AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Article Link
Collect
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Full Length Article | Open Access

Space debris environment engineering model 2019: Algorithms improvement and comparison with ORDEM 3.1 and MASTER-8

Yuyan LIUaRunqiang CHIa( )Baojun PANGaDiqi HUaWuxiong CAOaDongfang WANGa,b
School of Astronautics, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
College of Safety Science & Engineering, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China

Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.

Show Author Information

Abstract

As an essential tool for realistic description of the current or future debris environment, the Space Debris Environment Engineering Model (SDEEM) has been developed to provide support for risk assessment of spacecraft. In contrast with SDEEM2015, SDEEM2019, the latest version, extends the orbital range from the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) for the years 1958–2050. In this paper, improved modeling algorithms used by SDEEM2019 in propagating simulation, spatial density distribution, and spacecraft flux evaluation are presented. The debris fluxes of SDEEM2019 are compared with those of three typical models, i.e., SDEEM2015, Orbital Debris Engineering Model 3.1 (ORDEM 3.1), and Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference (MASTER-8), in terms of two assessment modes. Three orbital cases, including the Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO), Sun-Synchronous Orbit (SSO) and International Space Station (ISS) orbit, are selected for the spacecraft assessment mode, and the LEO region is selected for the spatial density assessment mode. The analysis indicates that compared with previous algorithms, the variable step-size orbital propagating algorithm based on semi-major axis control is more precise, the spatial density algorithm based on the second zonal harmonic of the non-spherical Earth gravity (J2) is more applicable, and the result of the position-centered spacecraft flux algorithm is more convergent. The comparison shows that SDEEM2019 and MASTER-8 have consistent trends due to similar modeling processes, while the differences between SDEEM2019 and ORDEM 3.1 are mainly caused by different modeling approaches for uncatalogued debris.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Download File(s)
cja-37-5-392_ESM.pdf (772.2 KB)

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
Pages 392-409

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
LIU Y, CHI R, PANG B, et al. Space debris environment engineering model 2019: Algorithms improvement and comparison with ORDEM 3.1 and MASTER-8. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2024, 37(5): 392-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2023.12.004

1680

Views

14

Crossref

13

Web of Science

14

Scopus

1

CSCD

Received: 10 May 2023
Revised: 02 July 2023
Accepted: 27 August 2023
Published: 06 December 2023
© 2023 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).