Multi-criteria comparison among several mitigation strategies for dangerous near Earth objects

Pau Sanchez, Camilla Colombo, Massimiliano Vasile, Gianmarco Radice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of different deviation methods for Near Earth Objects is presented. Specifically, solar collector, nuclear interceptor, kinetic impactor, low-thrust propulsion, mass driver and gravity tug are modelled and compared. For each method, a mathematical model is developed in order to compute the achievable deviation. A multi-criteria optmization method is then used to construct the set of Pareto optimal solutions, minimizing the mass of the spacecraft at departure from the Earth and the warning time, i.e., the time from launch to the foreseen impact of the asteroid with the Earth, while at the same time maximizing the deviation. A dominance criterion is defined and used to compare all the Pareto sets for all the various mitigation strategies. Finally a Technology Readiness Level factor is associated to each strategy in order to estimate the required technological development.
LanguageEnglish
Pages121-142
Number of pages21
JournalJournal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 5 Jan 2009

Fingerprint

near Earth objects
Multi-criteria
mitigation
Deviation
Earth (planet)
deviation
mass drivers
low thrust propulsion
interceptors
solar collectors
Pareto Set
tug
Asteroids
impactors
Pareto Optimal Solution
warning
Solar collectors
technological development
asteroids
Spacecraft

Keywords

  • solar collector
  • nuclear interceptor
  • kinetic impact
  • low-thrust propulsion
  • mass driver
  • gravity tug
  • near Earth objects
  • mitigation strategies

Cite this

@article{ffccff96b2964971bea15f13104e8ec8,
title = "Multi-criteria comparison among several mitigation strategies for dangerous near Earth objects",
abstract = "In this paper a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of different deviation methods for Near Earth Objects is presented. Specifically, solar collector, nuclear interceptor, kinetic impactor, low-thrust propulsion, mass driver and gravity tug are modelled and compared. For each method, a mathematical model is developed in order to compute the achievable deviation. A multi-criteria optmization method is then used to construct the set of Pareto optimal solutions, minimizing the mass of the spacecraft at departure from the Earth and the warning time, i.e., the time from launch to the foreseen impact of the asteroid with the Earth, while at the same time maximizing the deviation. A dominance criterion is defined and used to compare all the Pareto sets for all the various mitigation strategies. Finally a Technology Readiness Level factor is associated to each strategy in order to estimate the required technological development.",
keywords = "solar collector, nuclear interceptor, kinetic impact, low-thrust propulsion, mass driver, gravity tug, near Earth objects, mitigation strategies",
author = "Pau Sanchez and Camilla Colombo and Massimiliano Vasile and Gianmarco Radice",
note = "COPYRIGHT OWNED BY ALL AUTHORS",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "5",
doi = "10.2514/1.36774",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "121--142",
journal = "Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics",
issn = "0731-5090",
number = "1",

}

Multi-criteria comparison among several mitigation strategies for dangerous near Earth objects. / Sanchez, Pau; Colombo, Camilla; Vasile, Massimiliano; Radice, Gianmarco.

In: Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 1, 05.01.2009, p. 121-142.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multi-criteria comparison among several mitigation strategies for dangerous near Earth objects

AU - Sanchez, Pau

AU - Colombo, Camilla

AU - Vasile, Massimiliano

AU - Radice, Gianmarco

N1 - COPYRIGHT OWNED BY ALL AUTHORS

PY - 2009/1/5

Y1 - 2009/1/5

N2 - In this paper a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of different deviation methods for Near Earth Objects is presented. Specifically, solar collector, nuclear interceptor, kinetic impactor, low-thrust propulsion, mass driver and gravity tug are modelled and compared. For each method, a mathematical model is developed in order to compute the achievable deviation. A multi-criteria optmization method is then used to construct the set of Pareto optimal solutions, minimizing the mass of the spacecraft at departure from the Earth and the warning time, i.e., the time from launch to the foreseen impact of the asteroid with the Earth, while at the same time maximizing the deviation. A dominance criterion is defined and used to compare all the Pareto sets for all the various mitigation strategies. Finally a Technology Readiness Level factor is associated to each strategy in order to estimate the required technological development.

AB - In this paper a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of different deviation methods for Near Earth Objects is presented. Specifically, solar collector, nuclear interceptor, kinetic impactor, low-thrust propulsion, mass driver and gravity tug are modelled and compared. For each method, a mathematical model is developed in order to compute the achievable deviation. A multi-criteria optmization method is then used to construct the set of Pareto optimal solutions, minimizing the mass of the spacecraft at departure from the Earth and the warning time, i.e., the time from launch to the foreseen impact of the asteroid with the Earth, while at the same time maximizing the deviation. A dominance criterion is defined and used to compare all the Pareto sets for all the various mitigation strategies. Finally a Technology Readiness Level factor is associated to each strategy in order to estimate the required technological development.

KW - solar collector

KW - nuclear interceptor

KW - kinetic impact

KW - low-thrust propulsion

KW - mass driver

KW - gravity tug

KW - near Earth objects

KW - mitigation strategies

U2 - 10.2514/1.36774

DO - 10.2514/1.36774

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 121

EP - 142

JO - Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics

T2 - Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics

JF - Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics

SN - 0731-5090

IS - 1

ER -