Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Short-Term Evolution and Risks of Debris Cloud Stemming from Collisions in Geostationary Orbit

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A catastrophic GEO collision can push millimeter-debris collision probability to 1 percent within 36 hours, the paper estimates.

desk verdict Plausible incremental BVP method, but the printed risk numbers are unusable until they state Ac, fix the rocket-body orbit, and reconcile a factor-of-ten discrepancy between the abstract and Section 5.2. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13586 v2 pith:JEGLTPIT submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.EP

Peng Shu , Meng Zhao , Zhen-Yi Li , Wei Sun , Yu-Qiang Li , Ya-Zhong Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords spacedebrisgeostationaryorbitcloudevolutioncollisionprobabilityboundaryvalueproblembreakupmodelfragmentationriskdensitypropagation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper estimates the short-term danger created when two spacecraft collide in geostationary orbit (GEO), the crowded ring where most communications satellites operate and where nothing naturally removes debris. It works through the hypothetical breakup of the heavy satellite Jupiter 3 (EchoStar 24) by a Falcon rocket upper stage, treating the two resulting fragment clouds as a single smooth probability distribution of ejection velocities built from the standard breakup model and propagating that distribution by solving boundary value problems. The headline numbers it derives are that within 36 hours the probability of a collision with millimeter-sized fragments can reach 1 percent, while the probability for fragments 5 cm or larger is about $10^{-5}$. The paper's point is that even untrackable small fragments from a single GEO collision create a measurable, quickly developing threat to neighboring spacecraft.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the blended initial density $p_{v_1}(v_1) = (N_a/(N_a+N_b)) p_{\Delta v_a} + (N_b/(N_a+N_b)) p_{\Delta v_b}$ of Eq. (4), combined with the boundary-value-problem propagator that converts it into a spatial density (Eqs. 17-18). The BVP step finds every ejection velocity whose trajectory carries a fragment to a given position at time $t$, then weights each such trajectory by the inverse Jacobian determinant $|\det(\partial r_2/\partial v_1)|^{-1}$. The same density drives the impact rate $\dot{\eta}(t) = A_c F_{in}$ and the cumulative probability $P_c = 1 - e^{-\eta}$, so the whole risk calculation is a deterministic integration over a smooth field rather than a Monte Carlo sampling of particles.

What would settle it

If an actual catastrophic breakup occurs in GEO, station a spacecraft of known cross-section near the breakup longitude and compare its observed mm-sized impact rate over the first 36 hours with Eq. (22); alternatively, survey the predicted high-density ridge opposite the breakup point. Absence of either signal would falsify the density-propagation claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single continuous probability density function of initial velocity, built by weighting the two parents' ejection-velocity distributions by their fragment counts (Eq. 4), is sufficient to describe the first days of a two-cloud GEO debris field. The density is propagated by solving, for each position at each time, the boundary value problem of which initial velocities can reach that position, and summing their contributions with a Jacobian weighting (Eqs. 15-18). The resulting marginal spatial density shows a layered, multi-ring cloud with a high-density ridge opposite the breakup point, and it plugs directly into an impact-rate formula and a cumulative collision probability $P_c = 1 - e^{-\eta}$. On the authors' numbers, the risk is size-dependent but real almost immediately: millimeter fragments reach a 1 percent cumulative probability within 36 hours, while 5 cm-or-larger fragments stay near $10^{-5}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing numerical premise is the target cross-section $A_c$ in Eq. (23), because Section 5.2 never states its value and every quoted probability scales linearly with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single catastrophic GEO breakup would put operating satellites at measurable collision risk within hours, before the largest fragments are even catalogued.
  • Spacecraft stationed east of the breakup point would encounter the debris sooner than those to the west, so immediate warnings need to be longitude-aware.
  • The cloud's density concentrates in the equatorial plane, in the rocket body's 28.5-degree inclination plane, and along the line opposite the breakup point; those are the highest-risk regions in the first week.
  • Millimeter-scale fragments, which are too small to track from the ground, dominate the short-term probability budget and therefore drive the immediate threat.
  • Because the continuous density replaces particle sampling, the same calculation can produce whole-cloud risk estimates quickly after an observed breakup.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same blended-density and boundary-value-problem treatment could be extended to any number of fragments from a single breakup, or to multiple breakup events, by adding more terms to Eq. (4).
  • The method's natural limit is the short term; a practical follow-up would be to hand its final density to a long-term orbital-evolution model at the day-to-week boundary, where the two approaches should agree.
  • The quoted probabilities apply to this one collision geometry and one target exposure; changing parent masses, impact speed, or the target's orientation would shift both the density field and the absolute numbers.
  • An optical or radar survey after a real GEO breakup could look for the predicted high-density ridge opposite the breakup point; seeing it would confirm the BVP density structure, not just the integrated probabilities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a continuum method for short-term debris-cloud evolution after a catastrophic collision in geostationary orbit. It represents two fragment clouds with a single initial velocity probability density function (Eq. 4), propagates the density by solving boundary value problems (Eqs. 15-20), and converts the evolved phase-space density into impact flux, impact rate, and cumulative collision probability (Eqs. 22-25). The numerical scenario is a hypothetical collision between Jupiter 3/EchoStar 24 and a Falcon upper stage; the headline results are a collision probability of 1% within 36 hours for millimeter-sized fragments and about 10^-5 for fragments 5 cm or larger. The initial ejection-velocity distribution is validated against discrete samples generated with the NASA Standard Breakup Model (Fig. 3).

Significance. The proposed single-PDF two-cloud formulation is a natural and potentially efficient extension of the authors' earlier boundary-value-problem work, and the mathematical structure is coherent. The paper deserves credit for validating the continuous initial PDF against discrete NASA SBM samples (Fig. 3) and for writing the transformation equations explicitly. If the numerical scenario were fully specified, the method could provide a fast short-term risk-screening tool for GEO breakup events. However, the current quantitative conclusions are not reproducible because the target cross-section, the force model, and a consistent collision state are missing, and the abstract and main text disagree by a factor of 10.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Eqs. (23)-(25)] The target cross-section Ac is never stated. Eq. (23) defines the impact rate as eta_dot = Ac Fin, and Eq. (24) sets Pc = 1 - exp(-eta); for the small probabilities reported, Pc is almost proportional to Ac. Without a stated Ac, including any dependence on fragment size, the cumulative probabilities quoted in the Abstract, Conclusions, and Section 5.2 cannot be reproduced or compared with other studies. Please specify Ac per size category or explicitly state the reference cross-section used in Figures 9 and 10.
  2. [Abstract, Conclusions, §5.2] There is an unresolved factor-of-ten disagreement in the headline numbers. Section 5.2 states that within 1.5 days the probability for millimeter-sized fragments rises to 10^-3 and for fragments 5 cm or larger to about 10^-6, while the Abstract and Conclusions claim "1% within 36 hours" and "approximately 10^-5". Since 1.5 days and 36 hours are the same interval, these statements cannot both be correct. Please reconcile the text and the figures.
  3. [Table 1, §3.3] The orbital elements of the rocket body are not consistent with the stated collision point. For a = 11,530 km and e = 0.728, the radial distance at true anomaly 180 degrees is a(1+e) ≈ 19,924 km, not the specified breakup distance of 42,164 km (1 LU); the stage is therefore not at the fragmentation point. A GTO stage whose apogee is at GEO would have a ≈ 24,400 km for e = 0.728. As printed, the initial velocity of cloud B in Eq. (4) describes a different orbit, and all RB-cloud risk results rest on this incorrect state. Please correct the element set or clarify the orbital-parameter convention.
  4. [§4.3, §5.2] The dynamical model used in the BVP propagation is not stated. Eq. (14) only refers to "orbital dynamics" through phi_r and phi_v, but the numerical solution requires a specific force model (two-body, J2, higher-order gravity, etc.). Since GEO short-term evolution depends on the force model, including nodal regression from J2, the results in Figures 5-10 are not reproducible without this information. Please state the force model and, if J2 or higher-order terms are included, the numerical settings.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, §2, §3.2.1, §3.3] There are several typos and grammatical slips: "atiopresented" in §1, "collison" and "esulting" in §2, "determinted" in §3.2.1, and "an valid implementation" in §3.3. Please proofread the manuscript.
  2. [Table 2] The entries are typeset with an extra space, e.g., "1 .174 × 10^4"; please verify the formatting of all numbers in the table.
  3. [Figures 8-10] The captions do not state the cross-section or the spacecraft reference area used in the impact-rate and probability calculations; adding this information in the captions would improve interpretability even after Ac is defined in the text.
  4. [Figure 9] The color bar reaches Pc values near 0.1, but the text discusses only values below 10^-3; please add contour levels or a sentence explaining the highest-probability regions, particularly near 0 and 180 degrees longitude.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the collision probabilities are forward-model outputs of the externally published NASA SBM propagated with BVP equations that are restated in the paper, so the derivation is self-contained; the only self-citation dependence ([33, 34]) is benign and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The initial density (Eqs. 1-13) is built from the externally published NASA Standard Breakup Model via analytic marginalization; Eq. (4) combines the two clouds with stated fragment counts (Table 2), and the continuous PDFs are verified against Monte Carlo draws of the same SBM (Fig. 3), which is a numerical self-consistency check, not a fit. Propagation (Eqs. 14-20) is a standard change-of-variables applied to the initial PDF, and although the simplification to Eq. (16) and the flux formula of Eq. (22) are cited to the authors' own prior JGCD papers [33, 34], all equations are restated in full in this paper and are parameter-free mathematical identities; hence these self-citations are real, restated evidence and not a circular chain. The risk quantities (Eqs. 22-25) are direct forward-model outputs: no parameter is fitted to any debris observation or target data, so the fitted-input-called-prediction and self-definitional patterns do not apply, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Two non-circular defects must nevertheless be flagged as in-scope: (i) the target cross-section Ac in Eq. (23) is never stated in Section 5.2, and since Pc = 1 - exp(-eta) with eta = integral of Ac*Fin dt is linear in Ac for the small reported probabilities, the absolute headline values (1% and ~10^-5) are not reproducible as written; (ii) Section 5.2 reports 'Within 1.5 days... 10^-3' for millimeter-sized fragments and '~10^-6' for fragments of 5 cm or larger, while the Abstract and Conclusions state '1% within 36 hours' and '~10^-5' over the same 36-hour window, an unresolved factor-of-ten inconsistency. These are correctness and reproducibility problems, not circularity, so they do not increase the circularity score, which is set to 2 only to acknowledge the benign reliance on the authors' earlier BVP papers.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical predictions depend on the built-in empirical NASA SBM, an unspecified propagation force model, and the chosen fragment-size cutoffs; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Target cross-section Ac = Not stated
    Used in Eq. (23) to convert flux to impact rate; the quoted probabilities are proportional to Ac, yet no value is given in the numerical section.
  • Fragment size bin edges (Lmin/Lmax) = 1 mm, 1 cm, and 5 cm lower edges
    The fragment counts in Table 2 and hence all probabilities depend on the chosen lower cutoff of 1 mm for the millimeter class; SBM counts scale as L^-beta near the cutoff.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-body Keplerian (or otherwise unspecified) dynamics govern fragment propagation over 7 days
    Eq. (14) invokes 'orbital dynamics' without specifying perturbations; computed densities and risks depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption NASA Standard Breakup Model accurately represents GEO catastrophic collisions
    Section 3.2 adopts SBM without independent validation for the specific Jupiter 3 / Falcon RB scenario.
  • domain assumption Ejection velocity direction is uniformly isotropic
    Eq. (13) uses a 4π isotropic distribution from SBM; real impacts are directional.
  • domain assumption Fragmentation is instantaneous and both clouds share the same breakup point
    Section 3.1 models initial position as a Dirac delta and combines both parent clouds at r*_1.
  • domain assumption Fragment count N(L>Lc) = k L^-beta from SBM and its tabulated counts are reliable
    Table 2 and Eq. (6) set the normalization Nf that directly multiplies all densities and probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Short-Term Evolution and Risks of Debris Cloud Stemming from Collisions in Geostationary Orbit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JEGLTPIT

@misc{pith2026241213586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Short-Term Evolution and Risks of Debris Cloud Stemming from Collisions in Geostationary Orbit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JEGLTPIT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13586}
}
abstract

The increasing population of objects in geostationary orbit has raised concerns about the potential risks posed by debris clouds resulting from fragmentation. The short-term evolution and associated hazards of debris generated by collisions in the geostationary region is investigated in this study. The initial distribution of two debris clouds is modeled using a single probability density function. The combined distribution of the evolved clouds is determined by solving boundary value problems. The risks associated with these debris clouds are evaluated by calculating the instantaneous impact rate and cumulative collision probability. The probability of collisions with millimeter-sized fragments may increase to 1% within 36 hours, while the probability of collisions with fragments 5 cm or larger is approximately $10^{-5}$. These findings underscore the vulnerability of the geostationary region to space traffic accidents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Nearly all objects exhibit inclinations of less than 15 degrees, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of fragmentation events. 3. Initial Distributions of Fragmentation Clouds 3.1. The Initial PDF of A Fragment Consider a randomly selected fragment within the clouds, with its initial position denoted as r1. Since all fragments are ejected from a single point, the probability density function (PDF) of r1 can be represented using the Dirac delta function [34]: pr1(r1) = δ(r1 − r ∗ 1 ) (1) where δ(x) is th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of ejection velocities by size category. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The summed PDF of the directional initial velocity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 3D view of probability density. Figures 6 and 7 present the probability density in the XY and YZ planes, respectively. The green circle at the origin represents Earth, consistent with Fig.5. Panels (a)-(f) correspond to 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 days after fragmen￾tat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of density in XY plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolution of density in YZ plane. quences. To assess the collision risks, we need to calculate the probability of collision between the debris cloud and a spacecraft. 5.1. Cumulative Collsion Probability Assuming that the position and velocity of a spacecraft are r…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Impact Rate of a Spacecraft in GEO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Cumulative Collision Probability of a Spacecraft in GEO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Cumulative Collision Probability of a Spacecraft in GEO with Inclination [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. S. D. Office, Classification of geosynchronous objects, Technical Note GEN-DB-LOG-00211-OPS-GR, European Space Operations Cen- tre, Darmstadt, Germany (May 2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Mei, Hybrid removal of end-of-life geostationary satellites using solar radiation pressure and impulsive thrusts, Ph.D

    H. Mei, Hybrid removal of end-of-life geostationary satellites using solar radiation pressure and impulsive thrusts, Ph.D. thesis (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Jewett, Intelsat’s IS-33e Satellite is a ‘Total Loss’, https://www.satellitetoday.com/connectivity/2024/10/21/intelsats- is-33e-satellite-is-a-total-loss/ (Oct

    R. Jewett, Intelsat’s IS-33e Satellite is a ‘Total Loss’, https://www.satellitetoday.com/connectivity/2024/10/21/intelsats- is-33e-satellite-is-a-total-loss/ (Oct. 2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    P. D. Anz-Meador, J. Opiela, J.-C. Liou, History of On-orbit Satel- lite Fragmentations, 16th Edition, Tech. Rep. NASA/TP-20220019160, NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, Houston, Texas (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A. M. Nafi, Practical optical survey strategies for near geostationary orbital debris, Ph.D. thesis (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    J. A. Blake, P. Chote, D. Pollacco, W. Feline, G. Privett, A. Ash, S. Eves, A. Greenwood, N. Harwood, T. R. Marsh, D. Veras, C. Wat- son, DebrisWatch I: A survey of faint geosynchronous debris, Advances in Space Research 67 (1) (2021) 360–370. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2020. 08.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2020 2021

  7. [7]

    McKnight, T

    D. McKnight, T. Maclay, Space Environment Management: A Common Sense Framework for Controlling Orbital Debris Risk, in: Proceedings of 23 the Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Con- ference, The Maui Economic Development Board, Maui, Hawaii, 2019- 09-17/2019-09-20, pp. 1–8

    work page 2019

  8. [9]

    C. f. t. A. o. N. O. D. Programs, N. R. Council, Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA’s Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs, National Academies Press, Washington, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 38 references
  1. [10]

    Lawrence, M

    A. Lawrence, M. L. Rawls, M. Jah, A. Boley, F. Di Vruno, S. Garrington, M. Kramer, S. Lawler, J. Lowenthal, J. McDowell, M. McCaughrean, The case for space environmentalism, Nature Astronomy 6 (4) (2022) 428–435. doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01655-6

    2022 doi

  2. [11]

    IADC protection manual, Tech. Rep. IADC-04-03, Interagency Space Debris Coordination Committee (2018)

    2018

  3. [12]

    Matney, A

    M. Matney, A. Manis, P. Anz-Meador, D. Gates, J. Seago, A. Vavrin, Y.- L. Xu, The NASA Orbital Debris Engineering Model 3.1: Development, Verification, and Validation, in: International Orbital Debris Conference (IOC), Sugar Land, TX, 2019

    2019

  4. [13]

    P. H. Krisko, The New NASA Orbital Debris Engineering Model OR- DEM 3.0, in: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, AIAA 24 2014-4227, San Diego, CA, 2014-08-04/2014-08-07. doi:10.2514/6. 2014-4227

    2014 doi

  5. [14]

    Horstmann, Enhancement of S/C fragmentation and environment evolution models, Tech

    A. Horstmann, Enhancement of S/C fragmentation and environment evolution models, Tech. Rep. DD-0045, Technische Universit¨ at of Braun- schweig, Braunschweig (Aug. 2020)

    2020

  6. [15]

    P. H. Krisko, S. Flegel, M. J. Matney, D. R. Jarkey, V. Braun, ORDEM 3.0 and MASTER-2009 modeled debris population comparison, Acta Astronautica 113 (2015) 204–211. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2015. 03.024

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    Y. Liu, R. Chi, B. Pang, HU. Diqi, W. Cao, D. Wang, Space debris envi- ronment engineering model 2019: Algorithms improvement and compar- ison with ORDEM 3.1 and MASTER-8, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 37 (5) (2024) 392–409. doi:10.1016/j.cja.2023.12.004

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    P. H. Krisko, Proper implementation of the 1998 NASA breakup model, Orbital Debris Quarterly News 15 (4) (2011) 4–5

    2011

  9. [18]

    D. L. Mains, M. E. Sorge, The IMPACT satellite fragmentation model, Acta Astronautica 195 (2022) 547–555. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro. 2022.03.030

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    T. Yao, Z. Yang, Y. Luo, S. Lan, L. Ren, Generation of initial debris cloud distributions for breakup events based on CARDC-SBM, Acta Astronautica 219 (2024) 580–591. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2024. 03.060. 25

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    D. Jang, R. Linares, Simulating the Evolution of Lethal Non-Trackable Population and its Effect on LEO Sustainability (Aug. 2024). doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15025

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    J.-C. Liou, N. L. Johnson, Risks in Space from Orbiting Debris, Science 311 (5759) (2006) 340–341. doi:10.1126/science.1121337

    2006 doi

  13. [22]

    S.-K. Au, J. L. Beck, Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 16 (4) (2001) 263–277. doi:10.1016/S0266-8920(01)00019-4

    2001 doi

  14. [23]

    C. R. McInnes, An analytical model for the catastrophic production of orbital debris, ESA Journal 17 (4) (1993) 293–305

    1993

  15. [24]

    Letizia, C

    F. Letizia, C. Colombo, H. G. Lewis, Analytical Model for the Prop- agation of Small-Debris-Object Clouds After Fragmentations, Jour- nal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 38 (8) (2015) 1478–1491. doi:10.2514/1.G000695

    2015 doi

  16. [25]

    Letizia, C

    F. Letizia, C. Colombo, H. G. Lewis, Collision Probability Due to Space Debris Clouds Through a Continuum Approach, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 39 (10) (2016) 2240–2249. doi:10.2514/1. G001382

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    S. Frey, C. Colombo, Transformation of Satellite Breakup Distribution for Probabilistic Orbital Collision Hazard Analysis, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 44 (1) (2021) 88–105. doi:10.2514/1.G004939

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    Giudici, C

    L. Giudici, C. Colombo, A. Horstmann, F. Letizia, S. Lemmens, Density- based evolutionary model of the space debris environment in low- 26 Earth orbit, Acta Astronautica 219 (2024) 115–127. doi:10.1016/j. actaastro.2024.03.008

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    C. Wen, Z. Jin, C. Peng, D. Qiao, Modeling Medium-Term Debris Cloud of Satellite Breakup via Probabilistic Method, Journal of Guid- ance, Control, and Dynamics 47 (8) (2024) 1602–1619. doi:10.2514/ 1.G008062

    2024

  20. [29]

    L. M. Healy, S. Kindl, E. Rolfe, C. Binz, Structure and evolution of a debris cloud in the early phases, in: Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 158, Univelt, Inc., San Diego, CA, 2016, pp. 2715–2743. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1406548

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    L. M. Healy, C. R. Binz, S. Kindl, Orbital Dynamic Admittance and Earth Shadow, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 67 (2) (2020) 427–457. doi:10.1007/s40295-018-00144-1

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    D. A. Vallado, D. L. Oltrogge, Fragmentation Event Debris Field Evo- lution Using 3D Volumetric Risk Assessment, in: 7th European Confer- ence on Space Debris, ESA Space Debris Office, Darmstadt, Germany, 2017-04-18/2017-04-21

    2017

  23. [32]

    D. L. Oltrogge, D. A. Vallado, Application of new debris risk evolution and dispersal (DREAD) tool to characterize post-fragmentation risk, in: AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Vol. 162, 2017, pp. 463–482

    2017

  24. [33]

    P. Shu, Z. Yang, Y.-Z. Luo, Z.-J. Sun, Collision Probability of Debris Clouds Based on Higher-Order Boundary Value Problems, Journal of 27 Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 45 (8) (2022) 1512–1522. doi:10. 2514/1.G006356

    2022

  25. [34]

    P. Shu, Z. Yang, Y.-Z. Luo, Impact Risk of a Debris Cloud to Spacecraft, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 46 (5) (2023) 989–997. doi:10.2514/1.G007056

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Parigini, R

    C. Parigini, R. Algethamie, R. Armellin, Short-Term Collision Proba- bility Caused by Debris Cloud, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dy- namics 47 (5) (2024) 874–886. doi:10.2514/1.G007687

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    Francesconi, C

    A. Francesconi, C. Giacomuzzo, L. Olivieri, G. Sarego, M. Duzzi, F. Fel- trin, A. Valmorbida, K. D. Bunte, M. Deshmukh, E. Farahvashi, J. Per- vez, M. Zaake, T. Cardone, D. de Wilde, CST: A new semi-empirical tool for simulating spacecraft collisions in orbit, Acta Astronautic...

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    Olivieri, C

    L. Olivieri, C. Giacomuzzo, A. Francesconi, Numerical simulation of COSMOS 2499 fragmentation, CEAS Space Journal 16 (6) (2024) 659–

    2024

  29. [38]

    Schuhmacher, Efficient Implementation and Evaluation of the NASA Breakup Model in modern C++, Bachelor’s Thesis, Technical University of Munich (2021)

    J. Schuhmacher, Efficient Implementation and Evaluation of the NASA Breakup Model in modern C++, Bachelor’s Thesis, Technical University of Munich (2021). 28

    2021

  30. [665]

    doi:10.1007/s12567-024-00545-z

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.