Theoretical and empirical analysis of the average cross-sectional areas of breakup fragments

Toshiya Hanada, J. C. Liou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper compares two different approaches to calculate the average cross-sectional area of breakup fragments. The first one is described in the NASA standard breakup model 1998 revision. This approach visually classifies fragments into several shapes, and then applies formulae developed for each shape to calculate the average cross-sectional area. The second approach was developed jointly by the Kyushu University and the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. This new approach automatically classifies fragments into plate- or irregular-shapes based on their aspect ratio and thickness, and then applies formulae developed for each shape to calculate the average cross-sectional area. The comparison between the two approaches is demonstrated in the area-to-mass ratio (A/m) distribution of fragments from two microsatellite impact experiments completed in early 2008. A major difference between the two approaches comes from the calculation of the average cross-sectional area of plates. In order to determine which of the two approaches provides a better description of the actual A/m distribution of breakup fragments, a theoretical analysis in the calculation of the average cross-sectional area of an ideal plate is conducted. This paper also investigates the average cross-sectional area of multi-layer insulation fragments. The average cross-sectional area of 214 multi-layer insulation fragments was measured by a planimeter, and then the data were used to benchmark the average cross-sectional areas estimated by the two approaches. The uncertainty in the calculation of the average cross-sectional area with the two approaches is also discussed in terms of size and thickness.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1480-1489
Number of pages10
JournalAdvances in Space Research
Volume47
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 3 2011

Fingerprint

empirical analysis
fragments
NASA
Planimeters
Insulation
Debris
multilayer insulation
Aspect ratio
insulation
microsatellites
Experiments
debris
mass ratios
aspect ratio
orbitals

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Aerospace Engineering
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
  • Geophysics
  • Atmospheric Science
  • Space and Planetary Science
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)

Cite this

Theoretical and empirical analysis of the average cross-sectional areas of breakup fragments. / Hanada, Toshiya; Liou, J. C.

In: Advances in Space Research, Vol. 47, No. 9, 03.05.2011, p. 1480-1489.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7624de24bd244d33b0541d489b2cf768,
title = "Theoretical and empirical analysis of the average cross-sectional areas of breakup fragments",
abstract = "This paper compares two different approaches to calculate the average cross-sectional area of breakup fragments. The first one is described in the NASA standard breakup model 1998 revision. This approach visually classifies fragments into several shapes, and then applies formulae developed for each shape to calculate the average cross-sectional area. The second approach was developed jointly by the Kyushu University and the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. This new approach automatically classifies fragments into plate- or irregular-shapes based on their aspect ratio and thickness, and then applies formulae developed for each shape to calculate the average cross-sectional area. The comparison between the two approaches is demonstrated in the area-to-mass ratio (A/m) distribution of fragments from two microsatellite impact experiments completed in early 2008. A major difference between the two approaches comes from the calculation of the average cross-sectional area of plates. In order to determine which of the two approaches provides a better description of the actual A/m distribution of breakup fragments, a theoretical analysis in the calculation of the average cross-sectional area of an ideal plate is conducted. This paper also investigates the average cross-sectional area of multi-layer insulation fragments. The average cross-sectional area of 214 multi-layer insulation fragments was measured by a planimeter, and then the data were used to benchmark the average cross-sectional areas estimated by the two approaches. The uncertainty in the calculation of the average cross-sectional area with the two approaches is also discussed in terms of size and thickness.",
author = "Toshiya Hanada and Liou, {J. C.}",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.asr.2011.01.008",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "1480--1489",
journal = "Advances in Space Research",
issn = "0273-1177",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Theoretical and empirical analysis of the average cross-sectional areas of breakup fragments

AU - Hanada, Toshiya

AU - Liou, J. C.

PY - 2011/5/3

Y1 - 2011/5/3

N2 - This paper compares two different approaches to calculate the average cross-sectional area of breakup fragments. The first one is described in the NASA standard breakup model 1998 revision. This approach visually classifies fragments into several shapes, and then applies formulae developed for each shape to calculate the average cross-sectional area. The second approach was developed jointly by the Kyushu University and the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. This new approach automatically classifies fragments into plate- or irregular-shapes based on their aspect ratio and thickness, and then applies formulae developed for each shape to calculate the average cross-sectional area. The comparison between the two approaches is demonstrated in the area-to-mass ratio (A/m) distribution of fragments from two microsatellite impact experiments completed in early 2008. A major difference between the two approaches comes from the calculation of the average cross-sectional area of plates. In order to determine which of the two approaches provides a better description of the actual A/m distribution of breakup fragments, a theoretical analysis in the calculation of the average cross-sectional area of an ideal plate is conducted. This paper also investigates the average cross-sectional area of multi-layer insulation fragments. The average cross-sectional area of 214 multi-layer insulation fragments was measured by a planimeter, and then the data were used to benchmark the average cross-sectional areas estimated by the two approaches. The uncertainty in the calculation of the average cross-sectional area with the two approaches is also discussed in terms of size and thickness.

AB - This paper compares two different approaches to calculate the average cross-sectional area of breakup fragments. The first one is described in the NASA standard breakup model 1998 revision. This approach visually classifies fragments into several shapes, and then applies formulae developed for each shape to calculate the average cross-sectional area. The second approach was developed jointly by the Kyushu University and the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. This new approach automatically classifies fragments into plate- or irregular-shapes based on their aspect ratio and thickness, and then applies formulae developed for each shape to calculate the average cross-sectional area. The comparison between the two approaches is demonstrated in the area-to-mass ratio (A/m) distribution of fragments from two microsatellite impact experiments completed in early 2008. A major difference between the two approaches comes from the calculation of the average cross-sectional area of plates. In order to determine which of the two approaches provides a better description of the actual A/m distribution of breakup fragments, a theoretical analysis in the calculation of the average cross-sectional area of an ideal plate is conducted. This paper also investigates the average cross-sectional area of multi-layer insulation fragments. The average cross-sectional area of 214 multi-layer insulation fragments was measured by a planimeter, and then the data were used to benchmark the average cross-sectional areas estimated by the two approaches. The uncertainty in the calculation of the average cross-sectional area with the two approaches is also discussed in terms of size and thickness.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953027021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953027021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.asr.2011.01.008

DO - 10.1016/j.asr.2011.01.008

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79953027021

VL - 47

SP - 1480

EP - 1489

JO - Advances in Space Research

JF - Advances in Space Research

SN - 0273-1177

IS - 9

ER -