A two-level scheme for multiobjective multidebris active removal mission planning in low Earth orbits (original) (raw)

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
• Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
• Cancel anytime View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

1. Liou J C. Engineering and technology challenges for active debris removal. Progress Propul Phys, 2013, 4: 735–748
   Article Google Scholar
2. Braun V, Lüpken A, Flegel S, et al. Active debris removal of multiple priority targets. Adv Space Res, 2013, 51: 1638–1648
   Article Google Scholar
3. Liu Y, Yang J N, Wang Y Z, et al. Multi-objective optimal preliminary planning of multi-debris active removal mission in LEO. Sci China Inf Sci, 2017, 60: 072202
   Article Google Scholar
4. Barbee B W, Alfano S, Pinon E, et al. Design of spacecraft missions to remove multiple orbital debris objects. In: Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2011
5. Cerf M. Multiple space debris collecting mission: optimal mission planning. J Optim Theory Appl, 2015, 167: 195–218
   Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
6. Shen H X, Zhang T J, Casalino L, et al. Optimization of active debris removal missions with multiple targets. J Spacecraft Rockets, 2018, 55: 181–189
   Article Google Scholar
7. Zuiani F, Vasile M. Preliminary design of debris removal missions by means of simplified models for low-thrust, many-revolution transfers. Int J Aerospace Eng, 2012, 2012: 1–22
   Article Google Scholar
8. Madakat D, Morio J, Vanderpooten D. Biobjective planning of an active debris removal mission. Acta Astronaut, 2013, 84: 182–188
   Article Google Scholar
9. Bérend N, Olive X. Bi-objective optimization of a multiple-target active debris removal mission. Acta Astronaut, 2016, 122: 324–335
   Article Google Scholar
10. Mikkel J, Inna S. Planning and optimization for a multiple space debris removal mission. In: Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2018
11. Olympio J T, Frouvelle N. Space debris selection and optimal guidance for removal in the SSO with low-thrust propulsion. Acta Astronaut, 2014, 99: 263–275
    Article Google Scholar
12. Di Carlo M, Martin J M R, Vasile M. Automatic trajectory planning for low-thrust active removal mission in low-earth orbit. Adv Space Res, 2017, 59: 1234–1258
    Article Google Scholar
13. Izzo D, Getzner I, Hennes D, et al. Evolving solutions to TSP variants for active space debris removal. In: Proceedings of Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, 2015. 1207–1214
14. Yang J, Hu Y H, Liu Y, et al. A maximal-reward preliminary planning for multi-debris active removal mission in LEO with a greedy heuristic method. Acta Astronaut, 2018, 149: 123–142
    Article Google Scholar
15. Stuart J, Howell K, Wilson R. Application of multi-agent coordination methods to the design of space debris mitigation tours. Adv Space Res, 2016, 57: 1680–1697
    Article Google Scholar
16. Nations U. Technical Report on Space Debris. 1999. https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/un_report_on_space_debris99.pdf
17. Lidtke A A, Lewis H G, Armellin R, et al. Considering the collision probability of active debris removal missions. Acta Astronaut, 2017, 131: 10–17
    Article Google Scholar
18. Lidtke A A, Lewis H G, Armellin R. Impact of high-risk conjunctions on active debris removal target selection. Adv Space Res, 2015, 56: 1752–1764
    Article Google Scholar
19. Anselmo L, Pardini C. Ranking upper stages in low Earth orbit for active removal. Acta Astronaut, 2016, 122: 19–27
    Article Google Scholar
20. Anselmo L, Pardini C. Compliance of the Italian satellites in low Earth orbit with the end-of-life disposal guidelines for space debris mitigation and ranking of their long-term criticality for the environment. Acta Astronaut, 2015, 114: 93–100
    Article Google Scholar
21. Pardini C, Anselmo L. Characterization of abandoned rocket body families for active removal. Acta Astronaut, 2016, 126: 243–257
    Article Google Scholar
22. Tadini P, Tancredi U, Grassi M, et al. Active debris multi-removal mission concept based on hybrid propulsion. Acta Astronaut, 2014, 103: 26–35
    Article Google Scholar
23. Utzmann J, Oswald M, Stabroth S, et al. Ranking and characterization of heavy debris for active removal. In: Proceedings of the 63rd International Astronautical Congress, 2012
24. Andrenucci M, Pergola P, Ruggiero A. Active Removal of Space Debris — Expanding Foam Application for Active Debris Removal. European Space Agency, Advanced Concepts Team, Ariadna Final Report 10-4611, 2011
25. Lewis H G, George S, Schwarz B S, et al. Space debris environment impact rating system. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Space Debris, 2013
26. Cerf M. Space Debris Cleaning Missions. Latvia: Éditions Universitaires Européennes, 2017
27. Liu Y, Yang J N. A multi-objective planning method for multi-debris active removal mission in LEO. In: Proceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2017
28. Yan L, Qu B Y, Zhu Y S, et al. Dynamic economic emission dispatch based on multi-objective pigeon-inspired optimization with double disturbance. Sci China Inf Sci, 2019, 62: 070210
    Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
29. Qiu H X, Duan H B. Multi-objective pigeon-inspired optimization for brushless direct current motor parameter design. Sci China Tech Sci, 2015, 58: 1915–1923
    Article Google Scholar
30. Wang H D, Zhang Q F, Jiao L C, et al. Regularity model for noisy multiobjective optimization. IEEE Trans Cybern, 2016, 46: 1997–2009
    Article Google Scholar
31. Abdoun O, Abouchabaka J. A comparative study of adaptive crossover operators for genetic algorithms to resolve the traveling salesman problem. 2012. ArXiv:12033097
32. Hintz G R. Orbital Mechanics and Astrodynamics. Berlin: Springer, 2015
    Book Google Scholar
33. Liou J C. An active debris removal parametric study for LEO environment remediation. Adv Space Res, 2011, 47: 1865–1876
    Article Google Scholar
34. Peng W, Zhang Q F, Li H. Comparison between MOEA/D and NSGA-II on the multi-objective travelling salesman problem. In: Multi-Objective Memetic Algorithms. Berlin: Springer, 2009. 309–324
    Chapter Google Scholar

Download references