Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Conjunction Assessment”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automating Maneuvers: Considerations for Collision Avoidance

As more space operators implement large constellations of spacecraft, automating orbit maintenance maneuvers becomes a key feature of their operations concept to ensure that the workload is manageable. However, the practice of performing a maneuver without sharing the plan with other nearby spacecraft causes a risk that two spacecraft will collide, not only destroying the spacecraft involved, but creating debris that will affect all other spacecraft using that orbit regime. In order to share the maneuver plan, a predicted ephemeris file containing the maneuver must be sent to a central authority to screen against predicted trajectories of all other on-orbit objects to determine where and when close approaches will occur that may need to be mitigated. Currently the screening authority used by US operators is the 19th Space Defense Squadron; screenings are performed once every 8 hours, meaning that spacecraft using automated maneuvering need to allow 16 hours to share their maneuver plan via the screening process in advance of maneuver execution in case one screening is missed and the next needs to be used. In an effort to speed up the screening process to benefit spacecraft using automated maneuvering, a prototype system for performing near-real-time screenings has been developed in support of the NASA Starling mission, a constellation of four cubesats that fly at the same altitude as the SpaceX Starlink constellation. Both of these constellations perform automated maneuvering, so without screening the planned maneuvers before execution, the two constellations would risk a collision. This paper describes the traditional conjunction assessment (CA) process, the prototype real-time CA screening capability, plans for the experiment to test the prototype, and next steps.

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Decision Aid for Conjunction Risk Mitigation by Differential Drag

In the previous five years, the rate of conjunctions that the NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team processed and analyzed has more than tripled. (NASA CARA, 2024) New missions in the early development phases are now required to plan for dealing with conjunctions under the present space environment, and also projecting forward into a future likely with even further increased utilization of the space environment. Some missions are investigating the possibility of using differential drag to remediate conjunctions without expending limited fuel or for missions without propulsive capabilities. The NASA CARA team studied the historical record of conjunctions to evaluate the circumstances under which differential drag may be successfully applied and have developed a series of tables to use as a decision aid for missions considering differential drag. CARA records all conjunctions of their protected payloads, with historical records starting in 2005 (with significant conjunction events starting to occur on or after 2013). From this record, approximately 7,300 had a probability of collision (Pc) greater than 1 in 10,000, the nominal requirement for a risk mitigation maneuver (RMM) to be made per NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8079.1 (NASA, 2023), at 3 days prior to the time of closest approach, the time analyzed for differential drag efficacy. CARA’s maneuver trade space tool (MTS) was used to prop-agate the primary satellite forward from that decision point with varying degrees of increase to ballistic coefficient (BC), and then recalculate the Pc to evaluate whether or not the conjunction was mitigated (Pc < 3E-6). These results were then binned and sorted along several axes, including altitude, amount of delta-BC, and (pre-maneuver) rate of energy dissipation, to identify underlying patterns. The altitude plot is shown in Figure 1. We found that differential drag was most successful for satellites with perigees below 560 km, and which could adopt an average delta-BC of 2 or greater (that is, increasing their ballistic coefficient by a factor of 3). However, this is a difficult threshold for a mission to clear; very few spacecraft are capable of adopting a high-drag configuration for 72 hours continuously. Planet’s Dove spacecraft use differential drag to remediate conjunctions (Griffith, et al., 2021), and they have a maximum delta-BC factor of 9, but in practice (with mission and charging constraints) they achieve a time-averaged delta-BC that is closer to 2 (Foster, et al., 2017). In contrast, a NASA mission in development reached out to CARA to evaluate the utility of differential drag to remediate potential conjunctions for a spacecraft which is capable of a similar high delta-BC, but with operational constraints that limit their time-averaged delta-BC to less than 1. CARA has developed tables that can be used as decision aids to advise missions-in-development about the best way to utilize their differential drag capabilities. For missions below 560 km with the operational flexibility to devote multiple days to holding a high-drag configuration (or a sufficiently high drag ratio to compensate for limitations on that time), they are able to successfully remediate high-risk conjunctions. Conversely, missions that do not meet these ex-acting criteria – most missions – can instead be advised to use on-board propulsion systems to perform RMMs or to turn their minimum-area face towards the approach vector, thereby reducing Pc at the moment of conjunction. (NASA, 2023)

risk mitigation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Decision Aid for Conjunction Risk Mitigation by Differential Drag

In the previous five years, the rate of conjunctions that the NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team processed and analyzed has more than tripled. (NASA CARA, 2024) New missions in the early development phases are now required to plan for dealing with conjunctions under the present space environment, and also projecting forward into a future likely with even further increased utilization of the space environment. Some missions are investigating the possibility of using differential drag to remediate conjunctions without expending limited fuel or for missions without propulsive capabilities. The NASA CARA team studied the historical record of conjunctions to evaluate the circumstances under which differential drag may be successfully applied and have developed a series of tables to use as a decision aid for missions considering differential drag. Currently, if a CARA-protected mission with maneuvering capabilities is predicted to have a conjunction with probability of collision (Pc) greater than 7E-5 (the default value of the ‘yellow threshold’, which may have some other value agreed by CARA and the mission during the Orbital Collison Avoidance Planning (OCAP) process), CARA will use its Maneuver Trade Space (MTS) tool to evaluate and recommend options for the timing and magnitude of a risk mitigation maneuver (RMM), based on the mission’s capabilities. If the conjunction’s Pc is greater than 1E-4, the ‘red threshold’, then an RMM must be executed per NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8079.1 (NASA, 2023), although missions may execute an RMM even if the Pc is lower. The magnitude of the maneuver is typically a few cm/s, and CARA estimates how many will be required for the mission’s nominal lifetime – typically a few per year – during the OCAP process, to inform the mission’s delta-V requirement. For traditional satellites, this is usually smaller than other requirements for orbit insertion, maintenance, and disposal, but for CubeSats or other small satellite missions, a propulsion system may not provide much more than a few cm/s of delta-V or may not fit at all within the available budget of money, time, size, weight, and/or power (SWaP). Conversely, CubeSats often have deployable solar panels, which offer the capacity to have much higher areas facing some directions than others. Such a mission can instead use ‘differential drag’ to remediate a conjunction -- in other words, change its drag area (usually increasing) to deviate from the predicted collision course. This is how Planet’s Dove spacecraft maintain their formations and remediate conjunction risks without having on-board propulsion (Foster, et al., 2017) (Griffith, et al., 2021). CARA has been developing improvements to MTS to support differential-drag for NASA's missions -- where it is effective. CARA records all conjunctions of their protected payloads, with historical records starting in 2005 (with significant conjunction events starting to occur on or after 2013). From this record, approximately 7,300 had a Pc greater than 1E-4 at 3 days prior to the time of closest approach, the time analyzed for differential drag efficacy. Of those, approximately 4,300 had fully-defined covariance matrices stored for both the primary and secondary objects; this set of conjunctions is the basis for the analysis of this work. CARA’s MTS tool was used to propagate the primary satellite forward from that decision point with varying degrees of increase to ballistic coefficient (BC). Because these conjunctions came from multiple missions, the nondimensional ‘delta-BC’ factor was used to quantify and normalize the increase in ballistic coefficient, defined as follows: Delta-BC = BC_new / BC_old - 1 Positive delta-BC factors represent an increase in drag compared to the nominal attitude, while negative delta-BC factors (to a minimum of -1) represent a decrease in drag. At the conclusion of the differential-drag ‘maneuver’, the Pc was recalculated to evaluate whether or not the conjunction was mitigated (Pc < 3E-6). These results were then binned and sorted along several axes, including altitude, amount of delta-BC, and (pre-maneuver) rate of energy dissipation (EDR), to identify underlying patterns. The altitude plot is shown in Figure 1. To validate this analysis, we consulted the record of a NASA mission which uses differential drag to maintain its orbit and remediate conjunction risk. CARA’s empirical record of the mission’s orbit history suggests it achieves a delta-BC of 2.2. Of the twenty-one RMM plans that were submitted by this mission, eighteen were matched with conjunctions in the historical record; of those, twelve were successfully remediated (final measured Pc < 3E-6), and six were not. This is consistent with the expected efficacy for missions orbiting at that altitude. We are presently simulating this mission’s RMMs with MTS; this work is ongoing, but so far, the MTS results are qualitatively in agreement with the empirical results -- correctly predicting that a maneuver would or would not remediate a conjunction, if not exactly matching the final post-remediation Pc value. We found that differential drag was most successful for satellites with perigees below 560 km, and which could adopt an average delta-BC of 2 or greater (that is, increasing their ballistic coefficient by a factor of 3). However, this is a difficult threshold for a mission to clear; very few spacecraft are capable of adopting a high-drag configuration for 72 hours continuously. Planet’s Dove spacecraft use differential drag to remediate conjunctions (Griffith, et al., 2021), and they have a maximum delta-BC factor of 9, but in practice (with mission and charging constraints) they achieve a time-averaged delta-BC that is closer to 2 (Foster, et al., 2017). A mission’s differential drag utility strongly depends on the operational constraints that has the capacity to limit the time-averaged delta-BC. A mission with a high maximum delta-BC of 5 or more can have an effective delta-BC of less than 1 due to operational constraints such as instrument and solar panel pointing, especially if this constraint results in holding an intermediate drag value for most of its orbit. CARA has developed tables that can be used as decision aids to advise missions-in-development about the best way to utilize their differential drag capabilities. For missions below 560 km with the operational flexibility to devote multiple days to holding a high-drag configuration (or a sufficiently high drag ratio to compensate for limitations on that time), they are -- more likely than not -- able to successfully remediate high-risk conjunctions. Conversely, missions that do not meet these exacting criteria -- most missions -- can instead be advised to use on-board propulsion systems to perform RMMs, or to turn their minimum-area face towards the approach vector, thereby reducing Pc at the moment of conjunction due to the decreased Hard-Body Radius (HBR), that is a strongly correlated variable in the Pc calculations. (NASA, 2023)

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRS2024

Appendix N. Pc Calculation Approaches – UPDATE 3/20/24

This document represents a technical content update to Appendix N of the NASA Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook (OCE-51, available on NODIS) requested by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Standards (CCSDS) to document the background on why NASA populates certain fields of the Conjunction Data Message (CDM) in certain ways. This update was requested to be used as reference material for the CCSDS CDM documentation update and so is being published as a white paper out of cycle from Handbook updates. When the full Handbook is next updated, these Appendix redlines may be incorporated into the official document. Two versions are attached - the redlines to the published Handbook for use in understanding what has changed and a clean copy.

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRS2009

It's Not a Big Sky After All: Justification for a Close Approach Prediction and Risk Assessment Process

There is often skepticism about the need for Conjunction Assessment from mission operators that invest in the "big sky theory", which states that the likelihood of a collision is so small that it can be neglected. On 10 February 2009, the collision between Iridium 3; and Cosmos 2251 provided an indication that this theory is invalid and that a CA process should be considered for all missions. This paper presents statistics of the effect of the Iridium/Cosmos collision on NASA's Earth Science Constellation as well as results of analyses which characterize the debris environment for NASA's robotic missions.

Newman, Lauri Kraft↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Setting the Bar for the Replacement of the Probability of Collision Metric

To date, satellite conjunction assessment (CA) risk analysis has largely embraced the probability of collision (Pc) as the omnibus metric to evaluate collision likelihood, and its use in such assessments has mostly been straightforward: at the point at which a conjunction mitigation decision is required, the calculated Pc is compared to a threshold; and if the calculated Pc exceeds that threshold, then a mitigation action is warranted. With only minor variation, this approach is employed by major CA risk assessment centers (e.g., NASA, EUSST, CNES, JAXA) and is advanced as the preferred method in the published CA best practices handbooks. Despite this near unanimity of operational practice, there is a major strain of secondary literature critical of the Pc and willing to propose alternatives. Alfano (2005) pointed out the ability of the Pc to underrepresent the risk in certain situations and counselled a maximum Pc construct. Carpenter (2017, 2019) reiterated this criticism and proposed using instead a confidence interval on the miss distance. Balch et al. (2019) identified what they argued was a defect in the entire Bayesian Pc construct and believed that the use of a more conservative methodology based on covariance ellipsoid overlap was necessary. Delande (2022) introduced the framework of collision “plausibility” to the risk assessment process and sketched out how this might be used operationally. Elkantassi (2022) published a full development of the miss distance confidence interval approach and applied it to several worked examples. While these different approaches to collision risk assessment do differ in their details, they all converge on two central points: first, the Pc’s failure to give an adequate expression of the risk in dilution region situations is a fatal flaw; and second, a conjunction should be presumed risky and in need of mitigation until the evidence of the situation can establish otherwise. These criticisms, if correct, would counsel a number of modifications to current CA operational practice; as such, they force a re-examination of fundamental aspects of the CA problem, including the following: 1. Is the CA risk assessment a probability problem, a statistics problem, or something else? 2. If it is a statistics problem, does it lend itself naturally to a hypothesis test construction? 3. If it can be construed as a hypothesis test, what form should the null hypothesis take, to wit: what constraints exist on the choice of the null hypothesis, what selections are in best alignment with all of the attendant parameters of the problem, and what is implied philosophically by different choices? 4. What are the implications of using the different proposed risk assessment parameters for CA? This question should be answered both in determining how frequently the dilution region situation cited by the critics of the Pc actually appears in an operationally significant manner and the missed detection and false alarm rates of all of the proposed risk assessment metrics, compared both to the Pc and to each other. This paper explores and offers preliminary answers to the above questions, presenting a researched treatment of the philosophical nature of the CA problem and the null hypothesis choice that achieves the greatest consistency with all of the different aspects of operational CA conduct. It then profiles all of the different proposed risk assessment metrics enumerated in the earlier paragraph against an extremely large database of conjunction events at both the 550km and 700km altitudes. The combination of the philosophical exploration of the CA problem and the results of the profiling activity articulates what a risk assessment metric will need to demonstrate, in terms of both innate construction and performance, in order to be a true competitor to the Pc.

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Differential Drag Efficacy for Close Approach Remediation

Differential drag has become a viable alternative to propulsion for satellites to avoid collisions, but there is little guidance in the literature to aid mission designers in developing a differential drag capability that verifiably meets collision avoidance efficacy standards or requirements, if such requirements were to exist. This paper proposes a differential drag efficacy determination approach based on empirical conjunctions from the NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis historical database, focusing on energy dissipation rate and change in ballistic coefficient as the key satellite parameters correlated to efficacy. The data analysis informs the discussion toward adoption of recommended differential drag requirements. A case study is presented to walk through the process to determine efficacy of a proposed mission assuming several potential requirements.

conjunction remediation↗
NASA NTRS2018

High Fidelity Collision Probabilities Estimated Using Brute Force Monte Carlo Simulations

The NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis team has implemented new software to estimate the probability of collision (P (sub c)) for Earth-orbiting satellites. The algorithm employs a brute force Monte Carlo (BFMC) method which differs from most other methods because it uses orbital states and covariances propagated from their orbit determination epoch times using the full set of Astrodynamics Support Workstation higher order theory models, including the High Accuracy Satellite Drag Model. This paper de-scribes the BFMC algorithm, presents comparisons of BFMC P (sub c) estimates to those calculated using other methods, and discusses the implications for conjunction risk assessment.

Probabilities↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safe Space Conduct: NASA Best Practices Overview

While prevention of launch and on-orbit collisions has been an institutional concern of NASA for several decades (beginning with the Shuttle program), historically the paucity of spaceactors and deployed payloads made the conduct of such protection activities relatively straightforward. With the substantial increases in launched payloads over the last several years, collision avoidance operations have become substantially more complicated. At the same time, many operators are uncertain regarding what collision avoidance activities are appropriate to their missions. The lack of a space traffic management authority to articulate standards and guidelines for such conduct has only increased the confusion.In response to this situation, NASA has published a Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Handbook, which articulates and explains the launch and on-orbit collision avoidance best practices that the Agency has developed and is requiring of present and future NASA missions. Because the CA2 Handbook is a living document regularly updated to reflect best practices changes as the industry develops, feedback from both NASA missions and other users is continuously collected in order to issue CA2 Handbook updates.This talk will summarize and explain the collision avoidance best practices from the CA2Handbook, along with the key issues that drove the selection of those practices.

Conjunction Assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Best Practices Overview

While prevention of launch and on-orbit collisions has been an institutional concern of NASA for several decades (beginning with the Shuttle program), historically the paucity of space actors and deployed payloads made the conduct of such protection activities relatively straightforward. With the substantial increases in launched payloads over the last several years, collision avoidance operations have become substantially more complicated. At the same time, many operators are uncertain regarding what collision avoidance activities are appropriate to their missions. The lack of a space traffic management authority to articulate standards and guidelines for such conduct has only increased the confusion. In response to this situation, NASA has published a Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Handbook, which articulates and explains the launch and on-orbit collision avoidance best practices that the Agency has developed and is requiring of present and future NASA missions. Because the CA2 Handbook is a living document regularly updated to reflect best practices changes as the industry develops, feedback from both NASA missions and other users is continuously collected in order to issue CA2 Handbook updates. This talk will summarize and explain the collision avoidance best practices from the CA2 Handbook, along with the key issues that drove the selection of those practices.

Conjunction Assessment↗
NASA NTRS2015

Trending in Probability of Collision Measurements

A simple model is proposed to predict the behavior of Probabilities of Collision (P(sub c)) for conjunction events. The model attempts to predict the location and magnitude of the peak P(sub c) value for an event by assuming the progression of P(sub c) values can be modeled to first order by a downward-opening parabola. To incorporate prior information from a large database of past conjunctions, the Bayes paradigm is utilized; and the operating characteristics of the model are established through a large simulation study. Though the model is simple, it performs well in predicting the temporal location of the peak (P(sub c)) and thus shows promise as a decision aid in operational conjunction assessment risk analysis.

Conjunction↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Decision Aid for Conjunction Risk Mitigation by Differential Drag

The NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team has conducted are view of the historical record of high-risk conjunctions involving CARA-protected missions and evaluated whether (and how much) differential drag can provide effective mitigation. From this analysis, CARA has identified a rule of thumb: missions with perigees below 560 km capable of tripling their drag area for 72 hours(or a larger scale factor for a lesser amount of time) can reliably use differential drag to remediate high-risk events.

mission design↗
NASA NTRS2019

An Operational Algorithm for Evaluating Satellite Collision Consequence

Risk is properly considered as the combination of likelihood and consequence; but conjunction assessment has usually limited itself to the consideration of only collision likelihood. When considered from an orbital regime protection perspective, the focus shifts to the question of the amount of debris that a collision might produce (the “consequence”). The present paper presents an operational algorithm for determining the expected amount of debris production should a conjunction result in a collision, and an assessment of the algorithm’s fidelity against a database of characterized objects.

Lechtenberg, Travis↗
NASA NTRS2019

An Operational Algorithm for Evaluating Satellite Collision Consequence

Risk is properly considered as the combination of likelihood and consequence; but conjunction assessment has usually limited itself to the consideration of only collision likelihood. When considered from an orbital regime protection perspective, the focus shifts to the question of the amount of debris that a collision might produce (the “consequence”). The present paper presents an operational algorithm for determining the expected amount of debris production should a conjunction result in a collision, and an assessment of the algorithm’s fidelity against a database of characterized objects.

Lechtenberg, Travis↗
NASA NTRS2011

A Tuned Single Parameter for Representing Conjunction Risk

Satellite conjunction assessment risk analysis is a subjective enterprise that can benefit from quantitative aids and, to this end, NASA/GSFC has developed a fuzzy logic construct - called the F-value - to attempt to provide a statement of conjunction risk that amalgamates multiple indices and yields a more stable intra-event assessment. This construct has now sustained an extended tuning procedure against heuristic analyst assessment of event risk. The tuning effort has resulted in modifications to the calculation procedure and the adjustment of tuning coefficients, producing a construct with both more predictive force and a better statement of its error.

Plakaloic, D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA CARA Tools

The NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team has created and posted to GitHub a set of MATLAB software tools for collision assessment (CA) analysis. The software is provided to the public under a NASA Open-Source Software Agreement and is maintained/updated by the CARA Analysis team. Capabilities provided within the toolset include algorithms in assessing probability of collision (Pc), collision consequence, covariance realism, Orbit Determination (OD) quality assessment, and single covariance max Pc. Additionally, a set of utilities are provided for astrodynamics topics closely related to CA, such as: Conjunction Data Message (CDM) parsing, covariance transformations, coordinate system transformations, etc. The repository is regularly updated on a monthly basis and new functionality will be added as algorithms are approved for public release. This presentation will provide a brief introduction to the toolset, highlight some of the key components which can be used in operations, and will present information on algorithms that are in the release pipeline and can be expected soon. This software will enable operators to independently perform CA calculations using the same core algorithms that CARA uses in operations.

L. Baars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA CARA Tools

The NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team has created and posted to GitHub a set of MATLAB software tools for collision assessment (CA) analysis. The software is provided to the public under a NASA Open-Source Software Agreement and is maintained/updated by the CARA Analysis team. Capabilities provided within the toolset include algorithms in assessing probability of collision (Pc), collision consequence, covariance realism, Orbit Determination (OD) quality assessment, and single covariance max Pc. Additionally, a set of utilities are provided for astrodynamics topics closely related to CA, such as: Conjunction Data Message (CDM) parsing, covariance transformations, coordinate system transformations, etc. The repository is regularly updated on a monthly basis and new functionality will be added as algorithms are approved for public release. This presentation will provide a brief introduction to the toolset, highlight some of the key components which can be used in operations, and will present information on algorithms that are in the release pipeline and can be expected soon. This software will enable operators to independently perform CA calculations using the same core algorithms that CARA uses in operations.

Luis Baars↗
NASA NTRS2012

A Geometric Analysis to Protect Manned Assets from Newly Launched Objects - COLA Gap Analysis

A safety risk was identified for the International Space Station (ISS) by The Aerospace Corporation following the launch of GPS IIR-20 (March 24, 2009), when the spent upper stage of the launch vehicle unexpectedly crossed inside the ISS notification box shortly after launch. This event highlighted a 56-hour vulnerability period following the end of the launch Collision Avoidance (COLA) process where the ISS would be unable to react to a conjunction with a newly launched object. Current launch COLA processes screen each launched object across the launch window to determine if an object's nominal trajectory is predicted to pass within 200 km of the ISS (or any other manned/mannable object), resulting in a launch time closure. These launch COLA screens are performed from launch through separation plus I 00 minutes. Once the objects are in orbit, they are cataloged and evaluated as part of routine on-orbit conjunction assessment processes. However, as the GPS IIR-20 scenario illustrated, there is a vulnerability period in the time line between the end of launch COLA coverage and the beginning of standard on-orbit COLA assessment activities. The gap between existing launch and on-orbit COLA processes is driven by the time it takes to track and catalog a launched object, identify a conjunction, and plan and execute a collision avoidance maneuver. For the ISS, the total time required to accomplish an of these steps is 56 hours. To protect human lives, NASA/JSC has requested that an US launches take additional steps to protect the ISS during this "COLA gap" period. The uncertainty in the state of a spent upper stage can be quite large after all bums are complete and all remaining propellants are expelled to safe the stage. Simply extending the launch COLA process an additional 56 hours is not a viable option as the 3-sigma position uncertainty will far exceed the 200 km miss-distance criterion. Additionally, performing a probability of collision (Pc) analysis over this period is also not practical due to the limiting effects of these large orbit state uncertainties. An estimated upper bound for Pc for a typical spent upper stage if nominally aligned for a direct broadside collision with the ISS is only on the order of 10-6. For a smaller manned object such as a Soyuz capsule, the risk level decreases to an order of 10'8 . In comparison, the Air Force Range policy (AFI 91-217) for launch COLAs would only eliminate launch opportunities when conjunctions with objects exceed a Pc of 10'5 This paper demonstrates a conservative geometry-based methodology that may be used to determine if launch opportunities pose a threat to the ISS during the COLA gap period. The NASA Launch Services Program at Kennedy Space Center has developed this COLA gap analysis method and employed it fQr three NASA missions to identify potential ISS conjunctions and corresponding launch window closures during the 56-hour at-risk period. In the analysis, for each launch opportunity, the nominal trajectory of the spent upper stage and the orbit state of the ISS are propagated over the 56 hour period. Each time the upper stage crosses the orbit plane of the ISS, the relative radial and argument of latitude separations are calculated. A window cutout is identified if these separation differences fall within a mission-specific violation box, which is determined from the evaluation of a Monte Carlo dispersions analysis that quantifies the potential variation in the upper stage radial and argument of latitude differences. This paper details the results of these analyses and their impacts to each mission.

Hametz, Mark E.↗