System and Concurrent Engineering for the e.deorbit Mission Assessment Studies Robin Biesbroek Jakob Hüsing Andrew Wolahan

System and Concurrent Engineering for the e.deorbit Mission Assessment Studies Robin Biesbroek Jakob Hüsing Andrew Wolahan

Why Active Debris Removal? 17000 catalogued objects Less than 1000 active 600-800 km polar / Sun-Synchronous orbits most populated Environment can be stabilised if 5 such objects are removed per year from these orbits Space Debris with highest collision impact are large objects in populated orbits

Is space debris a problem? Even if the world stops launching satellites, the number of debris in space increases Anno 2013: collision warnings on weekly basis Satellites in densely populated orbits such as SSO/polar (ERS-1, ERS-2, Envisat, METOP, Biomass, SMOS, Cryosat-2, Sentinels) may suffer from continuous collision avoidance manoeuvres in the future -> interrupted service

The need for an ADR mission The answer of Clean Space is to develop European capability to remove a large space debris from orbit by means of an ADR mission The mission objective is to perform Active Debris Removal a. Uncooperative ESA-owned debris object (large satellite or upper stage) with heavy mass (> 4000 kg) b. In 800-1000 km (near) polar region

Mission Profile Target orbit Rendezvous Capture Target Altitude raising to >2000 km Or Phasing Perigee lowering burns (1 to 5) Initial orbit (300 x 300 km) Commissioning De-orbit burn Re-Entry over SPOUA Launch Note: initial orbit could be optimised, performances of the UM assumed

Timeline of de-orbit studies Service Oriented Service Oriented Approach to ADR Envisat Deorbit Envisat DA e.deorbit Conventional Approach VEGA upper-stage e.deorbit Phase A 2012 2013 2014

2011: Envisat de-orbit study Target assumed to be controlled 1. Orbit: a. Re-orbit to >2000 km b. De-orbit to <600 km c. Controlled re-entry 2. Propulsion a. Chemical (CP) b. Electrical (EP) 3. Capture techniques a. Robotic arm b. Clamping mechanisms ( tentacles ) c. Net d. Ion-beam shephard e. Others (harpoon, clamp, etc.) Reduced team. Five CDF sessions

2012: Envisat DA study Why? New requirements: Target assumed to be uncontrolled Could be tumbling with 1 /sec Solar panel locked in worst position Need to re-evaluate trades Reduced team Four CDF sessions

2012: e.deorbit CDF study results Clamping Mechanisms ( tentacles )option Clamping mechanisms + pushing rods May need robotic arm (baselined in CDF study) VEGA launch (1590 kg) Chemical Propulsion (2 x 425N) 52% of total mass is propellant LIDAR, Far field & near field, RW s + thrusters Controlled re-entry (3 + 1 burns) Net option Net shot towards target 1 net + 1 redundant VEGA launch (1560 kg) Chemical Propulsion (2 x 425N + 2 x 220N) 56% of total mass is propellant LIDAR, Far field, thrusters Controlled re-entry (3 + 1 burns)

Timeline of de-orbit studies Service Oriented Service Oriented Approach to ADR Envisat Deorbit Envisat DA e.deorbit Conventional Approach VEGA upper-stage e.deorbit Phase A 2012 2013 2014

2013: A service-oriented approach Objectives of this study were to address the feasibility of an Active Debris Removal mission, to define a business model for the implementation of the ADR mission: 1. ESA buys a service for the first ADR mission 2. to define a business plan for future ADR missions and technology roadmaps for the removal of large debris from space. Final presentations end of 2013. Presented to TAWG in 2014 Credits: Kayser-threde / OHB system / Polimi Credits: Astrium / DLR Credits: SSTL / Aviospace / Deimos SpaceCode design

Timeline of de-orbit studies Service Oriented Service Oriented Approach to ADR Envisat Deorbit Envisat DA e.deorbit Conventional Approach VEGA upper-stage e.deorbit Phase A 2012 2013 2014

Using AVUM as platform 1. Contract give by ESA to ELV to perform a phase-0 assessment of a mission to de-orbit a large ESA-owned debris by means of adapting VEGA s upper-stage a. Rigid connection b. Flexible connection 2. Final presentation 12 Dec 2013 3. CDF review in March 2014 4. Full team 5. Reduced number of sessions: Session 1 K/O Session 2 Review Session 3 Update CDF model option 1 Session 4 AM Update CDF model option 2 Session 4 PM Final presentation

e.deorbit Phase A

2014: Phase A Phase A: Capture technique selection MBR Platform Design CE sessions by industry MDR 1. Review board 2. Technical panel -> CDF team 7 Sessions: KO+ 2 for each contractor Contractors delivered IDM Macros for RIDs collection and report generation PRR Review only no sessions for design update

Design comparison rigid option CDF Airbus Kayser-Threde Thales Launcher VEGA VEGA VEGA VEGA Capture technique Robotic arm + fixation device Attachment points Robotic arm (TBC) + clamping mechanism Arm: launcher adapter Clamp: target body Arm: launcher adapter Clamp: target solar panel holddown points Robotic arm + clamping mechanism Arm: launcher adapter Clamp: target body Data Relay sat TBC No No No Payload sensors LIDAR (TBC), far range and close range camera LIDAR, far range, inspection, and fixation camera Laser range finder, far range and close range camera Robotic arm + clamping mechanism Arm: launcher adapter Clamp: launcher adapter Far range and close range camera Dry Mass [%] 100% 102% 112% 104% Wet Mass [%] 100% 102% 108% 101% Cost [%] 100% Average of three contractors: 122%

Design comparison flexible option CDF Airbus Kayser-Threde Thales Launcher VEGA VEGA VEGA VEGA Capture Net Net Net Harpoon technique Data Relay Sat TBC No No No Payload sensors LIDAR (TBC), far range camera LIDAR (TBC), far range and inspection camera Laser range finder, far range and close range camera Dry Mass [%] 100% 104% 111% 103% Wet Mass [%] 100% 101% 102% 101% Cost [%] 100% 102% Far range and close range camera

Conclusions and recommendations 1. Concurrent Engineering was successfully applied during the phase 0 and phase A studies of e.deorbit. a. The phase 0 studies in ESA s CDF b. Industry studies were reviewed by the CDF 2. The e.deorbit mission concept changed only slightly during its conversion from phase 0 to phase A 3. A minimum of four CDF sessions is recommended if the review team is to not only review the work but also implement design changes to verify feasibility of the updated design. 4. Contractors adopted the use of concurrent engineering sessions in some cases a. Communication with ESA using VC/WebEx remained difficult due to the lack of videoconference facilities in industry b. Restrictions related to the use of tools such as WebEx c. New Collaborative Working Environment will be used for phase B1