ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

ESA ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Strasse 5
D-64293 Darmstadt
Germany

ESA’S ANNUAL SPACE ENVIRONMENT REPORT

Prepared by ESA Space Debris Office

Document Type LOG

Reference GEN-DB-LOG-00288-OPS-SD
Issue/Revision 5.0
Date of Issue 27 May 2021
Status Issued
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Table of contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1. Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Data sources ............................................................................................................................... 11
1.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 12
1.4. Notable changes .......................................................................................................................... 14
1.5. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 15
1.6. Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................... 15
2. Space Environmental History in Numbers ...................................................................................... 16
2.1. Overall Space Environment ......................................................................................................... 17
2.2. Evolution of Environment in LEO ................................................................................................. 21
2.3. Evolution of Environment in GEO ................................................................................................ 23
2.4. Usage of the Protected Regions .................................................................................................. 25
2.5. Constellations in the LEO protected region .................................................................................. 34
2.6. Active payloads in the LEO protected region ............................................................................... 35
2.7. New Catalogued Objects in the Space Environment.................................................................... 37
2.8. Objects Removed from the Space Environment .......................................................................... 39
2.9. Nuclear Power Sources ............................................................................................................... 43
3. Environmental Status 2020 ............................................................................................................ 44
3.1. Status of the Environment in LEO ................................................................................................ 47
3.2. Status of the Environment in GEO ............................................................................................... 53
3.3. Fragmentations in 2020 ............................................................................................................... 55
3.4. Changes to the Environment in 2020 ........................................................................................... 56
3.5. Conjunction statistics in LEO in 2020........................................................................................... 60
4. Intentional object release ............................................................................................................... 63
4.1. Mission Related Objects .............................................................................................................. 63
4.2. Solid Rocket Motor Firings ........................................................................................................... 65
5. Fragmentation History .................................................................................................................... 66
5.1. All fragmentation events .............................................................................................................. 68
5.2. Non-system related fragmentation events ................................................................................... 75
6. End-Of-Life Operations History ...................................................................................................... 77
6.1. End-Of-Life Operations in Low Earth Orbit .................................................................................. 77
6.2. End-Of-Life Operations in Geostationary Orbit ............................................................................ 97
7. Environment metrics .................................................................................................................... 101
7.1. Environmental Index in 2020 ..................................................................................................... 101
7.2. Environment evolution ............................................................................................................... 103
References ....................................................................................................................................... 106

Page 2/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ever since the start of the space age there has been more space debris in orbit than operational satellites. As
space debris poses a problem for the near Earth environment on a global scale, only a globally supported solution
can be the answer. This creates the need for a subset of internationally accepted space debris mitigation mea-
sures. A major step in this direction was taken in 2002, when the Inter-Agency Debris Committee (IADC) published
its Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines. This document has since served as a baseline for non-binding policy doc-
uments, national legislation, and as a starting point for the derivation of technical standards. The standardisation
of mitigation measures is important in order to achieve a common understanding of the required tasks leading to
transparent and comparable processes. Even if having a consistent set of measures is paramount to tackle the
global problem of space debris, it is still up to the individual nations, operators, and manufacturers to implement
them.

In order to have on overview of the on-going global debris mitigation efforts and to raise awareness of space
activities in general, the European Space Agency, ESA, has been publishing a Space Environment Report since
2017. The document is updated yearly and it is publicly available, and support the awareness raising guideline
laid out in United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space’s (UNCOPUOS) Guidelines for the
Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities published in 2019. The purpose of this report is to:

• Provide a transparent overview of global space activities;

• Estimate the impact of these activities on the space environment;
• Quantify the effect of internationally endorsed mitigation measures aimed at improving the sustainability of
space flight

In this report, the status of the space environment is presented in various facets, focusing on the time evolution of
catalogued and asserted objects in terms of number, mass, and area, as well as addressing the global adherence
to space debris mitigation measures. Most internationally accepted space debris mitigation measures can be
traced back to the following objectives:

• The limitation of space debris released during normal operations;

• The minimisation of the potential for on-orbit break-ups;
• Post mission disposal;
• Prevention of on-orbit collisions;

Whereas the presentation of numerical values associated to launch and re-entry activities are essentially abso-
lute, it is important to point out that metrics dealing with the adherence to space debris mitigation measures are
estimates. These estimates depend on complex physical problems such as estimating orbital lifetime and require
under-determined interpretations of observational quantities. As such the conclusions on the state of the space
environment presented hereafter need to be taken with appropriate care and can vary between yearly releases of
the report. Notwithstanding such caveats, all care is taken in the design of the methodologies to minimise such
variability and some summarising statements can be derived from the presented data.

The amount of objects, their combined mass, and there combined area has been steadily rising since the
beginning of the space age, leading to the appearance of involuntary collisions between operational payloads and
space debris. Ever increasing improvements in space surveillance sensor capabilities during the last decades
have brought down the size limits where debris can be reliably tracked and catalogued. This, in turn, implies that
we know about significant amounts of space debris, but not all their originating events. The space traffic itself
is also undergoing notable changes, particularly in Low Earth Orbits, fuelled by the miniaturisation of space
systems and deployment of large constellations.

Page 3/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Evolution in All Orbits

UI PM
RM PD
25000 RD PF
RF PL
RB
20000
Object Count [-]

15000

10000

5000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

Figure 1: Evolution of number of objects in geocentric orbit by object class. Please consult Section 1.1 for the
definitions.

Payload Launch Traffic into 200 hp 1750km Payload Launch Traffic into 200 hp 1750 km
1200
Communication Navigation 1200 m 10 kg
Imaging Sigint 10 kg < m 100 kg
Spaceship Calibration 100 kg < m 1000 kg
Technology Weather m > 1000 kg
1000 Science Other 1000
Number of objects [-]
Number of Objects [-]

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Launch Year Launch Year

Figure 2: Evolution of the launch traffic near LEOIADC per mission type (left) and mass category (right).

On average over the last two decades, 12.5 non-deliberate fragmentations continue to occur in the space en-
vironment every year. This number is stable, however the impact of each event is variable. This number drops
significantly to 2.9 per year when the lifetime of the generated fragments is considered a factor of importance,
and even 0.3 per year when systematic and unexplained events are excluded from the analysis. This suggests
that non-collisional events with a large environmental impact are still taking place partly due to re-use of a design
with known issues. Further details are presented in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. The fraction of launch events as-
sociated with mission related objects released into the space environment is steadily declining as shown in
Fig. 4.3.

Around 90% of small payloads, i.e. below 10.0 kg in mass, reaching the end of their mission during the last
decade and injected into the LEO protected region operate in orbits which naturally adhere to the space debris
mitigation measures. While this is a large fraction compared to higher mass categories, it still implies a growing
contingent of small payloads in need of active means to dispose themselves from the LEO protected region. The
majority of larger payloads reaching the end of their mission during the last decade did so in orbits where
they did not successfully removed themselves from.

Page 4/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Number Fragmentation Events

Unknown
80 Collision
Accidental
70 Electrical
Aerodynamics
60 Deliberate
Anomalous
50 Propulsion
Number

40
30
20
10
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Event Year (5 year bins)

Figure 3: Historical trend of fragmentation events per event cause. The last bin covers only the year 2020.

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2010, m 10 kg) LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2010, 10 < m 100 kg)
CWO

41%
CWFB
NCWFB 1%
1%
CWO
91%

9%
NCWO

58%

NCWO

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2010, 100 < m 1000 kg) LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2010, m > 1000 kg)
CWFB CWO

20% 33%
CWO
20% CD
13%
NCWFB CWFB 4%
14%
1% CD
NCWFB 5%

46% 45%

NCWO NCWO

Figure 4: Breakdown of the 2010 decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads per mass category. Please
consult Section 6.1 for the definitions.

Page 5/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Between 30 and 70% of all payload mass, excluding human spaceflight, estimated as reaching end-of-life during
the last decade in the LEO protected region does so in orbits that are estimated to adhere to the space debris
mitigation measures, as shown in Fig. 6.4. The noted increase in small payloads reaching end-of-life in compliant
orbit implies a rising share. Between 60 and 80% of all rocket body mass reaching end-of-life during the last
decade does so in orbits that are estimated to adhere to the space debris mitigation measures on protecting
LEO as shown in 6.6. A significant amount of this is due to controlled re-entries after launch, a practice which
increased from 10% to over 40% over the last decade.

One of the core principles of the space debris mitigation guidelines is the remove objects from the LEO and GEO
protected regions with a success rate above 90% for those orbits where a natural disposal mechanism is absent
[1]. Between 20 and 40% of payloads, excluding human spaceflight, reaching end-of-life during the last decade
in the LEO protected region in a non-compliant orbit attempt to comply with space debris mitigation measures,
with a peak in 2018 due to the de-orbiting of a constellation. Between 5% and 20%, with a peak of 35% in 2018,
do so successfully and a slight rising trend is noticeable. Between 40 and 90% of rocket bodies reaching
end-of-life during the current decade in the LEO protected region in a non-compliant orbit attempt to comply
with space debris mitigation measures. Between 30% and 80% do so successfully, with the compliance trend
linearly increasing. Between 85% and 100% of all payloads reaching end-of-life during the last decade in the GEO
protected region attempt to comply with space debris mitigation measures. Between 60% and 90% do so
successfully, with the compliance trend asymptotically increasing.

Payloads Clearance in Low Earth Orbit Rocket Bodies Clearance in Low Earth Orbit
(exl. Naturally Compliant Payloads) (exl. Naturally Compliant Rocket Bodies)
100 100

80 80

60 60
Counts [%]

Counts [%]

Successful Successful
40 Attempt 40 Attempt
Insufficient Insufficient
Attempt Attempt
20 No Attempt 20 No Attempt

0 0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year EOL year
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads. (b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.

Payload Clearance near GEOIADC

100
No Attempt
Insufficient
80 Attempt
Successful
Attempt
60
Count [%]

40

20

0
1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024
End-of-Life Year
(c) Relative clearance near GEOIADC by payloads.

Figure 5: Trend of adherence to clearance of the protected region over time in terms of numbers, excluding naturally
compliant objects.

Page 6/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Whereas adoption of, and compliance to, space debris mitigation practices at a global level is noted as slowly
increasing, it is of importance to note that the successful implementation is still at too low level to ensure a sustain-
able environment in the long-run. Notably, some of the increase in up take of mitigation measures as measured
by the metrics above, such as controlled re-entries of rocket bodies or post mission disposal success rates for
payloads in LEO, are linked with the deployment and retirement of large constellations.

The extrapolation of the current changing use of orbits and launch traffic, combined with fragmentation and lim-
ited post mission disposal success rate could lead to a cascade of collision over the next centuries, as show in
Fig. 7.4. The consequence of limited space debris mitigation since the start of the space age, and changing launch
traffic, already has significant on-orbit consequences in terms of most frequent close approaches, as discussed in
Section 3.5.

Unknown
24 Other Mission Related Object
Other Debris
Rocket Debris
21 Rocket Mission Related Object
Centaur-5 SEC Fragmentation Debris
Number of conjunction events

18 HAPS Fragmentation Debris

Other Rocket Fragmentation Debris
Rocket Body
15 Payload Debris
Payload Mission Related Object
12 Fengyun 1C Fragmentation Debris
Cosmos-2251 Fragmentation Debris
Iridium 33 Fragmentation Debris
9 Other Payload Fragmentation Debris
Constellations
6 Small satellites
Other Payload
3

0
h=400km h=500km h=600km h=700km h=800km h=900km h=1000km
i=97.03° i=97.4° i=97.79° i=98.19° i=98.6° i=99.03° i=99.48°

Figure 6: Close approaches, and chaser classification, for a set of representative missions in Sun-synchronous
orbits over 2020.

Page 7/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

1. INTRODUCTION
Ever since the start of the space age on the 4th of October 1957 there has been more space debris in orbit than
operational satellites. Space debris poses a problem for the near Earth environment on a global scale, to which
all spacefaring nations have contributed and for which only a globally supported solution can be the answer. The
first awareness of the problem came about in the early 1960s, based on initial research activities undertaken in the
United States of America, but it took some time to reach the international community. It eventually did by the mid
1970s via conferences organised by the International Astronautical Federation. The effect whereby the generation
of space debris via collisions and explosions in orbit could lead to an exponential increase in the amount of artificial
objects in space, in a chain reaction which would render spaceflight too hazardous to conduct, was first postulated
by Donald Kessler in 1978 [2]. The first dedicated conference on space debris was held in 1982, organised by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), followed by the first workshop on the re-entry of space
debris in 1983, organised by the European Space Agency (ESA), in response to the re-entries of Skylab and
Cosmos-1402.

The technical expertise on space debris, from re-entries to on-orbit break-up and hypervelocity impact testing, was
gathered on agency and national level for much of the 1970s and 1980s. However the global dimension of the
issue called for bilateral knowledge transfer, which started on the initiative of NASA. These exchanges between
experts resulted in multi-lateral meetings and lead to the creation of the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination
Committee (IADC) in 1993, founded by ESA (Europe), NASA (USA), NASDA (now JAXA, Japan), and RSA (now
Roscosmos, Russian Federation). Nine more agencies have joined the IADC since: ASI (Italy), CNES (France),
CNSA (China), CSA (Canada), DLR (Germany), KARI (South Korea), ISRO (India), NSAU (Ukraine), and UKSA
(United Kingdom). The IADC was founded as a forum for technical exchange and coordination on space debris
matters, and can today be regarded as the leading international technical body in the field of space debris. Space
debris has also been a recurring agenda item for the Scientific & Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations’
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) since 1994.

The threat of space debris to the future of spaceflight combined with the nearly universal adoption of the Liability
Convention [3] created the need for a set of internationally accepted space debris mitigation measures. A major
step was taken in 2002, when the IADC published the IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines [4] and presented
them to the UNCOPUOS Scientific & Technical Subcommittee. This document has since served as baseline for
non-binding policy documents, national legislation, and as starting point for the derivation of technical standards.
A consistent set of measures is paramount to tackle the global problem of space debris, but it is up to the individual
nations, operators, and manufacturers to implement them, which can lead to variations on a case by case basis. As
such, nations around the world have developed safety standards and specific guidelines building on the work of the
IADC. However, standardisation of mitigation measures is important in order to achieve a common understanding
of the required tasks leading to transparent and comparable processes. This is the task of normative international
standardization bodies such as the International Standards Organisation (ISO) [5].

In order to address the issues posed by space debris on spaceflight activities UNCOPUOS has taken the initiative
to create a set of internationally agreed guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities [6].
These guidelines contain recommendations on the policy and regulatory frameworks for space activities, the safety
of space operations, rules of engagement for international cooperation, capacity-building and awareness, and
scientific and technical research and development.

The content of the this document is written in response to those guidelines by raising awareness of space activities,
and aims to:

• Provide a transparent overview of global space activities,

• Estimate the impact of these activities on the space environment,

Page 8/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

• And quantify the effect of internationally endorsed mitigation measures aimed at sustainability of the envi-
ronment.

The document is structured as follows: Section 1 contains the definitions, data sources, and methodologies used
to compile this document. Section 2 contains the history of the space environment since the beginning of the space
age. Section 3 contains a snapshot of the space environment for a specific year analysed. The content of Sections
2 and 3 are further analysed in depth in Sections 4, 5, and 6 where respectively the intentional release of objects,
fragmentation events, and end-of-life operations of space missions are covered. Section 7 summarises the space
activities in Low Earth Orbit up until the year of analysis into an environment index. Furthermore, an executive
summary containing the main space environment trends identified is added to the beginning of this report.

1.1. Definitions
This document aims to describe the space environment. This environment is understood to contain all artificial
objects, including fragments and elements thereof, which currently, or previously did, reside in an Earth bound
orbit.

The space environment will be described since the beginning of the space age, understood to start with the launch
of Sputnik 1 on the 4th of October 1957, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Space debris is defined as all artificial objects including fragments and elements thereof, in Earth orbit or re-entering
the atmosphere, that are non functional [4].

Objects in the space environment can be categorised in two broad categories: The ones which can be traced back
to a launch event and for which the nature can be identified, and the ones for which this is impossible. The later
ones will be identified as Unidentified, whereas the former can be further categorised in:

• Payloads, space object designed to perform a specific function in space excluding launch functionality. This
includes operational satellites as well as calibration objects.

• Payload mission related objects, space objects released as space debris which served a purpose for the
functioning of a payload. Common examples include covers for optical instruments or astronaut tools.

• Payload fragmentation debris, space objects fragmented or unintentionally released from a payload as space
debris for which their genesis can be traced back to a unique event. This class includes objects created when
a payload explodes or when it collides with another object.

• Payload debris, space objects fragmented or unintentionally released from a payload as space debris for
which the genesis is unclear but orbital or physical properties enable a correlation with a source.

• Rocket body, space object designed to perform launch related functionality; This includes the various orbital
stages of launch vehicles, but not payloads which release smaller payloads themselves.

• Rocket mission related objects, space objects intentionally released as space debris which served a purpose
for the function of a rocket body. Common examples include shrouds and engines.

• Rocket fragmentation debris, space objects fragmented or unintentionally released from a rocket body as
space debris for which their genesis can be traced back to a unique event. This class includes objects
created when a launch vehicle explodes.

• Rocket debris, space objects fragmented or unintentionally released from a rocket body as space debris for
which the genesis is unclear but orbital or physical properties enable a correlation with a source.

A fragmentation is thus loosely defined as an event on-orbit that creates space debris without purpose, including

Page 9/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

but not limited to collisions, explosive break-ups, and tear and wear. With the definition of a fragmentation event in
mind, the distinction between mission related objects and fragmentations debris is clear. Objects that are classified
as general payloads or rocket debris can be reclassified when more information becomes available. An overview
of this object type classification and the abbreviations used in the rest of the document is given in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Object Classifications.

Type Description
PL Payload
PF Payload Fragmentation Debris
PD Payload Debris
PM Payload Mission Related Object
RB Rocket Body
RF Rocket Fragmentation Debris
RD Rocket Debris
RM Rocket Mission Related Object
UI Unidentified

At various moments during the space age, payloads based on a limited amount of platforms have been deployed
on-orbit with the intend to create a single larger system by operating in a coordinated manner. Well known examples
include space segments of satellite navigation systems or systems dedicated to global data information coverage.
Colloquially, such systems of payloads are known as constellations. For the purpose of this report, a constellation
is understood as a set of at least 20 individual Payloads objects, released into orbits over more than 2 events and
spreading more than 1 year in time, sharing the same objective as a combined system, and with the orbits in which
they are deployed directly related to the systemś objective. A constellation is considered active, i.e. functional, as
long as at least one of its constituting Payloads is functional. For the current analysis, constellations are identified
only in LEOIADC and low-MEO, resulting in a total of 14 constellations.

The taxonomy of objects in the space environment can be done based on type as defined previously, but also
via the orbital regime in which they reside. A catalogued object will refer to an object whose orbital elements are
maintained for prolonged periods of time in a catalogue created by a space surveillance system. An asserted
object will refer to an object which has not been reported by a space surveillance system but is known to exist in
the space environment by design. Asserted objects include, for example, rocket bodies that perform a re-entry
burn after inserting a payload into orbit prior to repeated detections by a space surveillance system. As such,
catalogued and asserted objects are not mutually exclusive and neither one is strictly contained within the other.
Further objects exists in the space environment that are not catalogued for prolonged periods of time, for example
as unpredictable orbit motion prohibits the correlation of observations, and can neither be asserted from a design
point of view. These objects are beyond the scope of this report.

Catalogued and asserted objects can be categorised in terms of their orbital elements for a given epoch. Orbital
regimes in this report will be identified based on semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination, perigee height and
apogee height. The orbital regimes that shall be used are defined in Table 1.2. Two regions are often identified
as so called protected regions by international standards, guidelines, and national legislation. These regions are
specifically defined in Table 1.3 and will be referred to as such. It is important to note that all these definitions are
inherent to this document and can change between issues. In addition to the orbital regions defined in Table 1.2,
the report also refers to Sun-Synchronous orbits, i.e. orbits for which the secular variation of the right ascension
of the ascending node, due the Earth’s oblateness, matches the Earth’s rotation rate around the Sun. As a result,
the orbital plane remains approximately fixed with respect to the Sun and a satellite in those orbits passes over

Page 10/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

a point on the Earth with the same local solar time and this makes Sun-Synchronous orbits particularly used for
Earth Observation missions.

Table 1.2: Ranges defining each orbital class, with semi-major axis a, eccentricity e, inclination i, perigee height
hp and apogee height ha . The units are km and degrees.

Orbit Description Definition

GEO Geostationary Orbit i ∈ [0, 25] hp ∈ [35586, 35986] ha ∈ [35586, 35986]
IGO Inclined Geosynchronous Orbit a ∈ [37948, 46380] e ∈ [0.00, 0.25] i ∈ [25, 180]
EGO Extended Geostationary Orbit a ∈ [37948, 46380] e ∈ [0.00, 0.25] i ∈ [0, 25]
NSO Navigation Satellites Orbit i ∈ [50, 70] hp ∈ [18100, 24300] ha ∈ [18100, 24300]
GTO GEO Transfer Orbit i ∈ [0, 90] hp ∈ [0, 2000] ha ∈ [31570, 40002]
MEO Medium Earth Orbit hp ∈ [2000, 31570] ha ∈ [2000, 31570]
GHO GEO-superGEO Crossing Orbits hp ∈ [31570, 40002] ha > 40002
LEO Low Earth Orbit hp ∈ [0, 2000] ha ∈ [0, 2000]
HAO High Altitude Earth Orbit hp > 40002 ha > 40002
MGO MEO-GEO Crossing Orbits hp ∈ [2000, 31570] ha ∈ [31570, 40002]
HEO Highly Eccentric Earth Orbit hp ∈ [0, 31570] ha > 40002
LMO LEO-MEO Crossing Orbits hp ∈ [0, 2000] ha ∈ [2000, 31570]
UFO Undefined Orbit
ESO Escape Orbits

Table 1.3: Ranges defining each protected region, with altitude h and declination δ. The units are km and degrees.

Orbit Description Definition

LEOIADC IADC LEO Protected Region h ∈ [0, 2000]
GEOIADC IADC GEO Protected Region h ∈ [35586, 35986] δ ∈ [−15, 15]

1.2. Data sources

Orbital information for catalogued objects is obtained from the USSTRATCOM Two-Line Elements data set, the
Vimpel data set maintained by the JSC Vimpel Interstate Corporation and Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics
(KIAM), and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Tables of artificial satellites. Orbital information on asserted
objects, as well as the justification for their assertion, is taken from the DISCOS Database (Database and Infor-
mation System Characterising Objects in Space) [7]. Orbital information on catalogued and asserted objects are
correlated among the various sources to avoid duplication.

Physical properties for the objects, and the mission classification for Payloads, used in this report are taken from
DISCOS. Shape properties such as area are derived from design values and not estimated from space surveillance
systems, which implies that the debris and unidentified object types have no mass nor area indicated as part of
this report. From the area and mass values so defined, the object area-to-mass ratio (A/m) is computed and it
is used in the characterisation of Payloads (Section 2.6) and, more in general, for the propagation of the object
trajectories for compliance analysis (Section 6) and in the simulation of the long-term evolution of the environment
(Section 7.2). For orbital lifetime assessments, data derived from space surveillance systems can be used for
these objects for the determination of the Ballistic Coefficient (BC), as explained in Section 6. Further information
on the individual objects which is not directly physical in nature, e.g. ownership, is deliberately not reported on in

Page 11/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

this document.

The classification of whether a Payload is considered active is based on the data available at [8], which is used
for data from 2019 onwards, and from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) database [9], for earlier data up
to 2005. This classification by activity level is not used for the end-of-life analyses.

1.3. Methodology
The first aim of this report is to describe the space environment based on observable facts. This takes the form of
analysing trends in the various physical characteristics of the objects within the space environment, both covering
the history since the beginning of the space age as well as a single year of analysis. The report focusses on the
amount of mass, area, and object count passing through the different orbital regimes, with specific emphasis on
the protected regions. Furthermore, the usage of the protected regions by payloads is documented.

Secondly, metrics are identified that serve as proxies for the global adherence to space debris mitigation guidelines,
which have been put in place to protect the space environment from adverse effects such as the Kessler syndrome.
The evolution of these metrics is described. Most internationally accepted space debris mitigation measures can
be traced back to the following objectives:

• The limitation of space debris released during normal operations; i.e. in all operational orbit regimes, pay-
loads and rocket bodies should be designed not to release space debris during normal operations. Where
this is not feasible, any release of debris should be minimised in number, area and orbital lifetime.

• The minimisation of the potential for on-orbit break-ups; i.e. in all operational regimes one should minimise
the potential for break-ups during operational phases, e.g. by thorough analysis of the failure trees, increase
(sub)system reliability, etc., minimise the potential for post-mission break-ups resulting from stored energy,
e.g. stored in tanks, batteries, flywheels, etc., and the avoidance of intentional destruction and other harmful
activities, e.g. intentional break-ups should avoided at all cost but if need be they should be conducted at
sufficiently low altitudes so that orbital fragments are short lived.

• Post mission disposal; i.e. two protected regimes, Low Earth Orbit (LEOIADC ) and Geostationary Orbit
(GEOIADC ), have been identified and should be cleared from permanent or (quasi-) periodic presence of
non-functional man-made objects. Payloads or rocket bodies that are terminating their operational phases in
other orbital regions should be manoeuvred to reduce their orbital lifetime, commensurate with LEO lifetime
limitations, or relocated if they cause interference with highly utilised orbit regions.

• Prevention of on-orbit collisions; i.e. in developing the design and mission profile of a space object, a project
should estimate and limit the probability of accidental collision with known objects during the payload or
rocket body’s orbital lifetime. If reliable orbital data is available, avoidance manoeuvres and co-ordination of
launch windows may be considered if the collision risk is not considered negligible.

Even though the goals of the mitigation measures as identified above are intuitively clear, their technical imple-
mentation is less straightforward. The proposed metrics to observe adherence to these objectives are described
in the corresponding sections and follow as close as possible [5]. In case of orbital lifetime predictions, the corre-
sponding international standard is followed [10]. Details on the data gathered or methods used corresponding to
results presented in the individual sections of in this report are covered in those sections.

Not all aspects of space debris mitigation can, currently, be reliably derived from observational data. For example
a collision avoidance manoeuvre can look similar to an orbit control manoeuvre to maintain a specific ground-track.
In the same way, the observed behaviour due to passivation of fluids at the end of life of a mission does not need
to be different from the effects of an orbit control manoeuvre. The philosophy behind this document is to accept
these limitations and not to risk over-interpreting the available data.

Page 12/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Thirdly, metrics are identified to estimate the impact of global space activities on the space environment. His-
torically, such metrics have often been formulated in terms of the outcomes of long-term, i.e. centuries, space
environment evolution models that serve to extrapolate a set of space traffic condition into the future and derive
the expected amount of space debris and collision events. As of recent, also the establishment of dedicated risk
metrics for the purpose of impact assessments has become more commonplace. Both metrics are included in this
report.

Page 13/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

1.4. Notable changes

1.4.1. Edition 4
Significant changes have taken place when it comes to the usage of the space environment since the first issue of
this report in 2016. As can be observed in Section 2, there has been a significant increase in the ability of space
surveillance networks to reliably catalogue objects in orbits near the Geostationary Orbit, and launch traffic to Low
Earth Orbit increased to previously unseen levels. With the improvements in capabilities of observation systems
and the rapid miniaturisation and innovation for space system designs, it is likely that those developments will
continue in the future.

As a consequence, also international documents dealing with space debris mitigation have been updated in 2019,
with most notably the ISO space debris mitigation requirements [5] and the IADC space debris mitigation guide-
lines [1]. This is also reflected in the content of this report by means of some noticeable changes. Prior to edition 4,
attempts to relocate Payloads above Low Earth Orbit were seen as a positive space debris mitigation effort, even
though this was not endorsed by the IADC space debris mitigation guidelines. This is no longer the case. Further-
more, given the uncertainties associated with orbital lifetime predictions, the thresholds used to categorise Payload
or Rocket Body as (non-)compliant w.r.t. space debris mitigation guidelines are now addressed stochastically for
those cases near the threshold.

A major event visible in this edition of the report is the de-orbiting of a telecommunication constellation in Low Earth
Orbit which started in 2018. Just as the insertion of this constellation is visible in the launch traffic increase, it now
stands out as an increase in successful post mission de-orbiting when it comes to compliance to the guidelines.
Furthermore, with the coming into operations of a newer generation of launchers, the release of mission related
objects as part of their operations is going down. However, releasing large mission related objects altogether is
unfortunately not a relic of the past (yet).

1.4.2. Edition 5
Starting with edition 5 of this report, an increased emphasis is put on the consequence of the global level of adher-
ence to space debris mitigation guidelines. To capture these consequence in relation to the dynamic evolution of
the actors in orbit and measures to achieve space debris mitigation, it became necessary to estimate automatically
the average properties of objects and the orbital usage alike. Based on these properties, short-term consequences
such as the risk of collision faced by operators in the LEO protected region as well as the long term risk of triggering
the Kessler syndrome in the LEO protected region can be estimated.

Notable events visible in this edition of the report are the completion of the de-orbiting of an telecommunication
constellation from Low Earth orbit in 2019 and the start of on-orbit deployment of two new ones during 2020. To a
certain extent, 2020 marks the beginning of a new era in spaceflight with the maturation of large and medium sized
constellations being deployed on orbit and the availability on ground of the derived service, the increased use of
so called ride-share missions, and the continuation of miniaturisation of space system. This is in contrast with the
period between the mid 1990’ies and ending mid 2010’s, which saw the slow but steady roll-out and demonstration
of the new technologies that are becoming commonplace today.

The start of solar cycle 25 marks a change for the regularly updated orbital lifetimes used in this report. The
change in cycle behaviour has an impact on the estimated compliance rates as show in Fig. 6.17. In the uncertainty
analysis, the values for the last year are affected by the low number of cases for Rocket Bodies due to the increased
usage for controlled re-entry as disposal strategy. This is not an issue, as Payload data is accounted for with one
year delay, and the uncertainties have generally a limited impact in this case.

Page 14/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

1.5. Acknowledgements
The authors take the opportunity to thank the team at the European Space Agency’s Space Debris Office for pro-
viding technical support and all data quality work. Furthermore, we thank the international space debris community
at large for the received comments and suggestions for improvements.

1.6. Disclaimer
The contents of this document are intended for the personal and non-commercial use of their users. Permission is
granted to users to reprint or copy information for personal non-commercial use when providing appropriate credit
by citing the source plus date of issue. For commercial use, authorisation need to be sought. Users may not
modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, translate into other languages, create
derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the content, material or images, in
whole or in part, without obtaining prior written authorisation.

The analysis presented in this document is derived from a continuously evolving database. Mistakes can unavoid-
ably happen during the preparation process and we are thus ready to take feedback. If you detect any error or if
you have any comment or question please contact:

Stijn Lemmens
European Space Agency
European Space Operations Center
Space Debris Office (OPS-SD)
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel.: +49-6151-902634
E-mail: [email protected]

Francesca Letizia
European Space Agency
European Space Operations Center
Space Debris Office (OPS-SD)
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel.: +49-6151-902079
E-mail: [email protected]

Page 15/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2. SPACE ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY IN NUMBERS

This section reports on the evolution of the space environment since the beginning of the space age. The evolution
of catalogued objects in orbit is graphically represented for count, mass, and area. This data is further subdivided
based on object and orbit classification. A catalogued object is only taken into account for a given year if it appeared
in a space surveillance system during that year. This implies that reported evolutions do scale with the quality of
the space surveillance systems at a given epoch. In case of the evolution of payloads and rocket bodies the
reported numbers are close to values one would obtain when only considering asserted objects. In all other object
classifications the amount of catalogued objects are almost certainly an underestimation and hence lower limit for
the true space environment.

Concerning the LEO and GEO protected regions, the absolute and equivalent number of objects, mass, and area
interfering with these regions are graphically represented. To obtain the equivalent object penetrating the protected
regions, the physical property of the absolute object, i.e. count, mass, and area, is multiplied with an equivalence
factor. This factor is computed as the ratio of the time spent in the protected region per orbit to the orbital period
for each orbit. This indicates per orbital class how many objects are interfering with the protected regions without
being permanently present. Even though the LEO and GEO regions are defined as protected regions as a whole,
most of the traffic takes place in narrow bands.

The evolution of the catalogued and asserted objects appearing in or re-entering the Earth atmosphere from the
space environment is graphically represented for count, mass, and area. This data is further subdivided based on
object and orbit classification. Objects that are both asserted and catalogued are only counted once for a given
year. In case of minor inconsistencies between the asserted and catalogued object information for the same object,
the ’N/A’ tag is applied. Objects associated with human spaceflight include crew vehicles or parts thereof as well as
payloads dedicated to cargo transfer, but not the rocket bodies associated to these missions. For the vast majority
of cases, there is no reliable mass or area estimate for objects in the Debris or Unidentified categories and hence
they are equated to 0.

In all figures within Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, the environment parameters are presented as they are at the 1th
of January of the indicated year. In all figures within Sections 2.4, 2.7, and 2.8, the environment parameters are
presented as aggregated data within the indicated year. All data used to generate the analysis in this section is
available online [7].

Page 16/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.1. Overall Space Environment

Figure 2.1 captures the evolution of the space environment in terms of number of objects, mass, and area in
geocentric orbit by object class. This data is limited to catalogued and asserted objects, and hence at any given
epoch limited to the capability of the space surveillance system in use at the time. A secondary effect hereof is
that when new objects are detected due to increased sensor performance, they can generally not be traced back
to an event or source and become classified as Unidentified. In Figures 2.2 the same data is presented by orbit
class instead of object class. In Figures 2.3 the same data is presented in relation to the cumulative values for
those properties in case they would not have been removed from orbit.

Page 17/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Evolution in All Orbits

UI PM
RM PD
25000 RD PF
RF PL
RB
20000
Object Count [-]

15000

10000

5000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(a) Evolution of number of objects.

Evolution in All Orbits

RM PM
RD PD
8000 RF PF
RB PL
Object Mass [tons]

6000

4000

2000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(b) Evolution of mass.

Evolution in All Orbits

100000
RM PM
RD PD
RF PF
80000 RB PL
Object Area [m2]

60000

40000

20000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(c) Evolution of area.

Figure 2.1: Evolution of number of objects, mass, and area in geocentric orbit by object class.

Page 18/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Evolution in All Orbits

Other NSO
HEO GTO
25000 MGO EGO
LMO GEO
MEO LEO
20000
Object Count [-]

15000

10000

5000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(a) Evolution of number of objects.

Evolution in All Orbits

Other NSO
HEO GTO
8000 MGO EGO
LMO GEO
MEO LEO
Object Mass [tons]

6000

4000

2000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(b) Evolution of mass.

Evolution in All Orbits

100000
Other NSO
HEO GTO
MGO EGO
80000 LMO GEO
MEO LEO
Object Area [m2]

60000

40000

20000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(c) Evolution of area.

Figure 2.2: Evolution of number of objects, mass, and area in geocentric orbit by orbit class.

Page 19/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Cumulative objects on-orbit

50000 Actual objects on-orbit

40000
Object Count [-]

30000

20000

10000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(a) Evolution of number of objects.

Cumulative objects on-orbit

Actual objects on-orbit
40000

30000
Object Mass [tons]

20000

10000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(b) Evolution of mass.

Cumulative objects on-orbit

Actual objects on-orbit
250000

200000
Object Area [m2]

150000

100000

50000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(c) Evolution of area.

Figure 2.3: Evolution of number of orbiting objects, mass, and area in geocentric orbit versus total number of
objects.

Page 20/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.2. Evolution of Environment in LEO

Penetration into LEOIADC

20000
Other
HEO
17500 LMO
GTO
15000 LEO
Object Count [-]

12500

10000

7500

5000

2500

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(a) Evolution of absolute number of objects.

Penetration into LEOIADC

Other
HEO
4000 LMO
GTO
LEO
3000
Object Mass [tons]

2000

1000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(b) Evolution of absolute mass.

Penetration into LEOIADC

50000
Other
HEO
LMO
40000 GTO
LEO
Object Area [m2]

30000

20000

10000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(c) Evolution of absolute area.

Figure 2.4: Evolution of absolute number of objects, mass and area residing in or penetrating LEOIADC .

Page 21/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Penetration into LEOIADC

20000
Other
HEO
17500 LMO
GTO
15000 LEO
Equivalent Object Count [-]

12500

10000

7500

5000

2500

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(a) Evolution of equivalent number of objects.

Penetration into LEOIADC

Other
HEO
4000 LMO
GTO
LEO
Equivalent Object Mass [tons]

3000

2000

1000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(b) Evolution of equivalent mass.

Penetration into LEOIADC

50000
Other
HEO
LMO
40000 GTO
LEO
Equivalent Object Area [m2]

30000

20000

10000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(c) Evolution of equivalent area.

Figure 2.5: Evolution of equivalent number of objects, mass and area residing in or penetrating LEOIADC .

Page 22/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.3. Evolution of Environment in GEO

Penetration into GEOIADC

5000 Other
HEO
MGO
4000 GTO
EGO
GEO
Object Count [-]

3000

2000

1000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(a) Evolution of absolute number of objects.

Penetration into GEOIADC

Other
3000 HEO
MGO
GTO
2500 EGO
GEO
Object Mass [tons]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(b) Evolution of absolute mass.

Penetration into GEOIADC

Other
30000 HEO
MGO
GTO
25000 EGO
GEO
Object Area [m2]

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(c) Evolution of absolute area.

Figure 2.6: Evolution of absolute number of objects, mass and area residing in or penetrating GEOIADC .

Page 23/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Penetration into GEOIADC

5000 Other
HEO
MGO
4000 GTO
EGO
Equivalent Object Count [-]

GEO
3000

2000

1000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(a) Evolution of equivalent number of objects.

Penetration into GEOIADC

Other
3000 HEO
MGO
GTO
EGO
Equivalent Object Mass [tons]

2500
GEO
2000

1500

1000

500

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(b) Evolution of equivalent mass.

Penetration into GEOIADC

Other
30000 HEO
MGO
GTO
25000 EGO
Equivalent Object Area [m2]

GEO
20000

15000

10000

5000

0
60 70 80 90 00 10 20
n 19 n 19 n 19 n 19 n 20 n 20 n 20
1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja 1 Ja
Reference Epoch

(c) Evolution of equivalent area.

Figure 2.7: Evolution of equivalent number of objects, mass and area residing in or penetrating GEOIADC .

Page 24/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.4. Usage of the Protected Regions

This section aims to provide an overview of the usage of the protected regions in terms of launch traffic as repre-
sented by object count and mass, given that the stability of the space environment is dependent on them.

From a historical point of view, the launch traffic of Payloads can be categorised in terms of the main funding
source (Civil, Defence, Commercial, Amateur) or in terms of the main missions type (Communication, Imaging,
Navigation, etc.). The Amateur category includes those Payloads associated by academic institutions when none
of the other entities are the driving contributor. Payloads which are deployed from the International Space Station
(ISS) are identified with a separate label as part of the launch traffic.

In case of Rocket Bodies, it is of importance which launcher family is generating the traffic to orbit, given that
the adherence level to space debris mitigation guidelines correlates with this family identifier. These families are
to be understood as major stable design versions of a launcher, e.g. covering performance improvements but
not engine changes. New families can appear sporadically and in this report the most recent ones are identified.
Earlier families of launchers are grouped under Used earlier. Of increasing importance in a changing space traffic
landscape are also the so-called ride-share launch opportunities, where a single launch vehicle carries a multitude
of Payloads from different entities into orbit. For the purpose of this report, ride-share launch are identified if they
carry Payloads with at least three different mission domains and at least 10 Payloads in total. A mission domain is
defined based on the mission type, funding, and operator.

Page 25/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Launch Traffic into 200 hp 1750km

Amateur
1200 Civil
Defense
Commercial
1000
Number of Objects [-]

800

600

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Payload Launch Traffic into 200 hp 1750km

Communication Navigation
1200 Imaging Sigint
Spaceship Calibration
Technology Weather
1000 Science Other
Number of Objects [-]

800

600

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Figure 2.8: Evolution of the launch traffic near LEOIADC per mission funding (top) and type (bottom).

Page 26/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Launch Traffic into 200 hp 1750km

Long March 4 Long March 11
1200 Long March 8 Long March 3
Falcon H-II
Soyuz-2 Long March 5
1000 Polar SLV Antares 200
Electron ISS
Angara A Used earlier
Number of Objects [-]

800

600

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Payload Launch Traffic into 200 hp 1750km

Long March 4 Long March 11
Long March 8 Long March 3
Falcon H-II
800 Soyuz-2 Long March 5
Polar SLV Antares 200
Electron ISS
Angara A Used earlier
600
Mass [tons]

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Figure 2.9: Evolution of the launch traffic near LEOIADC per launcher family expressed in terms of number of objects
(top) and mass (bottom).

Page 27/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Launch Traffic into 35000 hp 36800km

Civil
35 Defense
Commercial
30
Number of Objects [-]

25

20

15

10

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Payload Launch Traffic into 35000 hp 36800km

Communication Navigation
35 Imaging Sigint
Technology Weather
Science Other
30
Number of Objects [-]

25

20

15

10

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Figure 2.10: Evolution of the launch traffic near GEOIADC per mission funding (top) and type (bottom).

Page 28/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Launch Traffic into 35000 hp 36800km

H-II Delta IV
35 Long March 3 SLV-P
Ariane 5 Polar SLV
Falcon Zenit 3
30 Long March 5 Soyuz-2
Proton-M Angara A
Atlas V Used earlier
Number of Objects [-]

25

20

15

10

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Payload Launch Traffic into 35000 hp 36800km

160 H-II Delta IV
Long March 3 SLV-P
140 Ariane 5 Polar SLV
Falcon Zenit 3
120 Long March 5 Soyuz-2
Proton-M Angara A
Atlas V Used earlier
100
Mass [tons]

80

60

40

20

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Figure 2.11: Evolution of the launch traffic near GEOIADC per launcher family expressed in terms of number of
objects (top) and mass (bottom).

Page 29/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Launch Traffic outside LEO and GEO

Falcon Delta IV
60 Soyuz Soyuz-2
Proton-M Ariane 5
Atlas V Long March 4
50 Long March 5 SLV-P
Long March 3 SS-5
H-II Used earlier
Number of Objects [-]

40

30

20

10

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Payload Launch Traffic outside LEO and GEO

200 Falcon Delta IV
Soyuz Soyuz-2
Proton-M Ariane 5
175 Atlas V Long March 4
Long March 5 SLV-P
150 Long March 3 SS-5
H-II Used earlier
125
Mass [tons]

100

75

50

25

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Figure 2.12: Evolution of the launch traffic outside LEOIADC and GEOIADC per launcher family expressed in terms
of number of objects (top) and mass (bottom).

Page 30/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Launch Traffic into 200 hp 1750 km

1200 m 10 kg
10 kg < m 100 kg
100 kg < m 1000 kg
1000 m > 1000 kg
Number of objects [-]

800

600

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Launch Year

Payload Launch Traffic into 35000 hp 36800 km

m 10 kg
35 10 kg < m 100 kg
100 kg < m 1000 kg
30 m > 1000 kg
Number of objects [-]

25

20

15

10

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Launch Year
Figure 2.13: Evolution of the launch traffic per mass category in terms of number of objects in LEOIADC (top) and
GEOIADC (bottom).

Page 31/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

120 Payloads carried

per launch
(0, 1]
(1, 5]
100 (5, 10]
(10, 25]
(25, 50]
Number of launches

80 (50, 100]
(100, 150]
60

40

20

0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Launch year
(a) Payloads

120 Mission domains

(0, 1]
(1, 5]
100 (5, 10]
(10, 25]
(25, 50]
(50, 100]
Number of launches

80

60

40

20

0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Launch year
(b) Mission domains

Figure 2.14: Evolution of the launch traffic.

Page 32/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Launch Traffic (All)

600
1600

1400 500

1200 400
Perigee Height [km]

Mass [tons]
1000
300
800
200
600
100
400

200 0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year
(a) LEOIADC

Payload Launch Traffic (All)

36600 120
36400
100
36200
Perigee Height [km]

80
Mass [tons]

36000

35800 60
35600
40
35400
20
35200
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year
(b) GEOIADC

Figure 2.15: Evolution of the launch traffic: mass injected.

Page 33/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.5. Constellations in the LEO protected region

Constellation Objects
No constellation
Constellations
4000

3000
Object Count [-]

2000

1000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(a) Evolution of number of objects.

Constellation Objects
1750
No constellation
Constellations
1500

1250
Object Mass [tons]

1000

750

500

250

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(b) Evolution of mass.

Constellation Objects
No constellation
Constellations
20000

15000
Object Area [m2]

10000

5000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(c) Evolution of area.

Figure 2.16: Evolution of number of objects, mass, and area in LEOIADC distinguishing constellations and non-
constellations payloads.

Page 34/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.6. Active payloads in the LEO protected region

2020
2019
2018 800
2017

Number of active payloads

2016
2015
2014 600
2013
2012
2011 400
2010
2009
2008 200
2007
2006
2005
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
h [km]
Figure 2.17: Distribution of active payloads in LEO by year and mean altitude.

2020 400
2019
2018 350
2017
Number of active payloads

2016 300
2015
2014 250
2013
2012 200
2011
2010 150
2009
2008 100
2007
2006 50
2005
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
h [km]
Figure 2.18: Distribution of active payloads not belonging to constellations in LEO by year and mean altitude.

Page 35/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2020 600
2019
2018
2017 500

Number of active payloads

2016
2015 400
2014
2013
2012 300
2011
2010
200
2009
2008
2007 100
2006
2005
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
h [km]
Figure 2.19: Distribution of active payloads belonging to constellations in LEO by year and mean altitude.

Mean active payloads' properties

750
Mass [kg]

500
250
0

7.5
Area [m2]

5.0
2.5
0.0
0.04
No constellations
A/M [m2/kg]

Constellations
0.02 Combined

0.00
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Figure 2.20: Payload parameters for active payloads in LEO over time.

Page 36/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.7. New Catalogued Objects in the Space Environment

Newly Added Objects

UI PM
3500 RM PD
RD PF
RF PL
3000 RB
2500
Object Count [-]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(a) Evolution of newly added object by count.

Newly Added Objects

1400 RM PM
RD PD
RF PF
1200 RB PL

1000
Object Mass [tons]

800

600

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(b) Evolution of newly added mass.

Newly Added Objects

14000
RM PM
RD PD
RF PF
12000 RB PL

10000
Object Area [m2]

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(c) Evolution of newly added area.

Figure 2.21: Evolution of newly added objects in each year by object type.

Page 37/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Newly Added Objects

4000
N/A NSO
Other GTO
3500 HEO EGO
MGO GEO
3000 LMO LEO
MEO
2500
Object Count [-]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(a) Evolution of newly added object by count.

Newly Added Objects

1400 N/A NSO
Other GTO
HEO EGO
1200 MGO GEO
LMO LEO
MEO
1000
Object Mass [tons]

800

600

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(b) Evolution of newly added mass.

Newly Added Objects

14000
N/A NSO
Other GTO
HEO EGO
12000 MGO GEO
LMO LEO
MEO
10000
Object Area [m2]

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(c) Evolution of newly added area.

Figure 2.22: Evolution of newly added objects in each year by orbit type.

Page 38/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.8. Objects Removed from the Space Environment

Re-entering Objects
1200
RM PM
RD PD
1000 RF PF
RB PL

800
Object Count [-]

600

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(a) Evolution of re-entered numbers.

Re-entering Objects
600
RM PM
RD PD
RF PF
500 RB PL

400
Object Mass [tons]

300

200

100

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(b) Evolution of re-entered mass.

Re-entering Objects
3500
RM PM
RD PD
3000 RF PF
RB PL
2500
Object Area [m2]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(c) Evolution of re-entered area.

Figure 2.23: Evolution of re-entering objects in each year by object type without human spaceflight.

Page 39/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Re-entering Objects
1200
Other MEO
HEO GTO
1000 MGO LEO
LMO

800
Object Count [-]

600

400

200

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(a) Evolution of re-entered numbers.

Re-entering Objects
600
Other MEO
HEO GTO
LMO LEO
500

400
Object Mass [tons]

300

200

100

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(b) Evolution of re-entered mass.

Re-entering Objects
Other GTO
3000
HEO LEO
LMO

2500
Object Area [m2]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(c) Evolution of re-entered area.

Figure 2.24: Evolution of re-entering objects in each year by orbit type without human spaceflight.

Page 40/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Re-entering Objects
24
PM PL
22
20
18
16
Object Count [-]

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(a) Evolution of re-entered numbers.

Re-entering Objects
PM PL
800

700

600
Object Mass [tons]

500

400

300

200

100

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(b) Evolution of re-entered mass.

Re-entering Objects
7000 PM PL

6000

5000
Object Area [m2]

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(c) Evolution of re-entered area.

Figure 2.25: Evolution of re-entering human spaceflight objects in each year by object type.

Page 41/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Re-entering Objects
24
Other LMO
22 HEO LEO
20
18
16
Object Count [-]

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(a) Evolution of re-entered numbers.

Re-entering Objects
Other LMO
800 HEO LEO

700

600
Object Mass [tons]

500

400

300

200

100

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(b) Evolution of re-entered mass.

Re-entering Objects
7000 Other LMO
HEO LEO
6000

5000
Object Area [m2]

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

(c) Evolution of re-entered area.

Figure 2.26: Evolution of re-entering human spaceflight objects by orbit type.

Page 42/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

2.9. Nuclear Power Sources

Nuclear power sources (NPS) have been used in outer space as an efficient way of producing larger quantities of
energy or heat, commonly implemented as small fission reactors or radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Since
early during the space age such power systems were used in Earth orbit but they have been largely phased out
after the 80íes due to safety concerns. The notably exception is the use of NPSs for interplanetary Payloads and
planetary exploration.

The safety concerns related to NPSs in Earth orbit related to risks implied when they would re-enter the atmosphere
and break-up. To mitigate this risk, the reactor cores where generally injected into orbits with long orbital lifetimes
after the end of operations of the Payload. There are 61 objects related to NPSs known to have entered Earth
orbit, out of which 3 are asserted but not catalogued. A total of 3 out of those 61 have re-entered, and the orbital
distribution on the remainder is presented in Figure 2.27.

100
107

80
106

105 60

Inclination [deg]
Lifetime [years]

104
40

103
20

102

0
103 104
Mean altitude [km]

Figure 2.27: Distribution of space objects with nuclear power sources with mean altitude, orbital lifetime, and
inclination.

Page 43/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

3. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS 2020

In this section, the status of the environment as of end of 2020 is listed and illustrated.

Table 3.1: Number of objects orbiting Earth. Other: IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 4407 6426 134 235 886 2581 136 587 58 15450
GEO 769 3 2 6 64 0 0 0 29 873
EGO 459 2 0 49 191 90 1 4 1753 2549
GTO 61 12 0 11 250 198 6 63 556 1157
NSO 272 0 0 1 91 0 0 2 11 377
MEO 65 4 5 52 21 58 1 3 261 470
LMO 86 154 9 47 230 851 22 221 1049 2669
MGO 69 65 1 2 176 2323 5 0 787 3428
HEO 29 10 0 1 44 96 0 1 928 1109
Other 40 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 87 136
Total 6257 6676 151 409 1957 6197 171 881 5519 28218

Table 3.2: Absolute and equivalent number of objects intersecting with the protected regions.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
both (abs) 17 7 0 2 68 125 0 21 263 503
LEOIADC (abs) 4567 6602 143 294 1395 3688 164 872 1798 19523
LEOIADC (eqv) 4439 6522 139 247 939 2840 141 623 281 16169
GEOIADC (abs) 924 26 3 51 294 727 0 22 2884 4931
GEOIADC (eqv) 821 4 2 18 105 37 0 1 196 1183
none (abs) 783 55 5 66 336 1907 7 8 1100 4267

Page 44/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Table 3.3: Mass in tons orbiting Earth. Objects of unknown mass do not contribute to the figures presented. Other:
IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 1751.9 1.5 1.0 5.1 1285.5 0.2 0.0 6.1 0.0 3051.4
GEO 2426.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 131.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2559.5
EGO 722.4 0.0 0.0 4.9 354.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1081.6
GTO 108.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 592.6 0.0 0.0 30.9 0.0 733.4
NSO 348.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 208.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 557.4
MEO 66.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 28.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 97.6
LMO 72.6 0.0 0.0 3.4 391.9 0.0 0.0 85.5 0.0 553.4
MGO 95.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 285.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 382.3
HEO 42.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 96.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 139.6
Other 65.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.6
Total 5700.5 1.5 1.0 18.1 3381.4 0.2 0.0 125.0 0.0 9227.8

Table 3.4: Absolute and equivalent mass in tons intersecting with the protected regions.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
both (abs) 26.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 129.1 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 164.3
LEOIADC (abs) 1954.9 1.5 1.0 9.6 2338.5 0.2 0.0 122.9 0.0 4428.6
LEOIADC (eqv) 1782.4 1.5 1.0 6.4 1363.0 0.2 0.0 17.0 0.0 3171.5
GEOIADC (abs) 2699.6 0.0 0.0 8.1 551.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 3266.0
GEOIADC (eqv) 2522.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 209.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2734.3
none (abs) 1073.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 621.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1697.6

Page 45/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Table 3.5: Area in m2 orbiting Earth. Objects of unknown area do not contribute to the figures presented. Other:
IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 22367.5 17.6 4.7 62.5 10415.2 0.0 0.0 257.2 0.0 33124.7
GEO 23526.5 0.0 0.0 8.3 1419.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24954.1
EGO 10385.1 0.0 0.0 37.2 3696.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 14120.0
GTO 677.4 0.0 0.0 8.8 5773.2 0.0 0.0 917.8 0.0 7377.2
NSO 2130.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 1841.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3972.2
MEO 917.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 267.6 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 1205.5
LMO 615.3 0.0 0.0 14.6 4493.9 0.0 0.0 1530.7 0.0 6654.6
MGO 655.2 0.0 0.0 14.5 2369.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3039.0
HEO 547.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 1000.9 0.0 0.0 27.4 0.0 1576.0
Other 464.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 512.4
Total 62285.9 17.6 4.7 152.4 31325.4 0.0 0.0 2749.5 0.0 96535.7

Table 3.6: Absolute and equivalent area in m2 intersecting with the protected regions.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
both (abs) 258.6 0.0 0.0 8.4 1446.9 0.0 0.0 330.4 0.0 2044.3
LEOIADC (abs) 23887.4 17.6 4.7 86.1 21455.9 0.0 0.0 2733.1 0.0 48184.9
LEOIADC (eqv) 22527.4 17.6 4.7 66.6 11288.5 0.0 0.0 477.0 0.0 34381.9
GEOIADC (abs) 26219.9 0.0 0.0 58.7 5713.6 0.0 0.0 331.0 0.0 32323.3
GEOIADC (eqv) 24553.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 2237.3 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 26830.1
none (abs) 12437.2 0.0 0.0 16.0 5602.9 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 18071.9

Page 46/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

3.1. Status of the Environment in LEO

Mass Distribution of PLs Intersecting LEOIADC

Crossing
Residing
1000

800
Counts

600

400

200

0
10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 104 105
Mass [kg]
(a) Mass histogram of payloads in LEO.

Area Distribution of PLs Intersecting LEOIADC

Crossing
1000 Residing

800

600
Counts

400

200

0
10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103
Area [m2]

(b) Area histogram of payloads in LEO.

Figure 3.1: Distribution of mass and area of payloads in LEO.

Page 47/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Mass Distribution of RBs Intersecting LEOIADC

Crossing
Residing
400

300
Counts

200

100

0
101 102 103 104
Mass [kg]
(a) Mass histogram of rocket bodies in LEO.

Area Distribution of RBs Intersecting LEOIADC

Crossing
Residing
200

150
Counts

100

50

0
10 1 100 101 102
Area [m2]

(b) Area histogram of rocket bodies in LEO.

Figure 3.2: Distribution of mass and area of rocket bodies in LEO.

Page 48/106
 ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Distribution of Objects residing in LEOIADC Distribution of Objects crossing LEOIADC

180 180

160 160

140 140
Inclination i [deg] (3.0deg bins)

Inclination i [deg] (3.0deg bins)

120 102 120 102

100 100

Count

Count
80 80

60 101 60 101

40 40

20 20

0 100 0 100
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Perigee altitude hp [km] (40km bins) Perigee altitude hp [km] (40km bins)

(a) Distribution of objects residing in LEO. (b) Distribution of objects crossing LEO.

Figure 3.3: Distribution of number of objects in LEO as a function of inclination and perigee altitude.

Mass Distribution of Objects residing in LEOIADC Mass Distribution of Objects crossing LEOIADC
180 180
102 102
160 160

140 140
101 101
Inclination i [deg] (3.0deg bins)

Inclination i [deg] (3.0deg bins)

120 120
Mass [tons]

Mass [tons]

100 100 100 100

80 80
10 1 10 1
60 60

40 40
10 2 10 2

20 20

0 10 3 0 10 3
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Perigee altitude hp [km] (40km bins) Perigee altitude hp [km] (40km bins)

(a) Mass distribution of objects residing in LEO. (b) Mass distribution of objects crossing LEO.

Figure 3.4: Distribution of mass in LEO as a function of inclination and perigee altitude.

Page 49/106
 ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Area Distribution of Objects residing in LEOIADC Area Distribution of Objects crossing LEOIADC
180 180

160 160
103 103
140 140
Inclination i [deg] (3.0deg bins)

Inclination i [deg] (3.0deg bins)

120 102 120 102

100 100
Area [m2]

Area [m2]
101 101
80 80

60 100 60 100

40 40
10 1 10 1
20 20

0 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Perigee altitude hp [km] (40km bins) Perigee altitude hp [km] (40km bins)

(a) Area distribution of objects residing in LEO. (b) Area distribution of objects crossing LEO.

Figure 3.5: Distribution of area in LEO as a function of inclination and perigee altitude.

Page 50/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Launch Traffic into 200 hp 1750 km in 2020

1000
Amateur
Civil
Commercial
800 Defense
Number of objects [-]

600

400

200

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Mean altitude [km]

Active Payloads Distribution

Amateur
1400 Civil
Commercial
1200 Defense
Number of objects [-]

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Mean altitude [km]
Figure 3.6: Launch traffic in 2020 (top) and distribution of active payloads (bottom) in LEOIADC by mean altitude.

Page 51/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

120
140
100
90 120
80
100
70

Mass [tonn]
60
i [deg]

80
50
40 60
30 40
20
10 20
0
0
150 350 550 750 950 1150 1350 1650
h [km]
Figure 3.7: Distribution of active payloads in LEO by mean altitude and inclination.

Page 52/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

3.2. Status of the Environment in GEO

Mass Distribution of PLs Intersecting GEOIADC

Crossing
100 Residing

80

60
Counts

40

20

0
101 102 103 104
Mass [kg]
(a) Mass histogram of payloads in GEO.

Area Distribution of PLs Intersecting GEOIADC

Crossing
Residing
100

80
Counts

60

40

20

0
10 1 100 101 102 103 104
Area [m2]

(b) Area histogram of payloads in GEO.

Figure 3.8: Distribution of mass and area of payloads in GEO.

Page 53/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Mass Distribution of RBs Intersecting GEOIADC

80
Crossing
Residing
70

60

50
Counts

40

30

20

10

0
101 102 103 104
Mass [kg]
(a) Mass histogram of rocket bodies in GEO.

Area Distribution of RBs Intersecting GEOIADC

Crossing
120 Residing

100

80
Counts

60

40

20

0
10 1 100 101 102
Area [m2]

(b) Area histogram of rocket bodies in GEO.

Figure 3.9: Distribution of mass and area of rocket bodies in GEO.

Page 54/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

3.3. Fragmentations in 2020

In Table 3.7 all established fragmentation events of the year 2020 are shown. For a description of the event
categories, please consult Section 5. In case no credible source is available on the amount of Asserted Objects
associated with a fragmentation event, it is indicated with None. Those Asserted Object are reported by space
surveillance networks which can have variable detection limits. A more in-depth overview of the consequences of
those events can be accessed online [11].

Table 3.7: Fragmentation events in 2020.

Event Object Mass Catalogued Asserted Event

Orbit
epoch type [kg] objects objects cause
2020-01-09 Payload 547 17 17 LEO Unknown
2020-02-12 Rocket Body 1388 111 75 LEO Propulsion
2020-05-08 Rocket Mission 360 323 65 LMO Propulsion
Related Object
2020-07-12 Rocket Mission 200 87 53 LEO Unknown
Related Object
2020-08-27 Payload 1900 108 15 LEO Unknown
Total 4395 646 225

Page 55/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

3.4. Changes to the Environment in 2020

In this section, the change to the environment during 2020 is listed. The last state of the year is used to classify
the object orbit. If no state is available, a destination orbit defined by an analyst is used instead.

Table 3.8: Number of newly added objects orbiting Earth. Other: IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 1237 294 11 8 41 225 3 85 35 1939
GEO 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 20
EGO 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 206 215
GTO 3 0 0 1 10 0 0 3 76 93
NSO 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 10
MEO 2 0 0 2 1 6 0 0 38 49
LMO 1 0 0 0 4 312 5 1 354 677
MGO 0 0 0 0 1 101 0 0 214 316
HEO 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 191 196
Other 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 11
N/A 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total 1270 295 11 11 65 646 8 92 1128 3526

Table 3.9: Absolute and equivalent number of newly added objects intersecting with the protected regions.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
both (abs) 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 41 44
LEOIADC (abs) 1242 294 11 9 57 537 8 89 495 2742
LEOIADC (eqv) 1237 294 11 8 42 351 4 85 154 2187
GEOIADC (abs) 21 1 0 1 3 34 0 1 465 526
GEOIADC (eqv) 18 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 19 40
none (abs) 8 0 0 2 6 75 0 2 209 302

Page 56/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Table 3.10: Newly added mass in tons orbiting Earth. Other: IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 408.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 89.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 499.6
GEO 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.8
EGO 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 13.6
GTO 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 38.9
NSO 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1
MEO 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0
LMO 21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 33.4
MGO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
HEO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5
Other 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7
N/A 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9

Total 540.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 151.5 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 697.6

Table 3.11: Absolute and equivalent newly added mass in tons intersecting with the protected regions.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
both (abs) 8.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7
LEOIADC (abs) 442.7 0.0 0.0 2.8 139.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 587.9
LEOIADC (eqv) 413.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 92.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 508.2
GEOIADC (abs) 83.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 91.3
GEOIADC (eqv) 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.1
none (abs) 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 31.1

Page 57/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Table 3.12: Newly added area in m2 orbiting Earth. Other: IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 12283.9 0.0 0.0 33.1 609.5 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 12937.9
GEO 496.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 496.8
EGO 84.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 100.6
GTO 28.7 0.0 0.0 8.2 324.5 0.0 0.0 82.2 0.0 443.6
NSO 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.6
MEO 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4
LMO 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.2 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 143.3
HEO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.3
Other 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.8
N/A 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0
Total 12963.9 0.0 0.0 41.3 1239.0 0.0 0.0 103.0 0.0 14347.2

Table 3.13: Absolute and equivalent newly added area in m2 intersecting with the protected regions.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
both (abs) 19.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 50.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.3
LEOIADC (abs) 12338.5 0.0 0.0 41.3 1162.7 0.0 0.0 101.8 0.0 13644.2
LEOIADC (eqv) 12286.1 0.0 0.0 33.4 641.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 12976.1
GEOIADC (abs) 563.5 0.0 0.0 8.2 79.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 651.4
GEOIADC (eqv) 498.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 499.5
none (abs) 80.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 128.9

Page 58/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Table 3.14: Number of re-entered objects. Other: IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 109 71 2 7 45 75 6 74 0 389
LMO 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
HEO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Total 110 71 2 7 47 75 7 74 0 393

Table 3.15: Re-entered mass in tons. Other: IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 73.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 97.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 175.2
HEO 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4
Total 74.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 102.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 180.1

Table 3.16: Re-entered area in m2 . Other: IGO, GHO, HAO, UFO, ESO.

PL PF PD PM RB RF RD RM UI Total
LEO 1026.6 0.0 0.0 20.9 788.6 0.0 0.0 158.3 0.0 1994.4
HEO 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.8
Total 1030.7 0.0 0.0 20.9 847.4 0.0 0.0 158.3 0.0 2057.3

Page 59/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

3.5. Conjunction statistics in LEO in 2020

This section aims to provide an assessment of the short-term risk related to space debris, quantified in terms of
the number of conjunctions expected in different orbital regions, distinguishing also the type of secondary object
involved in the conjunction. For the purpose of this report, a conjunction is understood as a geometric close
approach between two object, irrespective of their activity status, triggering an operator analysis but not necessarily
an avoidance manoeuvre nor implying a collision.

The first step of the analysis is to define some representative target (or primary) objects in the conjunctions. The
physical characteristics of the objects are derived from the average parameters of active payloads in LEOIADC ,
reported in Fig. 2.20. In particular, a mass value of 355 kg and a cross-sectional area of 6 m2 were used for the
analysis based on the averages for 2020. For what concerns the orbital parameters of the targets, two approaches
are used here. The first set of representative targets is defined by looking at the distribution of active payloads
in LEOIADC in semi-major axis and inclination as shown in Fig. 3.7, and a total of six targets were defined for this
analysis. The second approach is to define a set of targets in the Sun-Synchronous region; in particular, seven
targets are defined to cover the region between 400 and 1000 km in altitude. In both cases, twelve values of
the initial longitude of ascending nodes are considered and the results presented in the following are an average
across the simulated cases for each target.

In both cases, the trajectory of the targets is propagated for one year (from 1st January 2020 to 31st December
2020) and for each day of the year an analysis is run to detect potential conjunctions with catalogued objects, by
using ESA CRASS (Collision Risk ASsessment Software) [12]. For the analysis shown here, General Perturbations
(GP) data is retrieved to define the orbits of the secondary objects involved in the conjunctions [13]. The data in
DISCOS is used to further characterise the secondary object, for example in terms of its size and its category. In
addition to the object categories defined in Section 1.1, the following subcategories are introduced:

• Payloads is further distinguished in:

– Constellation objects, payloads belonging to a constellation, defined as a set of 20 or more spacecraft,

– Small satellites, payloads with a mass smaller than 15 kg,

– Other Payloads, all the other payloads.

• Payload fragmentation debris, four subcategories were defined to collect objects belonging to the fragmen-
tation events with the highest number of catalogued objects.

– Fengyun 1C Fragmentation Debris, objects generated by the fragmentation of Fengyun 1C (1999-25A),

with mass 958.0, on the 11/01/2007 at an altitude between 843.3 and 863.3 km and inclination of 98.6
degrees.

– Cosmos-2251 Fragmentation Debris, objects generated by the fragmentation of Cosmos-2251 (1993-

36A), with mass 892.0, on the 10/02/2009 at an altitude between 776.1 and 791.1 km and inclination of
86.4 degrees.

– Iridium 33 Fragmentation Debris, objects generated by the fragmentation of Iridium 33 (1997-51C),

with mass 661.0, on the 10/02/2009 at an altitude between 776.2 and 779.4 km and inclination of 86.4
degrees.

– Other Payload fragmentation debris, all the other payload fragmentation debris.

• Rocket fragmentation debris, four subcategories were defined to collect objects belonging to the fragmenta-
tion events with the highest number of catalogued objects.

Page 60/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

– Centaur-5 SEC Fragmentation Debris, objects generated by the fragmentation of Centaur-5 SEC (2018-
79B), with mass 2020.0, on the 06/04/2019 at an altitude between 8526.3 and 35092.8 km and inclina-
tion of 12.0 degrees.

– HAPS Fragmentation Debris, objects generated by the fragmentation of HAPS (1994-29B), with mass
96.1, on the 03/06/1996 at an altitude between 584.1 and 818.9 km and inclination of 82.0 degrees.

– Centaur-5 SEC Fragmentation Debris, objects generated by the fragmentation of Centaur-5 SEC (2009-
47B), with mass 2020.0, on the 25/03/2019 at an altitude between 6673.4 and 34706.6 km and inclina-
tion of 23.3 degrees.

– Other Rocket fragmentation debris, all the other rocket fragmentation debris.

Additional information on the fragmentation events can be found in ESA Fragmentation Database [11].

For each conjunction, the encounter geometry (i.e. the relative orientation of the orbits and time of closest ap-
proach) is retrieved from CRASS, whereas the computation of the collision probability is performed using Alfriend-
Akella’s method [14]. The values of positional uncertainty required for the collision probability calculation are ob-
tained with the methodology in [15], where the covariance for an object is dependent on its size, orbit (i.e. perigee
altitude, eccentricity, inclination) and time between the assessment and the Time of Close Approach (TCA).

In the results in the following, the conjunctions are grouped in events, where an event is defined by a pair of primary
and secondary object and a given TCA. The number of conjunction events with collision probability above 10−6
within three days to TCA is shown in Fig. 3.10 and Fig. 3.11, which refer, respectively, to targets defined based on
the distribution of payloads objects and to targets defined along the Sun-Synchronous region. The threshold at
10−6 is usually well below the reaction threshold for mission in LEOIADC (i.e. the events in Fig. 3.10 and Fig. 3.11
will not all results in collision avoidance manoeuvres), but this threshold could be already representative of events
where increased monitoring of the conjunction is activated.

64
Unknown
Other Mission Related Object
56 Other Debris
Rocket Debris
Rocket Mission Related Object
48 Centaur-5 SEC Fragmentation Debris
Number of conjunction events

HAPS Fragmentation Debris

Other Rocket Fragmentation Debris
40 Rocket Body
Payload Debris
32 Payload Mission Related Object
Fengyun 1C Fragmentation Debris
Cosmos-2251 Fragmentation Debris
24 Iridium 33 Fragmentation Debris
Other Payload Fragmentation Debris
Constellations
16 Small satellites
Other Payload
8

0
h=350km h=500km h=550km h=700km h=800km h=1250km h=1400km
i=52.0° i=97.4° i=53.0° i=98.19° i=98.6° i=85.0° i=52.0°

Figure 3.10: Conjunction events, and corresponding chaser classification, for a set of representative missions over
2020.

Page 61/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Unknown
24 Other Mission Related Object
Other Debris
Rocket Debris
21 Rocket Mission Related Object
Centaur-5 SEC Fragmentation Debris
Number of conjunction events

18 HAPS Fragmentation Debris

Other Rocket Fragmentation Debris
Rocket Body
15 Payload Debris
Payload Mission Related Object
12 Fengyun 1C Fragmentation Debris
Cosmos-2251 Fragmentation Debris
Iridium 33 Fragmentation Debris
9 Other Payload Fragmentation Debris
Constellations
6 Small satellites
Other Payload
3

0
h=400km h=500km h=600km h=700km h=800km h=900km h=1000km
i=97.03° i=97.4° i=97.79° i=98.19° i=98.6° i=99.03° i=99.48°

Figure 3.11: Conjunction events, and chaser classification, for a set of representative missions in Sun-synchronous
orbits over 2020.

Page 62/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

4. INTENTIONAL OBJECT RELEASE

A major part of the space debris mitigation measures are dedicated to the avoidance of intentionally releasing
space debris as part of the mission of a rocket body or payload. This type of mission related objects can generally
be sub-categorised into functional parts that are designed to be released after they are no longer required, e.g.
covers protecting instruments during launch, or combustion related products that support the main mission, e.g.
slag from solid rocket motors, or pyrotechnics. Objects from both subcategories can generally be avoided by
design changes on the rocket bodies or payloads. For example, camera covers can be opened and folded away
instead, or pyrotechnically expulsed and solid rocket motor slag can be avoided by using on-board chemical or
electrical propulsion systems. Small, i.e. sub millimetre, combustion related particles do contribute to the space
debris environment but are not considered a threat. Most pyrotechnic devices fall under this case.

In this section, the evolution in terms of occurrence of this type of space debris is illustrated.

4.1. Mission Related Objects

As metric for the adherence to space debris mitigations guidelines, the release of catalogued mission related
objects can be used. For every single payload and rocket body, the amount of released and catalogued mission
related objects are counted. Furthermore, the fraction of payloads and rocket bodies releasing mission related
objects to the total amount of payloads and rocket bodies launched in given year is presented.

Total Payload Mission Related Objects

300 Count
Mass 40

250 35

30
200
25
Mass [tons]
Count

150 20

15
100
10
50
5

0 0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Figure 4.1: Total number and mass of catalogued mission related objects released from payloads.

Page 63/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Total Rocket Mission Related Objects

Count
Mass
120
20

100

15
80

Mass [tons]
Count

60 10

40
5
20

0 0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Figure 4.2: Total number and mass of catalogued mission related objects released from rocket bodies.

Fraction of MRO Release Events by Source

100
Payloads
Rockets
80

60
Fraction [%]

40

20

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

Figure 4.3: Fraction of mission related objects releases per year w.r.t. the total amount of payloads and rocket
bodies injected into the space environment during that year.

Page 64/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

4.2. Solid Rocket Motor Firings

As a metric of the adherence to space debris mitigations guidelines the amount of solid rocket motor firings for
asserted objects can be used. The propellant mass associated with each firing is given versus the date of the
firing. Not all solid rocket motor firings are equally damaging for the space environment, i.e. solid rocket motor
fuels which do not create large slag particles have been developed. However, such an identification is not made
in this section.

105

104
Propellant mass [kg]

103

102

101

100

10 1
1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 2022
Epoch
Figure 4.4: Evolution solid rocket motor firings.

LEO
IGO
80 GTO
GHO
LMO
Number of firings

60 MGO
HEO
Other
40

20

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
Figure 4.5: Evolution solid rocket motor firings by orbit type.

Page 65/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

5. FRAGMENTATION HISTORY
Since the beginning of the space age until the end of 2020, there have been 566 confirmed on-orbit fragmentation
events. In Figure 5.2, the historical trend of the amount of fragmentation events per year is shown, as a function
of the event date and the launch date, respectively.

Fragmentation events are currently being categorised in main and sub-classes according to the assessed break-up
cause. In the first list of classes, the break-up cause is fairly well known:

Accidental: Subsystems that showed design flaws ultimately leading to breakups in some cases. This includes,
for example, the breakup of Hitomi (Astro-H) in 2016 or the sub-class of Oko satellites.

Cosmos 862 Class (Explosive Charge): The Oko missile early warning satellites were launched into Mol-
niya orbits. Each satellite carried an explosive charge in order to destroy it in case of a malfunction.
Reportedly, the control of this mechanism was unreliable.

Aerodynamics: A breakup most often caused by an overpressure due to atmospheric drag.

Collision: There have been several collisions observed between objects. A sub-class are so-called small im-
pactors.

Small Impactor: Caused by a collision, but without explicit evidence for an impactor. Changes in the angular
momentum, attitude and subsystem failures are, however, indirect indications of an impact.

Deliberate: All intentional breakup events.

ASAT: Anti-satellite tests.

Cosmos 2031 Class: The Orlets reconnaissance satellites were introduced in 1989 and employed detona-
tion as a standard procedure after the nominal mission.

Payload Recovery Failure: Some satellites were designed such that they exploded as soon as a non-
nominal re-entry was detected.

RORSAT Reactor Core Ejection Class: Between 1980 and 1988, the Soviet Union re-orbited their Radar
Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites (RORSAT) after a successful mission to a sufficiently high orbit around
900 km altitude. The manoeuvre was followed by a reactor core ejection, which resulted in an opening of
the primary coolant loop (Sodium-Potassium or NaK alloy) and an associated release of NaK droplets.

Electrical: Most of the events in this category occurred due to an overcharging and subsequent explosion of
batteries. A sub-class is defined based on the satellite bus.

Battery: Battery-related explosions may occur due to over-charging, over-temperature, short-circuits, over-
discharging, structural issues or damage, in each cases leading to a thermal run-away and subsequent
breakup.

DMSP/NOAA Class: Based on the Television and InfraRed Observation Satellite (TIROS-N) satellite bus,
some of the satellites in this series suffered from battery explosions.

Propulsion: Stored energy for non-passivated propulsion-related subsystems might lead to an explosion, for
example due to thermal stress. Several sub-classes are defined for rocket stages that showed repeated
breakup events.

Ariane Upper Stage: Breakups for the H8 and H10 cryogenic stages were observed, most likely due to
overpressure and subsequent bulkhead rupture. Passivation was introduced in 1990.

Page 66/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Briz-M: The fourth stage of the Proton rocket which is used to insert satellites into higher orbits.

Delta Upper Stage: There were several events for Delta second stages due to residual propellants until
depletion burns were introduced in 1981.

Proton Ullage Motor: The Blok D/DM upper stages of the Proton rocket used two ullage motors to support
the main engine. They were released as the main engine performed its final burn.

Titan Transtage: The upper stage of the Titan 3A rocket used a hypergolic fuel oxidizer combination.

Tsyklon Upper Stage: The third stage of the Tsyklon-3 launcher used a hypergolic fuel oxidizer combina-
tion.

Zenit-2 Upper Stage: The second stage of the Zenit 2 launcher used an RP-1/Liquid oxygen propellant.

A second list of classes relates to break-ups where the cause has not been well established. Events or sub-classes
within these classes could be reclassified in the future:

Anomalous: Defined as the unplanned separation, usually at low velocity, of one or more detectable objects from a
satellite that remains essentially intact. This may include debris shedding due to material deterioration, which
includes insulation material or solar panels all of which have been observed from ground in the past. Events
with sufficient evidence for an impact of debris or micrometeroids are classified under Small Impactor. Sub-
classes for anomalous events are defined, as soon as events occur multiple times for the same spacecraft
or bus type.

Cosmos-3 Class: Soviet/Russian launcher for small satellites.

Delta 4 Class: Events with several catalogued objects for the Delta Cryogenic Second Stages (DCSS).

ERS/SPOT Class: Both the ERS-1 and -2 satellites, as well as the SPOT-4 satellite had confirmed anoma-
lies and fragments were catalogued.

Meteor Class: Russian meteorological satellite family.

Scout Class: Refers to the Altair upper stage of the Scout rocket family.

TOPAZ Leakage Class: There are two known events for TOPAZ satellites where NaK droplets have been
observed in the vicinity of the parent object presumably due to leakage[16].

Transit Class: Satellites of the U.S. Navy’s first satellite navigation system operational between 1964 and
1996.

Vostok Class: Refers to the upper stage of the Vostok rocket (Blok E).

Assumed: Introduced for the MASTER model. Currently the only assumed events are in the GEO region, backed
by information obtained during survey campaigns [17].

Unconfirmed: A provisional status until an event is confirmed and classified accordingly.

Unknown: Is assigned whenever there is lacking evidence to support a more specific classification.

Cosmos 699 Class (EORSAT): For many of the ELINT Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites (EORSAT) a
breakup was observed during the orbital decay.

H-IIA Class: The second stage of the H-IIA launcher used a cryogenic propellant.

L-14B Class: The third stage of the Long March 4B (CZ-4B) launcher used a hypergolic propellant.

Page 67/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

5.1. All fragmentation events

A summary of the statistics on the recorded fragmentation events is reported in Table 5.1, where Assumed and
Unconfirmed were excluded from the computation. A breakdown of the observed fragmentation events grouped
by the main classes in terms of frequency and resulting catalogued debris is given in Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4,
respectively.

Table 5.1: Statistics on fragmentation events.

All history Last 20 years

Number of events 566 260
Non-deliberate events per year 8.4 12.5
Yearly rate of events where 50% of the generated 2.7 2.9
fragments have a lifetime of greater than 10 years
Yearly rate of events where 50% of the generated 1.9 2.0
fragments have a lifetime of greater than 25 years
Mean time (years) between launch and fragmen- 5.9 9.8
tation
Median time (years) between launch and frag- 1.5 6.8
mentation

Page 68/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Propulsion - 29.93 % Anomalous - 22.89 % Unknown - 18.66 % Deliberate - 10.21 %

Aerodynamics - 5.63 % Electrical - 4.93 % Accidental - 4.40 % Small Impactor - 2.46 %
Collision - 0.88 %

(a) Whole history.

Propulsion - 33.62 % Unknown - 27.59 % Anomalous - 20.69 % Electrical - 6.03 %

Small Impactor - 5.17 % Aerodynamics - 4.31 % Accidental - 1.72 % Deliberate - 0.86 %

(b) Last 10 years.

Figure 5.1: Event causes and their relative share for all past fragmentation events.

Page 69/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Number Fragmentation Events per Event Year

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5
Number

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Event Year

(a) Number of fragmentation events per event year.

Number Fragmentation Events per Launch Year

25

20

15
Number

10

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

(b) Number of fragmentation events per launch year.

Normalised Number Fragmentation Events per Launch Year

0.25
Number of events per launch

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Launch Year

(c) Number of fragmentation events per launch year normalised by the number of launches in that year.

Figure 5.2: Historical trend of fragmentation events.

Page 70/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Number Fragmentation Events

Unknown
80 Collision
Accidental
70 Electrical
Aerodynamics
60 Deliberate
Anomalous
50 Propulsion
Number

40
30
20
10
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Event Year (5 year bins)
(a) Absolute number of fragmentation events per event cause.

Number Fragmentation Events

100
Unknown
Collision
Accidental
80 Electrical
Aerodynamics
Deliberate
Anomalous
60 Propulsion
Share / %

40

20

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Event Year (5 year bins)
(b) Relative number of fragmentation events per event cause.

Figure 5.3: Historical trend of fragmentation events per event cause.

Page 71/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Resulting Fragments from Events

8000 Unknown
Collision
7000 Accidental
Electrical
6000 Aerodynamics
Deliberate
Anomalous
5000 Propulsion
Number

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Event Year (5 year bins)
(a) Absolute number of resulting fragments per event cause.

Resulting Fragments from Events

100
Unknown
Collision
Accidental
80 Electrical
Aerodynamics
Deliberate
Anomalous
60 Propulsion
Share / %

40

20

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Event Year (5 year bins)
(b) Relative number of resulting fragments per event cause.

Figure 5.4: Historical trend of numbers of fragments produced by fragmentation events.

Page 72/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Time since launch [years]

10

20

30

40

50

60
0
Unknown
Cosmos 699
H-IIA
L-14B

Accidental
Cosmos 862

Propulsion
Delta Upper Stage
Proton Ullage Motor
Titan Transtage
Briz-M
Ariane Upper Stage
Tsyklon Upper Stage
Zenit-2 Upper Stage
Category

Battery
DMSP/NOAA

Aerodynamics

Anomalous
Transit
Scout
Meteor
Vostok
ERS/SPOT
Delta 4
TOPAZ Leakage
Cosmos-3

Figure 5.5: Elapsed time between fragmentation and launch by category. The bubble size indicates the number
of generated fragments.

Page 73/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

60

50

40
Time since launch [years]

30

20

10

0
Collision

Small Impactor
Category

Figure 5.6: Elapsed time between fragmentation and launch for collision events. The bubble size indicates the
number of generated fragments.

60

50
Time since launch [years]

40

30

20

10

0
Deliberate

Payload Recovery Failure

Cosmos 2031
ASAT

RORSAT

Category

Figure 5.7: Elapsed time between fragmentation and launch for deliberate events. The bubble size indicates the
number of generated fragments.

Page 74/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

1.0
Cut-off year
None
0.8 1980
1990
2000
0.6
CDF

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time to break-up [years]
Figure 5.8: Cumulative distribution function for the elapsed time between fragmentation and launch for non-system
related fragmentation events, with different cut-off values on the launch year.

5.2. Non-system related fragmentation events

As also described when introducing the classes for fragmentation events, not all events are similar in nature and
hence the consequences on the environment and for mitigation measures can vary. In particular, events caused
by a technical flaw in the design of a (sub-)system that is re-used for many Rocket Bodies or Payload platforms,
so called system related events as for battery-related classes, are not representative for the space environment
as a whole and need targeted counter measures, e.g. it as was done for certain launch vehicle related classes.
To understand the likelihood of fragmentation events occurring in the environment as single stochastic events, i.e.
a background risk for any intact space object, it is instructive to analyses the non-system related fragmentation
events in isolation. In this sense, we can group the data from the fragmentation classes Unknown, Accidental,
Propulsion, Electrical, Battery, excluding their sub-classes.

A relation between the time to a fragmentation event and the launch epoch can be observed for non-system related
classes in Fig. 5.8. A causal relationship with the orbital region in which these object resided at the time of the
fragmentation event could not be derived, as shown in Fig. 5.9. The derived statistics for the non-system related
fragmentations are significantly lower than those for the entire population as observed in the previous Section,
and reported in Table 5.2. Based on the recent trend analysis, a value of 18 years is adopted as time limit after
which the explosion probability for a recently launched space object, due to non-systematic design flaws, can be
considered as effectively 0.

Page 75/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

100 18
Class
Accidental 16
80 Propulsion 14
Unknown
12
Inclination [deg]

Years to event
60
10
8
40
6

20 4
2
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Mean altitude [km]
Figure 5.9: Distribution of non-system related fragmentation events in mean altitude, inclination, and time to frag-
mentation.

Table 5.2: Statistics on non-system related fragmentation events.

All history Last 18 years

Number of events 100 46
Non-deliberate events per year 1.6 2.4
Yearly rate of events where 50% of the generated 0.4 0.3
fragments have a lifetime of greater than 10 years
Yearly rate of events where 50% of the generated 0.3 0.2
fragments have a lifetime of greater than 25 years
Mean time (years) between launch and fragmen- 5.9 9.6
tation
Median time (years) between launch and frag- 1.9 4.2
mentation

Page 76/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

6. END-OF-LIFE OPERATIONS HISTORY

Post mission disposal mitigation measures are specifically aimed at reducing the long term interference an object
in the space environment could have on the two protected regions, LEOIADC and GEOIADC . These mitigation
measures are associated with time criteria, i.e. so called orbital lifetimes or clearance of orbital regions, and hence
require evaluating the long term evolution of orbits. For both protected regions, different mitigation measures imply
different end-of life operations. The reported years for payload clearance of LEOIADC goes up to 2019, for rocket
body clearance of LEOIADC goes up to 2020, and for payload clearance of GEOIADC goes up to 2020.

6.1. End-Of-Life Operations in Low Earth Orbit

Due to the presence of atmospheric drag in the lower levels of the LEO region, a natural cleansing of space debris
from these regions occurs. A payload or rocket body operating in the LEO Protected region, with either a permanent
or periodic presence, shall limit its post-mission presence in the LEO Protected region to a maximum of 25 years
from the end of mission. The mitigation measure itself does not indicate how it has to be achieved, but various
standards provide an order of preference for various methodologies. For catalogued objects, the orbital activity of
a payload or rocket body can be derived and the orbital lifetime estimated. This method is preferred over direct
investigation, intelligence, of communication with the owners of a payload or a rocket body, which could increase
the accuracy of the prediction but it might be unbalanced as the request for such data might not be answered nor
can all owners be clearly identified and approached. As some rocket bodies have been found to perform direct
re-entries before they can be considered catalogued objects, additional asserted objects are used as to make sure
that such positive cases are correctly considered in the resulting statistics. The methodology to determine the end
of the operational phase of an object in LEO employed here is described in depth in [18].

For satellites without orbit control capacity (OCC), i.e. no propulsion system, or for satellites that never exhibited
any orbit manoeuvre otherwise, the assessment of the mission end is not possible from orbit information alone.
Therefore a statistical approach is pursued for those objects. The source of the statistics for mission lifetimes are
the measurable missions with orbit control capacity. Observed mission lifetimes are processed into histograms by
mission category, e.g. science, communications, military, etc. They are then applied to generate missions lifetime
estimations for the objects without orbit control capacity of the same category.

The boundaries between having an orbital control capacity or not is not always clearly defined by the underlying
technology. This is because the effects observed by the space surveillance system may not be reliably discerned
in all cases. Impulsive manoeuvres, multi-revolutions use of electrical propulsion, and large drag sail deployments
are reliably picked up and hence objects exhibiting those features are categorised as having OCC.

On the other hand, smaller orbital changes, such as drag sailing, where the change in ballistic coefficient is smaller
than the error margin or the orbit determination capacity of the space surveillance system, are not picked up.
However, the most important metric w.r.t. the implementation is to remove an object from LEOIADC within 25 years,
or shortly thereafter, which is measured independently of the OCC categorisation.

In order to estimate the orbital lifetime of an object after reaching its end of life, the general processes as laid out in
standard [10] are followed. To apply these processes to all catalogued objects, a Ballistic Coefficient (BC) needs
to be estimated for each of them. The BC estimation is based on least root-mean-square orbit fitting during the
longest periods free from estimated manoeuvres, generally after end of life is reached in case of OCC classified
objects. In case this can’t be achieved, the BC is defined based in the available physical properties in DISCOS.
The estimated BC is used to extrapolate the last recorded orbital state in 2020 until re-entry in combination with a
long term space weather forecast [19]. The used values and obtained results are stored in DISCOS and distributed
on request [7]. The process itself is subject to a significant amount of stochastic assumptions which are described
in [20]. Hence the reported orbital lifetimes are procedurally defined and need to be understood as a current

Page 77/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

best-estimate that can vary between different versions of this report, as discussed in Section 6.1.3.

In case of payload objects, at least one calendar year without orbit control actions needs to pass for an object to be
classified as reaching end-of-life unless it performs a controlled re-entry. This is done to mitigate the implications of
the detection algorithm described above, and to avoid a potentially large amount of reclassifications in subsequent
editions of this report as some operators implement less frequent actions near the end-of-life. In practice, this
means that the reported years for the payload clearance of LEOIADC goes up to 2019 instead of 2020.

It is important to note that for this report, where conformance to a time-limitation guidelines is to be evaluated,
the categorisation of each object becomes fixed after 25 years. Unpredicted events, such as increased solar
activities or missions which actively remove large pieces of space debris, will thus be accounted for only when
they materialise.

Relocations from LEOIADC into orbits with a perigee altitude above 2000 kilometer are no longer viable end-of-life
debris mitigation practices [5]. While such relocations where relatively rare for Payload objects and only a minor
historical entry in the dataset of this section, they have been more commonly used to raise the perigee of Rocket
Bodies when, e.g. eccentric destination orbits such as GTO were targeted.

Human spaceflight (HS) related missions are analysed separately, as they skew results in terms of mass and count
affected. These missions include crew vehicles as well as cargo payloads, but not the rocket bodies that bring
them into orbit. Throughout this section, Stage is used as synonym for Rocket Body. The end-of-life behaviour of
space objects can be categorised in seven behavioural classes to illustrate disposal success rates:

• NCWO: (Not Compliant WithOut attempt) the 25 year rule is not met by the mission orbit and no disposal
action has been taken;

• NCWFB: (Not Compliant With attempt False Before) the 25 year rule is not met by the mission orbit, a disposal
action has been attempted but it was unsuccessful or insufficient;

• NCWTB: (Not Compliant With attempt True Before) the 25 year rule was met by the initial mission orbit, a
disposal action has been attempted but it was unsuccessful or the mission orbit was otherwise altered, and
the new orbit is not compliant;

• CWFB: (Compliant With attempt False Before) the 25 year rule is not met by the mission orbit, but a disposal
action has been taken and was successful;

• CWTB: (Compliant With attempt True Before) the mission orbit allowed to meet the 25 year guideline, but a
disposal action has been taken nonetheless;

• CWO: (Compliant WithOut attempt) the mission orbit allowed to meet the 25 year guideline, no action was
taken (nor needed);

• CD: (Compliant With Direct Re-entry) a controlled re-entry has been performed.

In summary, clearance of the LEO protected region by payloads and rocket bodies will be presented as Naturally
Compliant, i.e. injected into an orbit that fulfils the 25 year lifetime measure, Successful Attempt when compliant
after an attempt to reduce its orbital lifetime or re-orbit above LEOIADC , Insufficient Attempt when not compliant but
having attempted to reduce its orbital lifetime or re-orbit above LEOIADC , or No Attempt when not compliant with
no attempt at all.

Page 78/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

6.1.1. Evolution of compliance shares

Object types (EOL after 2000)

100

80

60
Share [%]

HS
40 No OCC
OCC
Stage
20

0
[2000, [2010, [2020, [2000, [2010, [2020,
2010) 2020) 2030) 2010) 2020) 2030)
number mass

Achievements (EOL after 2000) by object type

800
700
600
Total Number [-]

500
400 compliant
by active
300 de-orbit
compliant by
200 natural decay
non-compliant
100
0
[2000, [2010, [2000, [2010, [2000, [2010, [2000,[2010,[2020,
2010) 2020) 2010) 2020) 2010) 2020) 2010) 2020) 2030)
HS No OCC OCC Stage

Figure 6.1: Share of payload and rocket bodies in terms of mass and number (top) and compliance in terms of
clearing the LEO protected region (bottom). The reported years for payload clearance of LEOIADC goes up to 2019,
for rocket body clearance of LEOIADC goes up to 2020.

Page 79/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Achievements (EOL after 2000) by mission type

(excluding Stage, HS)
100

80

60
Share [%]

compliant
40 by active
de-orbit
compliant by
20 natural decay
non-compliant

0
[2000, [2010, [2000, [2010, [2000, [2010, [2000, [2010,
2010) 2020) 2010) 2020) 2010) 2020) 2010) 2020)
Amateur Civil Commercial Defense

Figure 6.2: Share of compliance in terms of clearing the LEO protected region by mission type.

Page 80/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Achievements (EOL after 2000) by architecture type

(excluding Stage, HS)

800
Total Number [-]

600

compliant
400 by active
de-orbit
compliant by
200 natural decay
non-compliant

0
[2000, [2010, [2000, [2010,
2010) 2020) 2010) 2020)
Constellation Non-constellation
Achievements (EOL after 2000) by architecture type
(excluding Stage, HS)
100

80

60
Share [%]

compliant
40 by active
de-orbit
compliant by
20 natural decay
non-compliant

0
[2000, [2010, [2000, [2010,
2010) 2020) 2010) 2020)
Constellation Non-constellation

Figure 6.3: Compliance in terms of clearing the LEO protected region for constellation and non-constellation ob-
jects, in absolute numbers and in relative share.

Page 81/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

LEO clearance (Payloads, HS excluded)

100

80

60
Counts [%]

CD
40 CWO
CWFB
NCWFB
20 NCWO

0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year

LEO clearance (Payloads, HS excluded)

100

80

60
Mass [%]

CD
40 CWO
CWFB
NCWFB
20 NCWO

0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
Figure 6.4: Relative share of disposal behaviour classes over time in terms of number (top) and mass (bottom) for
payloads in LEO, excluding objects associated with human spaceflight.

Page 82/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

LEO clearance (Payloads, HS excluded)

100

80

60
Counts [%]

CD
40 CWO
CWFB
NCWFB
20 NCWO

0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
launch year

LEO clearance (Payloads, HS excluded)

100

80

60
Mass [%]

CD
40 CWO
CWFB
NCWFB
20 NCWO

0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
launch year
Figure 6.5: Relative share of disposal behaviour classes over time in terms of number (top) and mass (bottom) for
payloads in LEO, excluding objects associated with human spaceflight by launch year.

Page 83/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

LEO clearance (Rocket Bodies)

100

80

60
Counts [%]

CD
40 CWO
CWTB
CWFB
20 NCWFB
NCWO
0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year

LEO clearance (Rocket Bodies)

100

80

60
Mass [%]

CD
40 CWO
CWTB
CWFB
20 NCWFB
NCWO
0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
Figure 6.6: Relative share of disposal behaviour classes over time in terms of number (top) and mass (bottom) for
Rocket Bodies in LEO.

Page 84/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Successful de-orbiting attempts (HS excluded)

100
Payload
Rocket Body
80
Share of compliant objects [%]

60

40

20

0
2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019
EOL year

Unsuccessful de-orbiting attempts (HS excluded)

100
Payload
Rocket Body
80
Share of non-compliant objects [%]

60

40

20

0
2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019
EOL year
Figure 6.7: Relative shares of success w.r.t. compliance (top) and non-compliance (bottom) over time, excluding
objects associated with human spaceflight.

Page 85/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payloads Clearance in Low Earth Orbit

100

80

60
Counts [%]

Naturally
40 Compliant
Successful
Attempt
20 Insufficient
Attempt
No Attempt
0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.

Rocket Bodies Clearance in Low Earth Orbit

100

80

60
Counts [%]

Naturally
40 Compliant
Successful
Attempt
20 Insufficient
Attempt
No Attempt
0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.

Figure 6.8: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers.

Page 86/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payloads Mass Clearance in Low Earth Orbit

100

80

60
Mass [%]

Naturally
40 Compliant
Successful
Attempt
20 Insufficient
Attempt
No Attempt
0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.

Rocket Bodies Mass Clearance in Low Earth Orbit

100

80

60
Mass [%]

Naturally
40 Compliant
Successful
Attempt
20 Insufficient
Attempt
No Attempt
0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.

Figure 6.9: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of mass.

Page 87/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payloads Clearance in Low Earth Orbit

(exl. Naturally Compliant Payloads)
100

80

60
Counts [%]

Successful
40 Attempt
Insufficient
Attempt
20 No Attempt

0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.

Rocket Bodies Clearance in Low Earth Orbit

(exl. Naturally Compliant Rocket Bodies)
100

80

60
Counts [%]

Successful
40 Attempt
Insufficient
Attempt
20 No Attempt

0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.

Figure 6.10: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers, excluding naturally
compliant objects.

Page 88/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Objects Clearance in Low Earth Orbit

100

80

60
Counts [%]

Naturally
40 Compliant
Successful
Attempt
20 Insufficient
Attempt
No Attempt
0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC .

Objects Clearance in Low Earth Orbit

(exl. Naturally Compliant Objects)
100

80

60
Counts [%]

Successful
40 Attempt
Insufficient
Attempt
20 No Attempt

0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC excluding naturally compliant objects.

Figure 6.11: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers, considering payloads
and rocket bodies together.

Page 89/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

6.1.2. Evolution of behavioural classes per mass breakdown

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 1990, m 10 kg)

CWO
88%

12%
NCWO

(a) 1990

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2000, m 10 kg)

CWO
87%

13%
NCWO

(b) 2000

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2010, m 10 kg)

CWO
91%

9%
NCWO

(c) 2010

Figure 6.12: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass below 10.0 kg.

Page 90/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 1990, 10 < m 100 kg)

CWFB
NCWFB
0.3% CWO
0.8%
28.9%

70.1%
NCWO

(a) 1990

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2000, 10 < m 100 kg)

CWFB CWO
NCWFB
0.4% 33.9%
1.2%

64.6%
NCWO

(b) 2000

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2010, 10 < m 100 kg)

CWO

41%
CWFB
NCWFB 1%
1%

58%

NCWO

(c) 2010

Figure 6.13: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass between 10.0 and
100.0 kg.

Page 91/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 1990, 100 < m 1000 kg)

CWFB
NCWFB
10%
7%
CWO
17%

1% CD

65%
NCWO

(a) 1990

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2000, 100 < m 1000 kg)

CWFB

14%
NCWFB CWO
11% 20%

1% CD

54%

NCWO

(b) 2000

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2010, 100 < m 1000 kg)

CWFB
20%
CWO
20%

NCWFB 14%
1% CD

46%

NCWO

(c) 2010

Figure 6.14: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass between 100.0
and 1000.0 kg.

Page 92/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 1990, m > 1000 kg)

CWO
54%

6% CD

1%2%
CWFB
NCWFB 37%

NCWO

(a) 1990

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2000, m > 1000 kg)

CWO

39%

CD
10%

CWFB 3%
4%
NCWFB

44%

NCWO

(b) 2000

LEO compliances (Payloads, EOL 2010, m > 1000 kg)

CWO

33%

CD
13%
CWFB 4%
NCWFB 5%

45%

NCWO

(c) 2010

Figure 6.15: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass above 1000.0 kg.

Page 93/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

6.1.3. Robustness of the evaluation of compliance shares in LEO

In order to evaluate the robustness of the compliance classification presented in this chapter, two additional anal-
yses are presented.

First, as mentioned, the classification of the compliance is based on the computation of orbital lifetimes, which
are affected by several sources of uncertainty, such as the estimation of the ballistic coefficient and the adopted
prediction for the solar and geomagnetic activity [20]. For this reason, a Monte Carlo (MC) approach was adopted
to derive the distribution of the computed lifetime values for objects for which either the destination orbit or the
latest orbit in the 2020 has an eccentricity > 0.1 or a nominal orbital lifetime between 20 and 50 years.

A minimum number of 500 MC runs is performed for the evaluation of the orbital lifetime of each reference orbit,
changing the value of ballistic coefficient for each run. In particular, in the current stage, the ballistic coefficient is
drawn from a uniform distribution between -40% and +40% of the nominal value defined by the process described
at the beginning of this Section. In the next editions, we plan to consider also the variability in the space weather
predictions.

A statistical check based on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is used to assess whether enough runs are computed.
If so, the resulting distribution is returned and analysed using the orbital lifetime values corresponding to different
quantiles to repeat the compliance analysis. Figure 6.16 presents the trend in the share of successful disposal
attempts for Payloads and Rocket bodies considering the lifetime values at the 10, 50, and 90% quantiles of the
distributions.

The second analysis shows how the compliance classification has changed over the different editions of the report,
considering that each edition is based on a current best-estimate of the residual orbital lifetime.

Figure 6.17 shows the share of successful re-/de-orbit attempts for payloads according to the different report
editions. As mentioned in Section 6.1, in case of payload objects, as in the case in Figure 6.17, at least one
calendar year without orbit control actions needs to pass for an object to be classified as reaching end-of-life, so
the report issued in a given year covers ex inser up to the end of two years before the release year (e.g. the report
issued 2017 covers until the end of 2015). Note that for this visualisation (and for the purpose of the comparison),
re-orbits are still considered as successful attempts.

Page 94/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Successful attempts for Payloads (excl. naturally compliant)

100
Percentile:
10
50
80 90

60
Share [%]

40

20

0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
EOL year
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.

Successful attempts for Rocket Bodies (excl. naturally compliant)

100
Percentile:
10
50
80 90

60
Share [%]

40

20

0
2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019
EOL year
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.

Figure 6.16: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time, in terms of numbers excluding naturally
compliant objects, considering a dispersion in the ballistic coefficient values.

Page 95/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Successful re-/de-orbit attempts for Payloads

Report edition
Compliance rate excl naturaly compliance and CD

2017
40 2018
2019
2020
2021
30

20

10

0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
EOL year
Figure 6.17: Successful re-/de-orbit attempts for payloads according to the different report editions.

Page 96/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

6.2. End-Of-Life Operations in Geostationary Orbit

Unlike in LEO, no natural sink mechanism is available for the GEO protected region by which objects could leave.
The solar radiation pressure on the objects will also make long term predictions subject to non-negligible uncer-
tainties. A payload or rocket body operating in the GEO Protected Region, with either a permanent or periodic
presence, shall be manoeuvred in a controlled manner during the disposal phase to an orbit that lies entirely out-
side the GEO Protected Region. There are different ways of ensuring that this condition is met. For example,
the launch procedure for Rocket Bodies can been adapted to ensure that the release of the payloads no longer
takes place directly within the geostationary orbit but below. In this case, the payload has to climb the last part
into GEOIADC but the launcher remains on a GTO trajectory that does not intersect the GEO protected region.
For payloads within the GEO protected region, the mitigation measure has been refined, i.e. the so called IADC
formulation [4], to ensure that a disposal occurs in a graveyard orbit with minimal interference. At least one of the
following two conditions should be met:

• The orbit has an initial eccentricity less than 0.003 and a minimum perigee altitude ∆H (in km) above the
geostationary altitude, in accordance with equation:

1. ∆H = 235 + (1000Cr A/m);

2. where Cr is the solar radiation pressure coefficient (dimensionless);

3. A/m is the ratio of the cross-section area (in m2 ) to dry mass (in kg) of the payload.

• The orbit has a perigee altitude sufficiently above the geostationary altitude that long-term perturbation forces
do not cause the payload to enter the GEO Protected Region within 100 years.

In summary, clearance of the GEO protected region by payloads will be presented as Successful Attempt, i.e. the
payload clears GEOIADC in-line with the formulation above, Insufficient Attempt when the payloads attempts to
clear the GEOIADC but does not reach the criteria in the IADC formulation, and No Attempt otherwise. An in-depth
overview of the status of objects in GEOIADC and description of the summarised results shown here is available
via [21].

Page 97/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Classification of Objects near the Geosynchronous Ring

50 Objects under control
Objects in drift orbit
Objects in libration

40
Number of Objects [-]

30

20

10

0
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019
Launch Year

Classification of Objects near the Geosynchronous Ring

E-W controlled only

E-W and N-S controlled Drift controlled

10.2% (167)
22.1% (363) 0.8% (13)

Highly inclined
1.5% (25)
Librating around both points 1.2% (19)
Librating around 105W 3.0% (50)

7.9% (129)
Librating around 75E
53.3% (876)

Drifting

Figure 6.18: Orbital evolution status of payloads near the Geostationary orbit during 2020.

Page 98/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Clearance near GEOIADC

24
22 No Attempt
20
Insufficient
Attempt
18 Successful
16 Attempt
14
Count [-]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024
End-of-Life Year
(a) Absolute clearance near GEOIADC .

Payload Clearance near GEOIADC

100
No Attempt
Insufficient
80 Attempt
Successful
Attempt
60
Count [%]

40

20

0
1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024
End-of-Life Year
(b) Relative clearance near GEOIADC .

Figure 6.19: Trend of adherence to the disposal guideline in GEOIADC .

Page 99/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Payload Mass Clearance near GEOIADC

60
No Attempt
Insufficient
50 Attempt
Successful
Attempt
40
Mass [tons]

30

20

10

0
1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024
End-of-Life Year
(a) Absolute mass clearance near GEOIADC .

Payload Mass Clearance near GEOIADC

100
No Attempt
Insufficient
80 Attempt
Successful
Attempt
60
Mass [%]

40

20

0
1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024
End-of-Life Year
(b) Relative mass clearance near GEOIADC .

Figure 6.20: Mass trend of adherence to the disposal guideline in GEOIADC .

Page 100/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

7. ENVIRONMENT METRICS

7.1. Environmental Index in 2020

The effect of adherence to space debris mitigation guidelines and regulations on a global level has a direct influence
on the avoidance of the Kessler syndrome in Low Earth Orbit. In order to quantify the relation between them,
the concept of an environment index is introduced via a general risk metric. The risk associated to an event is
traditionally computed as Risk = Probability × Severity.

This definition can be applied to space objects to measure the fragmentation risk associated to them and use this
as a metric of their potential contribution to the space debris environment. The term probability represents the
probability of a catastrophic collision, which is dependent on the flux of debris able to trigger a collision and the
cross-sectional area of the object. The flux values are obtained from MASTER-8 [22] considering for each object
the last available orbit in DISCOS. The physical properties and the activity status of the objects are also retrieved
from DISCOS. The term severity measures the effect of such a fragmentation on operational spacecraft. This is
done by simulating the generation of the cloud with the NASA breakup model [23] and modelling the evolution
of its density over time under the effect of atmospheric drag. A representative set of target spacecraft is defined
as proxy of the population of operational satellites. For each of these target spacecraft, the resulting cumulative
collision probability over 25 years due to the fragment cloud is computed and their sum is used as a severity
measure.

The risk is evaluated along the mission profile of an object, simulating its orbit evolution over 100 years. For active
and manoeuvrable objects, the implementation of a Post-Mission Disposal (PMD) manoeuvre and its estimated
success rate are considered when computing the trajectory evolution. More details on the approach can be found
in [24]. The risk metric can be used to compare objects or missions against each other, and the cumulated risk
taken by all objects in space at a given time, and their behaviour in the future, thus introduces the notion of capacity
of the environment.

Fig. 7.1 shows the distribution, in mean altitude and inclination, of the analysed objects in LEO. The colour of the
marker indicates the category of the objects, i.e. whether it is a rocket body, an inactive payloads, an active one
or a constellation. The size of the marker indicates the debris index value and an aggregated score is shown for
constellations. The values are obtained assuming a 90% PMD success rate for active objects. Areas with high risk
concentration can be observed around 850 km of mean altitude and 70-80 degrees in inclination. Fig. 7.2 shows
the distribution of the total index among object categories: most of the risk is associated to inactive objects (97%),
with the largest contribution coming from spent rocket bodies.

Page 101/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

180
Active Payload
160 Constellation
140 Inactive Payload
Rocket Body
120
Inclination [deg]

100
80
60
40
20
0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Mean altitude [km]
Figure 7.1: Index value for objects in LEO. The size of the marker is proportional to the debris index of the object
or constellation.

Inactive Payload
27%

1% Constellation
2% Active Payload

70%
Rocket Body

Figure 7.2: Distribution of the total index among object categories.

Page 102/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

7.2. Environment evolution

The simulation of the future evolution of the debris population can be used to assess the efficacy of proposed
mitigation actions and of current behaviours. In particular, two scenarios are presented in this section:

• A defined extrapolation of the current behaviour in terms of launch traffic, explosion rates, and disposal
success rates;

• No future launches, where it is assumed that no launch takes place after 2020.

The definition of trends in launch traffic, explosion rates, and disposal success rates is based on the data available
in DISCOS and on the analysis contained in this report. DELTA-3 [25] was used to simulate the evolution of the
environment over 200 years, performing 100 Monte Carlo runs per scenario. The parameters for the scenario
definition are summarised hereafter.

For both scenarios, the reference population used for the analysis is an extraction of the DISCOS population at
the reference epoch (1st January 2021). For each object, physical characteristics such as mass, cross-sectional
area, and orbital parameters are retrieved For Rocket Bodies and Payloads, launch information is also stored.
For Payloads specifically, it is also stored in which orbital region they are active and whether they belong to a
constellation, following the definitions in Section 1.1.

The yearly explosion rate is taken from the last decade statistics on non-system related fragmentations in Table 5.2.
In addition, for the No future launches scenario, no explosion event is simulated after the first 18 years as Fig. 5.8
shows how 95% of the non-system related fragmentation events occur within 18 years since the launch.

A blanket operational lifetime of eight years is assumed for Payloads instead of the values derived in this report, in-
line with current modelling practices. In addition, specific values are used for Payloads belonging to constellation,
based on the available information on the current constellation designs where possible. Post-mission disposal
success rates are derived from the observed values reported in Section 6, considering the performance for objects
with End-Of-Life equal or later than 2015. In particular, the post-mission disposal success rate is set equal to
50% for rocket bodies, 30% for payloads, and 90% for constellations. The value for constellations is above the
historically observed rates and the minimum identified in [1].

For the extrapolation scenario, a launch traffic model is also needed as input for the simulations. This was obtained
by repeating the launch traffic between 2017 and 2020, discounting the contribution from constellations. For each
of the constellations currently in orbit, a model of deployment and replenishment was defined using the publicly
available data. A capability to successfully perform collision avoidance manoeuvres is assumed for as long as a
Payload object is active in the simulation.

The evolution of the number of objects larger than 10 cm and the cumulative number of catastrophic collisions, i.e.
collision leading to the complete destruction of target and impactor, are shown in Fig. 7.3 and Fig. 7.4: the dark line
represents the mean value over all the Monte Carlo runs and the light coloured lines indicate the outcome of the
single run. This representation was selected to visualise the variability across the single runs without introducing
standard deviation bands as they may be not representative of the result distribution [26].

The results from the evaluation of the scenario indicated that even when spaceflight is completely halted today, the
amount of space debris objects in Low Earth Orbit is likely to increase. The extrapolation of our current behaviour,
which assumes the continuation of explosion in orbits at current rates, adherence by constellations to the minimum
desirable post-mission disposal success rates, and continuation of the currently estimated post-mission disposal
success rates for all other objects, leads to an unstable environment with collision rates increasing exponentially.
While a shift in launch traffic to orbits with low orbital decay as observed in Section 2.6 improves the situation [27],
the implementation of all space debris mitigation are necessary to avoid and adverse future.

Page 103/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

200000
Extrapolation
175000 No further launches
150000
Objects >10cm in LEO

125000

100000

75000

50000

25000

0
2025 2050 2075 2100 2125 2150 2175 2200 2225
Year
Figure 7.3: Number of objects in LEOIADC in the simulated scenarios of long-term evolution of the environment.

1200
Cumulative number of catastrophic collisions

Extrapolation
No further launches
1000

800

600

400

200

0
2025 2050 2075 2100 2125 2150 2175 2200 2225
Year
Figure 7.4: Number of cumulative collisions in LEOIADC in the simulated scenarios of long-term evolution of the
environment.

Page 104/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

References
[1] Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, IADC-02-01,
Revision 2, 2020.

[2] D. J. Kessler and B. G. Cour-Palais. Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt.
Journal of Geophysical Research, page 2637–2646, 1978.

[3] United Nations. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972.

[4] Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 2002.

[5] International Standards Organisation. Space systems - Space debris mitigation requirements, ISO TC
20/SC 14 24113:2019, 2019.

[6] United Nations. Guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities (A/AC.105/C.1/L.366),
2019.

[7] European Space Agency. Database and information system characterising objects in space.
https://discosweb.esoc.esa.int/, 2021. Accessed: 2021-04-08.

[8] T.S. Kelso. CelesTrak. https://celestrak.com/.

[9] Union of Concerned Scientists. Satellite Database.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database.

[10] International Standards Organisation. Space systems - Estimation of orbit lifetimes, ISO TC 20/SC 14
27852:2016, 2016.

[11] European Space Agency. ESA’s Fragmentation Database. https://fragmentation.esoc.esa.int/, 2020.

Accessed: 2021-04-08.

[12] K. Merz, B. Bastida Virgili, V. Braun, T. Flohrer, Q. Funke, H. Krag, S. Lemmens, and J. Siminski. Current
collision avoidance service by ESA’s space debris office. 7th European Conference on Space Debris,
Proceedings of the conference, 2017.

[13] United States Space Forceś 18th Space Control Squadron. Space-track. https://www.space-track.org/,
2021. Accessed: 2021-04-08.

[14] K. T. Alfriend, M. R. Akella, J. Frisbee, J. L. Foster, D. J. Lee, and M. Wilkins. Probability of collision error
analysis. Space Debris, 1(1):21–35, 1999.

[15] ESA Space Debris Office. Assessment of Risk Event Statistics (ARES).
https://sdup.esoc.esa.int/drama/downloads/documentation/Technical-Note-ARES.pdf, 2019.

[16] C. Wiedemann, E. Gamper, A. Horstmann, V. Braun, and E. Stoll. Release of liquid metal droplets from
Cosmos 1818 and 1867. 67th International Astronautical Congress, Proceedings of the conference, 2016.

[17] S. Flegel, J. Gelhaus, M. Möckel, C. Wiedemann, and D Kempf. Maintenance of the ESA MASTER Model.
Final Report of ESA contract 21705/D/HK, 2010.

[18] S. Lemmens and H. Krag. Two-line-elements-based maneuver detection methods for satellites in low earth
orbit. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 37(3):860–868, 2014.

[19] R. Mugellesi-dow, D. J. Kerridge, T. D. G. Clark, and A. W. P. Thompson. Solmag: an operational system for
prediction of solar and geomagnetic activity indices. 1st European Conference on Space Debris,

Page 105/106
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public

Proceedings of the conference, 1993.

[20] S. Lemmens, B. Bastida Virgili, V. Braun, T. Flohrer, Q. Funke, H. Krag, F. Mclean, and K. Merz. From
End-of-Life to Impact on Ground: An Overview of ESA’s Tools and Techniques to Predict Re-entries from the
Operational Orbit to the Earth’s Surface. 6th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and
Techniques, Proceedings of the conference, 2016.

[21] ESA Space Debris Office. Classification of Geosynchronous Objects. Issue 23.
GEN-DB-LOG-00290-OPS-SD, ESA/ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany, 2021.

[22] C. Wiedemann, A. Horstmann, S. Hesselback, V. Braun, H. Krag, S. Flegel, M. Oswald, and E. Stoll.
Particle flux analysis with the updated MASTER model. 67th International Astronautical Congres,
Proceedings of the conference, 2018.

[23] N. L. Johnson and P. H. Krisko. NASA’s new breakup model of EVOLVE 4.0. Advances in Space Research,
28(9):1377–1384, 2001.

[24] F. Letizia, S. Lemmens, B. Bastida Virgili, and H. Krag. Application of a debris index for global evaluation of
mitigation strategies. Acta Astronautica, 161:348–362, 2019.

[25] B. Bastida Virgili. DELTA (Debris Environment Long-Term Analysis). 6th International Conference on
Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques, Proceedings of the conference, 2016.

[26] A. A. Lidtke, H. G. Lewis, and R. Armellin. Statistical analysis of the inherent variability in the results of
evolutionary debris models. Advances in Space Research, 59(7):1698–1714, 2017.

[27] H.G Lewis. Journal of Space Safety Engineering Evaluation of debris mitigation options for a large
constellation. Journal of Space Safety Engineering, 7:192–197, 2020.

Page 106/106