The space environment around the Earth is populated by more than 130 million objects of 1 mm in size and larger, and future predictions shows that this amount is destined to increase, even if mitigation measures are implemented at a far better rate than today. These objects can hit and damage a spacecraft or its components. It is thus necessary to assess the risk level for a satellite during its mission lifetime. Few software packages perform this analysis, and most of them employ time-consuming ray-tracing methodology, where particles are randomly sampled from relevant distributions. In addition, they tend not to consider the risk associated with the secondary debris clouds. The paper presents the development of a vulnerability assessment model, which relies on a fully statistical procedure: the debris fluxes are directly used combining them with the concept of the vulnerable zone, avoiding the random sampling the debris fluxes. A novel methodology is presented to predict damage to internal components. It models the interaction between the components and the secondary debris cloud through basic geometric operations, considering mutual shielding and shadowing between internal components. The methodologies are tested against state-of-the-art software for relevant test cases, comparing results on external structures and internal components.

Among the mitigation measures introduced to cope with the space debris issue there is the de-orbiting of decommissioned satellites. Guidelines for re-entering objects call for a ground casualty risk no higher than 0.0001. To comply with this requirement, satellites can be designed through a design-for-demise philosophy. Still, a spacecraft designed to demise has to survive the debris-populated space environment for many years. The demisability and the survivability of a satellite can both be influenced by a set of common design choices such as the material selection, the geometry definition, and the position of the components. Within this context, two models have been developed to analyse the demise and the survivability of satellites. Given the competing nature of the demisability and the survivability, a multi-objective optimisation framework was developed, with the aim to identify trade-off solutions for the preliminary design of satellites. As the problem is nonlinear and involves the combination of continuous and discrete variables, classical derivative based approaches are unsuited and a genetic algorithm was selected instead. The genetic algorithm uses the developed demisability and survivability criteria as the fitness functions of the multi-objective algorithm. The paper presents a test case, which considers the preliminary optimisation of tanks in terms of material, geometry, location, and number of tanks for a representative Earth observation mission. The configuration of the external structure of the spacecraft is fixed. Tanks were selected because they are sensitive to both design requirements: they represent critical components in the demise process and impact damage can cause the loss of the mission because of leaking and ruptures. The results present the possible trade off solutions, constituting the Pareto front obtained from the multi-objective optimisation.

The paper is concerned with examining the effects that design-for-demise solutions can have not only on the demisability of components, but also on their survivability that is their capability to withstand impacts from space debris. First two models are introduced. A demisability model to predict the behaviour of spacecraft components during the atmospheric re-entry and a survivability model to assess the vulnerability of spacecraft structures against space debris impacts. Two indices that evaluate the level of demisability and survivability are also proposed. The two models are then used to study the sensitivity of the demisability and of the survivability indices as a function of typical design-for-demise options. The demisability and the survivability can in fact be influenced by the same design parameters in a competing fashion that is while the demisability is improved, the survivability is worsened and vice versa. The analysis shows how the design-for-demise solutions influence the demisability and the survivability independently. In addition, the effect that a solution has simultaneously on the two criteria is assessed. Results shows which, among the design-for-demise parameters mostly influence the demisability and the survivability. For such design parameters maps are presented, describing their influence on the demisability and survivability indices. These maps represent a useful tool to quickly assess the level of demisability and survivability that can be expected from a component, when specific design parameters are changed.