Anz-Meador, P. D.

Avishai, A.

Bjorkman, M.

Braun, V.

Davidson, W.

Davis, A.

Flegal, S.

Hornung, S.

Hyde, J.

Jarkey, D.

Krisko, P. H.

Lukco, D.

Matney, M. J.

Ross, D. K.

Xu, Y.-L.

NASA Technical Reports Server

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Orbital Debris Program Office
ORDEM 3.0 AND MASTER-2009 POPULATIONS 
COMPARISON (with preliminary SRM slag study)
33rd Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee 
Houston, U.S.A.
31 March – 3 April 2015
P.H. Krisko, S. Flegel, M.J. Matney, D. Jarkey, V. Braun, P.D. 
Anz-Meador, Y.-L. Xu, A. Davis, W. Davidson, J. Hyde, M. 
Bjorkman, D.K. Ross, S. Hornung, D. Lukco, A.  Avishai
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20150003036 2019-08-31T13:42:05+00:00Z
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Presentation in 3 sections
1. “ORDEM 3.0 and MASTER-2009 modeled debris population environment ” P.H. 
Krisko, S. Flegel, M.J. Matney, D.R. Jarkey, V. Braun, presented at 65th IAC, Toronto, 
Canada by Sven Flegel, edited and published in Acta Astronautica Vol………
2. Disparities in population organization  for ORDEM 3.0 are material density, for 
MASTER-2009, as well as modeling techniques  
3. Aluminum (Al) and aluminum oxide (Al2O3) identification studies at the OPDO
Orbital Debris Program Office1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ORDEM 3.0 and MASTER-2009 
• “ORDEM 3.0 and MASTER-2009 modeled debris population environment “
• Four test case orbits presented
– All Spacecraft Mode
– All uncontrolled
Orbital Debris Program Office2
Orbit Type Sample Satellite NORAD ID Ha/Hp [km] Inc [deg]
ISS ISS 25544 419 / 414 51.65
SSO DMSP 5D-3 F19 (USA 249) 39630 855 / 838 98.84
GTO CRRES 20712 33444 / 317 18.16
GEO Raduga 1M-3 39375 35797 / 35775 0.004
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ORDEM 3.0 and MASTER-2009 
Example: ISS in 2014
Orbital Debris Program Office3
In-situ Data 
Sources
Remote 
Sensing  
Data 
Sources
ORDEM and MASTER charts courtesy D. Jarkey
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ORDEM 3.0 and MASTER-2009 test cases 
Orbital Debris Program Office4
ISS
SSOGTO
GEO
• GEO
• ORDEM includes GEO flux 
of objects larger than 10 cm, 
and GTO flux of objects 
from 10 mm to 1 m
• Investigation underway  
• Non-GEO
• 1 m fluxes match well in all 
three cases (cataloged 
objects)
• MASTER 10 cm fluxes 
exceed those of ORDEM in 
all three cases
• ORDEM overtakes 
MASTER in the low end of 
the critical size range in all 
non-GEO cases
• True for ORDEM 2.0 and 
MASTER-2005 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
MASTER-2009 source populations for ISS 2014
Orbital Debris Program Office5
• At 1 m and 10 cm the 
dominant population fluxes 
are due to explosion and 
collision fragments and 
launch/mission objects. 
• Within the critical size 
range (1 cm to 1 mm) Solid 
Rocket Motor (SRM) slag, 
explosion and collision 
fragments are dominant.
• Ejecta debris is also present 
with significant populations 
within the sub-millimeter 
sizes, but decreases in flux 
more rapidly with increased 
size then the other major 
constituents
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ORDEM 3.0 material density populations for ISS 2014
Orbital Debris Program Office6
• At 1 m and 10 cm the 
dominant population fluxes 
are due to medium density 
objects and Intact objects. 
• Within the critical size range 
(1 cm to 1 mm) medium and 
high density material 
dominate with minor low 
density material populations.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Initial Population Comparisons
Orbital Debris Program Office7
ORDEM 3.0 with 
low-, medium-, 
and high density 
material only
MASTER-2009 
with paint flakes, 
ejecta, explosion 
and collision 
fragments only
MASTER-2009 with 
paint, ejecta, 
explosion and 
collision fragments 
SRM dust and slag 
only
ORDEM 3.0 with 
low-, medium-, 
and high density 
material only
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Initial Population Comparisons
Orbital Debris Program Office8
MASTER-2009 
with paint, ejecta, 
explosion and 
collision 
fragments only
MASTER-2009 with 
SRM dust and slag 
only
• In ORDEM there is no SRM slag population. It is not identified in any ODPO source 
database. 
• In MASTER the SRM dust and slag rival the sum of all other debris in the critical 
size range and below.  
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Is SRM slag in the orbital environment? 
Orbital Debris Program Office9
SRM usage continues to 
decline since the 1990s
Chart courtesy P.D. Anz-Meador
HVIT database of 
aluminum impactors on 
STS 71-135 (mid- 1990’s to 
2012) includes ~ 2% 
aluminum oxide particles. 
Analysis and chart courtesy E. 
Christiansen, D. Lear, J. Hyde, M. 
Bjorkman
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Is SRM slag in the orbital environment? 
Orbital Debris Program Office10
LEGEND model (excludes SRM slag)                   SRM slag model
Range vs. range rate calculation courtesy Y.-L. Xu
SRM slag model courtesy M. Horstman
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ODPO, HVIT Al vs. Al2O3 study 
Orbital Debris Program Office11
• “Hypervelocity Impact Test Plan for Aluminum Oxide Identification 
Program”, 10 shots completed at WSTF (White Sands Test Facility) 
– all samples returned to JSC in late Oct 2011.
– 5 shots with Al impactors on STS glass 3” pucks, 5 shots with Al2O3 impactors 
on STS 3” pucks
– Decision: retain all glass pucks from completed test for mold samples, perform 
new impact tests at WSTF using precut glass cubes.
– Multiple impactors (30-50) placed in closed sabot (’shotgun’ method)
– All targets angled at 45 deg, impactor velocities varied from ~3 to ~7 km/s 
– 2 shots unsuccessful
– 8 impact samples analyzed in blind tests, 4 on mold (2 Al, 2 Al2O3), 4 on 
glass (2 Al, 2 Al2O3) 
Al commercial source) Al2O3(ground recovered slag 
Fabrication courtesy W. Davidson
Photos courtesy A. Davis
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chemical analysis
Orbital Debris Program Office12
• NASA JSC SEM/EDS analysis completed. Results are inconclusive on all 8 
samples
– Impact remnants are sub-micron in size
• Note: Remnant size is sub-micron in STS returned surfaces also.
– Oxygen signal in spectra could be derived from glass, mold, or Al2O3.
• The 8 samples and maps of remnant locations to WSTF for Auger analysis
– “Auger may have higher fidelity in this study”
• Auger study was plagued by equipment failures and the state of the 
samples. 
– Many samples had been carbon coated at JSC 
• In Sept. 2014 samples sent to GRC (Glenn Research Center)
– With CWRU (Case Western Reserve University), identifications of the remnants made. 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ODPO Al vs. Al2O3 study conclusion 
Orbital Debris Program Office13
• For glass cube remnants 3 out of 4 were correctly identified. 
• For mold sample remnants 2 out of 4 were correctly identified. 
– One of mold sample failures showed conflicting  IDs in different regions of the mold. 
– At best 6 of 8 successes. At worst 5 of 8 successes 
– An Al2O3 identification requires O/Al ratio of 3/2
Analysis and photos courtesy D. Lukco and A. Avishai
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Al2O3 Sample Identification 
Orbital Debris Program Office14
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Al Sample Identification 
Orbital Debris Program Office15
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Best Method for Distinguishing between Al and Al2O3 Particles on 
Silicone Mold Impressions from Over Ten Years ago
by D. Lukco
Orbital Debris Program Office16
• Field Emission Secondary Electron Microscopy (FE-SEM) with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy 
(EDS) using low voltage (3-5 kV) would still be the best choice for characterizing these samples.  If 
the particles were already mapped out and had only a 15-25 nm thickness of carbon coating on 
them, it should be possible to identify whether the particles are aluminum metal or oxide fairly 
quickly.
• If the carbon layer is too thick, a Focused Ion Beam (FIB) cross section of the particles could be 
obtained.  Ideally, from the cross section, it would be possible to see a metal core with oxide on 
the outsides of the particles.  If the particles are too small, a lift-out section could be prepared for 
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) or Scanning TEM.  This last method would be definitive 
but it also takes much longer (4-5 hours/cut, but the cuts could be across several particles at the 
same time).
• Aluminum metal always has a thin oxide coating on its surface.  If the particles are large and 
smooth (at least > 1 µm), the oxide thickness could be 5-50 nm and should not increase over time.  
However, if the particles are sub-micron, then you reach a point where the oxide layer constitutes 
most of the sample and it would be difficult to distinguish, except maybe with TEM.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Time of Flight- Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (TOF-SIMS)
by D. Lukco
Orbital Debris Program Office17
• This technique would be a good place to start looking at samples that had not been previously 
analyzed before.  It holds the highest chance of being able to collect data over a large area and 
locate where aluminum is concentrated much faster than FE-SEM.  It would also simultaneously 
collect data on all other particles on the samples which could be then be used to identify them.
• The aluminum containing areas could then be lightly sputtered to remove any surface oxide and 
then the mass could be checked to identify either aluminum or aluminum oxide.
• A thick carbon coating would be problematic with this technique since it is the most surface 
sensitive of all analytical methods and all of the carbon would have to be sputtered away.  


ORDEM 3.0 and MASTER-2009 Populations Comparison (with Preliminary SRM Slag Study)

ORDEM 3.0 and MASTER-2009 Populations Comparison (with Preliminary SRM Slag Study)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server