Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “conjunction risk mitigation”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 NTRS2008

Maneuver Planning for Conjunction Risk Mitigation with Ground-track Control Requirements

The planning of conjunction Risk Mitigation Maneuvers (RMM) in the presence of ground-track control requirements is analyzed. Past RMM planning efforts on the Aqua, Aura, and Terra spacecraft have demonstrated that only small maneuvers are available when ground-track control requirements are maintained. Assuming small maneuvers, analytical expressions for the effect of a given maneuver on conjunction geometry are derived. The analytical expressions are used to generate a large trade space for initial RMM design. This trade space represents a significant improvement in initial maneuver planning over existing methods that employ high fidelity maneuver models and propagation.

McKinley, David↗
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 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 NTRS2010

Assessment, Planning, and Execution Considerations for Conjunction Risk Assessment and Mitigation Operations

An operational Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) concept is the real-time process of assessing risk posed by close approaches and reacting to those risks if necessary. The most effective way to completely mitigate conjunction risk is to perform an avoidance maneuver. The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has implemented a routine CARA process since 2005. Over this period, considerable experience has been gained and many lessons have been learned. This paper identifies and presents these experiences as general concepts in the description of the Conjunction Assessment, Flight Dynamics, and Flight Operations methodologies and processes. These general concepts will be tied together and will be exemplified through a case study of an actual high risk conjunction event for the Aura mission.

Frigm, Ryan C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

Recent research in satellite conjunction risk assessment has levelled a number of criticisms at the probability of collision (Pc) parameter as a durable statement of satellite collision likelihood, and a number of different alternatives to this calculation have been proposed. Many of these proposals, however, stop at the outlining of the theory and do not discuss the additional philosophical and practical issues that must be confronted in evaluating such proposals for adoption. The present work seeks to outline some of these philosophical and practical considerations, and therefore the kinds of analyses and profiling that will be needed before the Pc, which is at present nearly universally adopted in the conjunction risk mitigation community, can be replaced with a new (and superior) paradigm and associated metric.

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA CARA Prelaunch Analysis and Process

NASA implemented an official Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8079.1 in June 2023, establishing the minimum collision avoidance requirements and associated operational protocols for NASA space flight programs, projects, and spacecraft to protect the space environment by reducing the risk of collision to an acceptable level. Part of the requirement employs a two-fold approach to analyze the satellite design process with conjunction assessment and risk mitigation in mind, during the pre-launch process, led by the Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Program for non-Human Space Flight (HSF) Missions. This presentation outlines CARA coordination with missions, informed by the NPR, that spans early mission development to operations. CARA is an Agency-level resource that provides support to all NASA non-HSF missions. CARA protects the orbital environment from collision between NASA non-HSF missions and other tracked on-orbit objects. During the pre-formulation and formulation phases, NASA missions undergo a series of conjunction assessment analyses captured in the Orbital Collision Avoidance Plan (OCAP) prior to transitioning to the implementation phase (typically at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) or equivalent). The OCAP analyses consist of a thorough review of the spacecraft(s) orbit selection and placement, deployment, cataloguing performance, trackability, ephemeris generation, conjunction mitigation options, autonomous maneuvering, and risk assessment parameters which are performed by a dedicated CARA Analysis Team. The results of these analyses, CARA’s formal recommendations, and the mission’s methods for implementing them, are documented in the OCAP. The intent of engaging in this process so early in the mission design phase, is to ensure that conjunction assessment is considered from the outset, thus mitigating costly design changes and operational risks down the road. NASA missions are also required to coordinate their operational processes and conjunction mitigation procedures with CARA in a Conjunction Assessment Operations Implementation Agreement (CAOIA). The aim of this process is to document the conjunction assessment screening process, conjunction risk assessment parameters, conjunction mitigation steps, flight dynamics operations concepts and maneuvers, and the communication and coordination process between the mission’s project manager and CARA. The intent of the CAOIA document is for it to be completed iteratively, and as missions update these elements, corresponding changes are made in the CAOIA. With this process in place, the engagement and coordination between the missions and CARA from early in the design process into mission operations, helps to ensure that missions not only have a robust conjunction assessment concept of operations to reduce conjunction risk for space sustainability, but are also able to achieve their science goals and have a successful mission.

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA CARA Prelaunch Analysis and Process

NASA implemented an official Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8079.1 in June 2023, establishing the minimum collision avoidance requirements and associated operational protocols for NASA space flight programs, projects, and spacecraft to protect the space environment by reducing the risk of collision to an acceptable level. Part of the requirement employs a two-fold approach to analyze the satellite design process with conjunction assessment and risk mitigation in mind, during the pre-launch process, led by the Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Program for non-Human Space Flight (HSF) Missions. This presentation outlines CARA coordination with missions, informed by the NPR, that spans early mission development to operations. CARA is an Agency-level resource that provides support to all NASA non-HSF missions. CARA protects the orbital environment from collision between NASA non-HSF missions and other tracked on-orbit objects. During the pre-formulation and formulation phases, NASA missions undergo a series of conjunction assessment analyses captured in the Orbital Collision Avoidance Plan (OCAP) prior to transitioning to the implementation phase (typically at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) or equivalent). The OCAP analyses consist of a thorough review of the spacecraft(s) orbit selection and placement, deployment, cataloguing performance, trackability, ephemeris generation, conjunction mitigation options, autonomous maneuvering, and risk assessment parameters which are performed by a dedicated CARA Analysis Team. The results of these analyses, CARA’s formal recommendations, and the mission’s methods for implementing them, are documented in the OCAP. The intent of engaging in this process so early in the mission design phase, is to ensure that conjunction assessment is considered from the outset, thus mitigating costly design changes and operational risks down the road. NASA missions are also required to coordinate their operational processes and conjunction mitigation procedures with CARA in a Conjunction Assessment Operations Implementation Agreement (CAOIA). The aim of this process is to document the conjunction assessment screening process, conjunction risk assessment parameters, conjunction mitigation steps, flight dynamics operations concepts and maneuvers, and the communication and coordination process between the mission’s project manager and CARA. The intent of the CAOIA document is for it to be completed iteratively, and as missions update these elements, corresponding changes are made in the CAOIA. With this process in place, the engagement and coordination between the missions and CARA from early in the design process into mission operations, helps to ensure that missions not only have a robust conjunction assessment concept of operations to reduce conjunction risk for space sustainability, but are also able to achieve their science goals and have a successful mission.

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Jettison and Disposal from Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits, Part 1: Theory

The proposed Gateway spacecraft in a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO) will be a human outpost in cislunar space. The baseline mission may experience the deployment of visiting vehicles, cubesats, and on-orbit debris. Departure from the NRHO and cislunar space is nontrivial due to the complex gravitational environment that persists in and around Gateway. Long-term disposal orbits in heliocentric space offer safe destinations for deployed objects. To mitigate risks associated with conjunctions between Gateway and deployed objects, strategies to identify risk-avoidant paths to heliocentric space are necessary for Gateway mission operations.

Stephen T. Scheuerle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Metrics on Predictive Probability of Collision Assessments Reliant on Object State Updates

The probability of collision (Pc) metric is the dominant method of risk charac-terization for evaluating satellite close approaches, and has become of particular interest following major debris production incidents. However, confidence in the use of Pc for actionability has been questioned due in part due to its non-intuitive and often significant corrections following messaging updates. This paper assesses predictively computed probabilities and confidence bounds on Pc values corresponding to orbit determination updates by comparing these predic-tive values to observed operational values. This paper also presents use cases for this methodology in assessing event actionability.

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRS2014

Middle Man Concept for In-Orbit Collision Risks Mitigation, CAESAR and CARA Examples

This paper describes the conjunction analysis which has to be performed using data provided by JSpOC. This description not only demonstrates that Collision Avoidance is a 2- step process (close approach detection followed by risk evaluation for collision avoidance decision) but also leads to the conclusion that there is a need for a Middle Man role. After describing the Middle Man concept, this paper introduces two examples with their similarities and particularities: the American civil space effort delivered by the NASA CARA team (Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis) and the French response CAESAR (Conjunction Assessment and Evaluation Service: Alerts and Recommendations). For both, statistics are presented and feedbacks discussed. All together, around 80 satellites are served by CARA and/or CAESAR. Both processes regularly evolve in order either to follow JSpOC upgrades or to improve analysis according to experience acquired during the past years.

conjunction↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Conjunction Assessment and Deconfliction Paradigm for Co-Located Satellite Constellations With on-Spacecraft “Autonomous” Flight Dynamics Control

Satellite constellations that employ on-spacecraft flight dynamics and conjunction assessment (CA) approaches face particular challenges. First, they must arrange to obtain and upload to the constellation satellite close approach information, such as Conjunction Data Messages, so that their on-board systems will have the data they need to make informed CA decisions. Second, given current latencies in obtaining CA screening information, such systems often cannot obtain dedicated screenings of their proposed maneuvers before they are executed. Third, they usually cannot engage in real time with owner/operators (O/Os) with whom they may come into conjunction, relying instead on pre-arranged courses of action that may or may not fit a given situation well. Despite these difficulties, it is nonetheless possible, as operators such as SpaceX have demonstrated, to operate safely using on-board CA calculations, in the presence of a largely collaborative operating environment. The situation breaks down, however, when two constellations that operate with such a paradigm are placed in the same orbital region and will experience conjunctions with each other. Each may have a vague idea of where the other’s satellites are, or perhaps even a somewhat precise idea if they exchange O/O ephemerides, but neither will know the other’s more immediate maneuver intentions, especially for situations in which they are in a high-risk conjunction with each other and a mitigation maneuver is required. As there is no formalized way for these automated systems to ascertain each other’s intentions for this type of conjunction, it is quite possible that each spacecraft may choose a maneuver that results in the two objects’ colliding. An opportunity to develop a solution to this problem was presented by the NASA “Starling” project, a small experimental constellation developed to demonstrate autonomous satellite control and constellation reconfiguration and for which a launch was obtained that, serendipitously, will place this constellation close to the SpaceX Starlink constellation. Because the NASA constellation is experimental, an extended mission part of the mission has been negotiated to implement and test mechanisms for resolving the problem of co-located constellations with on-board flight dynamics control. For the last eighteen months, a consortium among NASA Ames (the Starling satellite providers), NASA CARA (the Agency organization responsible for conjunction assessment), Space X, and the Department of Commerce (in observer status) has met regularly to assemble a concept of operations for a robust solution to this problem and has developed a prototype ground node that will serve as a needed CA screening and information dispensary. The approach and methods, as well as the active employment of the developed ground node, will be tested both in simulation before actual use and then in actual spacecraft operations, which are anticipated to begin in January 2024. This paper will describe the co-located autonomously-controlled constellation problem and the developed solution in detail, outlining what ground node (i.e., government) infrastructure and features are required, what particular capabilities are needed by the constellations themselves in order to make use of this deconfliction paradigm, and the migration path forward to allow such a capability set to be incorporated by the Department of Commerce’s space traffic coordination system.

Conjunction Assessment↗
NASA NTRS2008

The NASA Robotic Conjunction Assessment Process: Overview and Operational Experiences

Orbital debris poses a significant threat to spacecraft health and safety. Recent events such as China's anti-satellite test and the Breeze-M rocket explosion have led to an even greater awareness and concern in the satellite community. Therefore, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has established requirements that routine conjunction assessment screening shall be performed for all maneuverable spacecraft having perigees less than 2000 km or within 200 km of geosynchronous altitude. NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) has developed an operational collision risk assessment process to protect NASA s high-value unmanned (robotic) assets that has been in use since January 2005. This paper provides an overview of the NASA robotic conjunction assessment process, including descriptions of the new tools developed to analyze close approach data and of the risk mitigation strategies employed. In addition, statistical data describing the number of conjunctions experienced are presented. A debris avoidance maneuver performed by Aura in June of 2008 is described in detail to illustrate the process.

Newman, Lauri Kraft↗
NASA NTRS1996

Flight Test Results from Real-Time Relative Global Positioning System Flight Experiment on STS-69

A real-time global positioning system (GPS) Kalman filter has been developed to support automated rendezvous with the International Space Station (ISS). The filter is integrated with existing Shuttle rendezvous software running on a 486 laptop computer under Windows. In this work, we present real-time and postflight results achieved with the filter on STS-69. The experiment used GPS data from an Osborne/Jet propulsion Laboratory TurboRouge receiver carried on the Wake Shield Facility (WSF) free flyer and a Rockwell Collins 3M receiver carried on the Orbiter. Real time filter results, processed onboard the Shuttle and replayed in near-time on the ground, are based on single vehicle mode operation and on 5 to 20 minute snapshots of telemetry provided by WSF for dual-vehicle mode operation. The Orbiter and WSF state vectors calculated using our filter compare favorably with precise reference orbits determined by the University of Texas Center for Space Research. The lessons learned from this experiment will be used in conjunction with future experiments to mitigate the technology risk posed by automated rendezvous and docking to the ISS.

Park, Young W.↗
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↗