𝑉 = 𝐼𝑆𝑃𝑔𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑙𝑛 ( + 1)
𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠

Since the initial orbit is assumed circular, the change in velocity necessary to achieve a certain
drop in minimum altitude is uniform across the orbit. This allows the necessary change in
velocity to achieve deorbit within a given time frame based on initial altitude to be determined
computationally, with the assumptions that the object in question has an area to mass ratio of
0.01 m^2 / kg and that the solar activity index is at 130 SFU.
Figure 16: comparing change in velocity requirements, and corresponding mass fractions for
given specific impulse values, to achieve deorbit within specified time frames from a given
altitude
III. Analysis
Considering the many different types of concepts that can be utilized, we have organized our
information for each concept into a table that can be easily read and deciphered. This chart is
presented in Appendix A. This chart is an easy reference guide to the many ways to mitigate
space debris and can be used as a ranking system on the effectiveness of each system within the
confines of a student competition.
IV. Conclusion
Given the various concepts presented in this document, certain methods for capture and drag
enhancement can safely be eliminated from consideration. For example, propulsive methods, as
discussed in the earlier section, present a level of complexity that is beyond the scope of this
project, not to mention the violent and potentially dangerous forces at work in such a situation.
In addition, articulated linkages, such as expanding space mechanisms, for the purpose of drag
enhancement can likewise be dismissed due to the predicted likelihood of failure, as well as the
physical complexity of the design. Proposed solutions such as the grappling net, expanding
foam, and drag gradient tethers have demonstrated enough practical value to merit further
investigation. The proposed spherical design for inflatable solar sails that take advantage of the
dual effect of solar radiation pressure and atmospheric drag in any direction also shows potential
and can be easily incorporated into other design concepts for further refinement.
 V. References
1. Kessler, D., Johnson, N., Liou, J., & Matney, M. (2010). The Kessler Syndrome:
Implications to Future Space operations. American Astronautical Society, AAS(10),
016th ser. Retrieved September 22, 2017.
2. Andrenucci, M., Pergola, P., & Ruggiero. (2011). Active Removal of Space Debris
Expanding foam application for active debris removal. ESA,1-132. Retrieved Sept. 22,
2017.ACT-RPT-MAD-ARI-10-6411-Pisa-Active_Removal_of_Space_Debris-Foam.pdf
3. Guido, P., & Enrico, L., Prof. (July 18, 2014). Debris Mitigation in LEO Orbits:
Performance Analysis and Comparison of different Deorbit Systems. Retrieved
September 21, 2017, from
http://tesi.cab.unipd.it/46357/1/THESIS_LAUREA_MAGISTRALE_-
_Pastore_Guido.pdf
4. Wormnes, K., Le Letty, R., Summerer, L., Dubois-Matra, O., Luraschi, E., Cropp, A., . . .
Delaval, J. (2012). ESA TECHNOLOGIES FOR SPACE DEBRIS REMEDIATION.
Retrieved September 22, 2017, from ACT-RPR-MAD-2013-04-KW-CleanSpace-
ADR.pdf
5. Dudziak, R., Tuttle, S., & Barraclough, S. (2015). Harpoon technology development for
the active removal of space debris. Advances in Space Research, 56(3), 509-527.
doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.04.012
6. Reed, J., & Barraclough, S. (2013). DEVELOPMENT OF HARPOON SYSTEM FOR
CAPTURING SPACE DEBRIS. Astruim Ltd, 1-8. Retrieved September 23, 2017.
7. Shin-Ichiro Nishida, Satomi Kawamoto, Yasushi Okawa, Fuyuto Terui, Shoji Kitamura,
Space debris removal system using a small satellite, In Acta Astronautica, Volume 65,
Issues 1–2, 2009, Pages 95-102, ISSN 0094-5765,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.01.041.
8. Forward, Robert L, and Robert P Hoyt. APPLICATION OF THE TERMINATOR
TETHER™ ELECTRODYNAMIC DRAG TECHNOLOGY TO THE DEORBIT OF
CONSTELLATION SPACECRAFT.
9. Cosmo, M. L., and E. C. Lorenzini. Tethers in Space Handbook. National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, 1997.
10. Escrig, F., Valcarcel, J.P. (1992). Geometry of Expandable Space Structures. School of
Architecture of Sevilla, Spain; School of Architecture of La Coruna, Spain.
11. Lücking, Charlotte. A Passive High Altitude Deorbiting Strategy. Advanced Space
Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde.
12. Stohlman, O. R., Schenk, M., & Lappas, V. (n.d.). Development of the Deorbitsail flight
model (Rep.). Guilford, UK: University of Surrey.
13. Nock, K. T., Aaron, K. M., & McKnight, D. (2013). Removing Orbital Debris with Less
Risk (2nd ed., Vol. 50, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Rep.).
14. Palla, C., Kingston, J., & Hobbs, S. (2017). Development of Commercial Drag-
Augmentation Systems for Small Satellites (Rep.). Cranfield, UK: Space Research
Group, Cranfield University.
15. Pergola, P., Andrenucci, M., & Ruggiero, A. (2015, September 11). Low-thrust Missions
for Expanding Foam Space Debris Removal. Speech presented at 32nd International
Electric Propulsion Conference in Germany, Wiesbaden.
16. Filippone, A. (2004). Drag Coefficients. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from
https://web.archive.org/web/20070715171817/http://aerodyn.org/Drag/tables.html
17. Orbital debris: a technical assessment. (1995). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
 Appendix A

Concepts What method does this device What are the risks involved with What size body does this work How will it be Overall Rating
use to de-orbit space debris? this method? best for? deployed? (1-10)
Expanding Foam Expanding foam increases More debris, launch failure, Large bodies Foam dispersion 6
surface area increasing drag deployment failure nozzles from
launch body
Nets Capture method with possible Risks involve not properly All bodies with customizable Net ejection from 7
deployable payloads engaging and capturing with net net canister

Harpoon Capture method with possible Creation of more debris, not All bodies with customizable Propulsive 4
deployable payloads piercing target, not capturing harpoon profile cannon
target
Robotic Capture and tether method with Tumbling bodies, arms not strong Small to medium Tether and 5
Grappling Arm aid of a deorbiting vehicle enough, tether snaps, deorbiting robotically
device gets flung controlled arms

Sails Sails and aerobrakes take Puncturing of sails, rigidity of sails, Depends more on altitude N/A 4
advantage of atmospheric drag strength of aero brake to handle
and Solar Radiation Pressure collision

Aero Brakes Combination of strong booms
that rigid used with sails to
create drag using atmosphere
and SRP
Solar Sails Solar Radiation Pressure and
Aerodynamic drag, large profile
of balloon has increased drag
Need strong booms. Collisions Depends more on altitude N/A 5
typically result in total destruction
of device
Puncturing of balloon, non-rigidity All size bodies. But smaller is Gas canister for 6
of balloon failure in inflation of easier inflation
balloon, large Cross sectional area

Tethers Magnetic drag from earths Long tethers, easy to break, hard All size bodies. But smaller is Release from 5
magnetic field using Lorentz to manufacture easier holding bay and
Force unfurling
Expandable Solar Radiation Pressure and Lot of moving linkages, many All size bodies. But smaller is Release from 6
Structures Aerodynamic drag, large profile chances for failure, weak struts easier holding bay and
of balloon has increased drag may deform unfurling