Space Environment Report Latest
Uploaded by
charkiewicztomaszSpace Environment Report Latest
Uploaded by
charkiewicztomaszESA 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 9.0
Date of Issue 31 March 2025
Status Final
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
Table of contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 10
1.1. Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2. Data sources ............................................................................................................................... 13
1.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 14
1.4. Notable changes .......................................................................................................................... 15
1.5. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 18
1.6. Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................... 18
2. Space Environmental History in Numbers ...................................................................................... 19
2.1. Overall Space Environment ......................................................................................................... 20
2.2. Evolution of Environment in LEO ................................................................................................. 24
2.3. Evolution of Environment in GEO ................................................................................................ 26
2.4. Non-catalogued and modelled objects ......................................................................................... 28
2.5. Usage of the Protected Regions .................................................................................................. 30
2.6. Constellations in the LEO protected region .................................................................................. 44
2.7. Active payloads in the LEO protected region ............................................................................... 45
2.8. New Catalogued Objects in the Space Environment.................................................................... 48
2.9. Objects Removed from the Space Environment .......................................................................... 50
2.10.Nuclear Power Sources ............................................................................................................... 55
2.11.Registration of Objects Launched in Outer Space ....................................................................... 56
3. Environmental Status 2024 ............................................................................................................ 58
3.1. Status of the Environment in LEO ................................................................................................ 61
3.2. Status of the Environment in GEO ............................................................................................... 67
3.3. Fragmentations in 2024 ............................................................................................................... 69
3.4. Changes to the Environment in 2024 ........................................................................................... 70
3.5. Conjunction statistics in LEO in 2023........................................................................................... 74
4. Intentional object release ............................................................................................................... 79
4.1. Mission Related Objects .............................................................................................................. 79
4.2. Solid Rocket Motor Firings ........................................................................................................... 83
5. Fragmentation History .................................................................................................................... 84
5.1. All fragmentation events .............................................................................................................. 86
5.2. Non-system related fragmentation events ................................................................................... 93
6. End-Of-Life Operations History ...................................................................................................... 95
6.1. End-Of-Life Operations in Low Earth Orbit .................................................................................. 95
6.2. End-Of-Life Operations in Geostationary Orbit .......................................................................... 130
6.3. End-Of-Life Operations in MEO ................................................................................................. 135
7. Environment metrics .................................................................................................................... 137
7.1. Environmental Index in 2023 ..................................................................................................... 137
7.2. Environment evolution ............................................................................................................... 139
References ....................................................................................................................................... 144
Page 2/144
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 set of internationally accepted space debris mitigation measures. A major
step in this direction was taken in 2002, when the Inter-Agency Debris Committee (IADC) published its first Space
Debris Mitigation Guidelines. This document, and subsequent updates, has since served as a baseline for non-
binding policy documents, 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 an overview of the ongoing 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, it is publicly available, and it supports 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.
These objectives are translated in design and operation guidelines that can be measured and the consequences
can be assessed. Aspirationally, these objectives lead to future in which space debris is not an issue.
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.
Page 3/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
The amount of objects, their combined mass, and their 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 since 2015, particularly in Low Earth Orbits, fuelled by the miniaturisation
of space systems and deployment of large constellations, with a shift towards commercial operators. While
the exponential growth in the number of new payloads slowed in 2024, the number of launches continued to
rise, and in terms of mass and area, launch traffic is still at the highest rate seen thus far. These three elements
(i.e. volume of traffic, type of spacecraft, type of operators) are all of relevance when one considers the adequacy
of space debris mitigation guidelines and possible ways for sustainable space operations, especially when looking
at the Earth’s orbital environment as a finite resource, in line with the UN Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines
[1].
( Y R O X W L R Q L Q $ O O 2 U E L W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
Figure 1: Evolution of number of objects in geocentric orbit by object class. Please consult Section 1.1 for the
definitions.
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P 3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
& R P P X Q L F D W L R Q 1 D Y L J D W L R Q & R P P X Q L F D W L R Q 1 D Y L J D W L R Q
, P D J L Q J 6 L J L Q W , P D J L Q J 6 L J L Q W
6 S D F H V K L S & D O L E U D W L R Q 6 S D F H V K L S & D O L E U D W L R Q
7 H F K Q R O R J \ : H D W K H U 7 H F K Q R O R J \ : H D W K H U
6 F L H Q F H 2 W K H U 6 F L H Q F H 2 W K H U
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U / D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2: Evolution of the launch traffic near LEOIADC per mission type in object number (left) and mass (right).
Page 4/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
$ F W L Y H 3 D \ O R D G V ' L V W U L E X W L R Q
0 $ 6 7 ( 5 U H I H U H Q F H S R S X O D W L R Q
$ P D W H X U ! F P
& L Y L O ! F P
& R P P H U F L D O
' H I H Q V H
6 S D W L D O G H Q V L W \ > N P3 @
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V > @
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @ $ O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 3: Distribution of active payloads with altitude (left) and density profiles in LEOIADC for different space object
size ranges from the 01/08/2024 MASTER reference population (right).
Preferential altitude ranges for communication constellations continue to show a clear peak in payload concen-
tration (Fig. 3). The updated 2024 population from ESA’s space environment modelling tool MASTER reflects
this peak around the 500 km - 600 km altitude regime. While the 1 cm space object population has historically
consisted of fragments, this paradigm has now changed, and the density of active payloads is approaching
that of space debris in these heavily populated altitude bands.
5 H V X O W L Q J ) U D J P H Q W V I U R P ( Y H Q W V
8 Q N Q R Z Q
& R O O L V L R Q
$ F F L G H Q W D O
( O H F W U L F D O
$ H U R G \ Q D P L F V
' H O L E H U D W H
$ Q R P D O R X V
3 U R S X O V L R Q
1 X P E H U
( Y H Q W < H D U \ H D U E L Q V
Figure 4: Historical trend of numbers of fragments produced by fragmentation events. The last bin covers until the
end of 2024.
On average over the last two decades, 10.5 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 1.7 per year when the lifetime of the generated fragments is considered a factor of importance,
and even 0.4 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 the presence of
designs with known issues. Further details are presented in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. Fragmentations other than
collision are currently the dominant source of space debris as can be seen from Figures 5.6 and 5.5. 2024 saw sev-
eral significant fragmentations, with more than 3000 newly catalogued fragments attributed to these events.
Page 5/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
A core space debris mitigation principle to reduce the risk of fragmentation is post-mission disposal. One facet
of this is to restrict the time spent on orbit after end-of-life, with residual orbital lifetime limited to be as short as
practicable and no more than a maximum of 25 years set out by the IADC for the LEO protected region [2]. Of the
payloads injected into LEOIADC that have reached the end of their mission since 2020, between 84% and 99% of
those with masses below 1000 kg operate in orbits that naturally adhere to this “25-year rule”. For the payloads
with masses between 100 kg and 1000 kg in mass, this is dominated by the behaviour of constellations. For larger
payloads, the level of adherence is much lower, with only 52% set to remove themselves from orbit within 25
years.
Between 40 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 25-year lifetime
limit, as shown in Fig. 6.7. The noted increase in small payloads reaching end-of-life in compliant orbit implies a
rising share, as does an increasing share of objects with manoeuvre capabilities such as constellations. Between
60 and 90% of all rocket body mass reaching end-of-life during the last decade does so in orbits that are estimated
to adhere to the 25-year lifetime limit, as shown in 6.9. A significant amount of this is due to controlled re-entries
after launch, a practice which increased from 10% to over 65% over the last decade. In 2024, controlled re-entries
of rocket bodies outnumbered uncontrolled re-entries for the first time, as can be seen in Fig. 6.
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 2
& : 2 1 & : 2
1 & : 2
& : ) %
& : 7 %
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J
& : 2 & : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) % & '
& '
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
1 & : ) %
& : 7 % & : ) %
1 & : 2
Figure 5: Breakdown of the 2020 decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads per mass category, for a
lifetime limit of 25 years. Please consult Section 6.1 for the definitions.
Page 6/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
& R Q W U R O O H G & R Q W U R O O H G
8 Q F R Q W U R O O H G 8 Q F R Q W U R O O H G
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V
7 R W D O P D V V > W @
5 H H Q W U \ \ H D U 5 H H Q W U \ \ H D U
(a) Rocket Bodies: Count (b) Rocket Bodies: Mass
Figure 6: Controlled and uncontrolled re-entries for Rocket Bodies.
Despite this, current levels of compliance to space debris mitigation guidelines at large are insufficient for achiev-
ing a sustainable space environment long-term, and there is a growing consensus that stricter mitigation prac-
tices need to be implemented globally. In line with this, the early twenty-twenties saw some significant policy shifts
come into force across major launching states across the globe, including ESA’s own Zero Debris Approach and
updated Space Debris Mitigation Standard and associated policy [3, 4]. Among the measures introduced by this
Standard in 2023, was the reduction of the post-mission lifetime limit from 25 down to 5 years. Specifically,
the Standard requires that the orbit clearance of a spacecraft or launch vehicle orbital element from the LEO pro-
tected region shall satisfy both following conditions: first, that the orbit lifetime is less than 5 years; and secondly,
that the cumulative collision probability from end of life until re-entry with space objects larger than 1 cm is
below 10−3 [3]. While this is only binding for ESA projects, one goal of the Zero Debris Approach is to lead by
example, and thus compliance to both the 25- and 5-year thresholds is reported on here. While a common target
for successful post-mission disposal is 90%, this practice will not by itself reduce the amount of debris in orbit, and
will need to increase to near 100% in the near future.
Between 20 and 75% 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 the 25-year lifetime limit. The difference
in behaviour between constellation and non-constellation objects can be significant as shown in Fig. 6.6. Between
5 and 75% do so successfully and a rising trend is evident. Similar trends can be seen when applying the 5-
year threshold, with between 5 and 55% successfully complying over the last decade (Fig. 6.28). Between 50
and 95% 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 the 25-year lifetime limit. Between 45 and 90% do so successfully, with
the compliance trend linearly increasing, but stabilising. Similar trends can be seen when applying the 5-year
threshold, with between 30 and 85% successfully complying over the last decade. 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 70% and 95% do so successfully, with the compliance trend
asymptotically increasing, but notable exceptions in 2015 and 2022.
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 of either lifetime threshold is still at a
too low level to ensure a sustainable environment in the long-run. Notably, some of the increase in uptake
of mitigation measures as analysed 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
Page 7/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W 5 R F N H W % R G L H V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 3 D \ O R D G V
H [ O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 5 R F N H W % R G L H V
& R X Q W V > @
& R X Q W V > @
6 X F F H V V I X O 6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W $ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W , Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W $ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W 1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U ( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads, for a (b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies, for a
lifetime limit of 25 years. lifetime limit of 25 years.
2 E M H F W V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ F O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 2 E M H F W V
3 D \ O R D G & O H D U D Q F H Q H D U * ( 2IADC / L I H W L P H W K U H V K R O G
\ H D U V
\ H D U V
& R X Q W V > @
& R X Q W > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( Q G R I / L I H < H D U ( 2 / \ H D U
(c) Relative clearance near GEOIADC by payloads. (d) Relative clearance near LEOIADC by payloads and rocket bodies
for 25 and 5-year lifetime limits.
Figure 7: Trend of adherence to clearance of the protected region over time in terms of numbers, excluding naturally
compliant objects where no action was needed or taken.
constellations. Other effects, such as a shift in usage of operational mission orbits in Low Earth Orbit as show in
Fig. 2.24, are however independent of the category of the payload.
Given these factors, combined with increasing launch traffic and high levels of solar activity, the number and size
of re-entering objects is also increasing, with 1200 intact objects re-entering in 2024.
Despite this, the extrapolation of the current changing use of orbits and launch traffic, combined with continued
fragmentations and limited post mission disposal success rate could lead to a cascade of collision events over
the next centuries. Even in case of no further launches into orbit, it is expected that collisions among the space
debris objects already present will lead to a further growth in space debris population in Low Earth Orbit.
Page 8/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
< H D U
Figure 8: Evolution of re-entering objects in each year by object type without human spaceflight.
& X P X O D W L Y H Q X P E H U R I F D W D V W U R S K L F F R O O L V L R Q V
1 R I X U W K H U O D X Q F K H V
( [ W U D S R O D W L R Q
< H D U
Figure 9: Number of cumulative collisions in LEOIADC in the simulated scenarios of long-term evolution of the
environment.
Page 9/144
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 [5]. 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 [6] 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 [7] 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
standardisation bodies such as the International Standards Organisation (ISO) [8].
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 [1].
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.
Page 10/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
The content of 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,
• 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 [7].
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
Page 11/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
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
but not limited to collisions, explosive break-ups, and tear and wear. With this 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.
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; they 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 a point on the Earth
with the same local solar time and this makes Sun-Synchronous orbits particularly used for Earth Observation
missions. This report will also make use of Destination Orbits for Payloads and Rocket Bodies. This single orbit
per object is defined by an analyst to be representative for orbits used during its normal operations.
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
Page 12/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
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]
At various moments during the space age, payloads based on a limited amount of platforms have been deployed
on-orbit with the intent 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
covering more than 1 year in time from first to last event, sharing the same objective as a combined system, and
with the orbits in which they are deployed directly related to the systems’ 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 MEO, resulting in a total of 26 constellations.
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) [9]. 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
Page 13/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
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 2.7) 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
this document.
The classification of whether a Payload is considered active is based on the data available at [10], which is used
for data from 2019 onwards, and from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) database [11], for earlier data
since 2005. This classification by activity level is not used for the end-of-life analyses, where the activity of an
object is instead estimated from space surveillance data.
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 artificial 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
Page 14/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
in the corresponding sections and follow as close as possible [8]. In case of orbital lifetime predictions, the corre-
sponding international standard is followed [12]. 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.
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.
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 [8] and the IADC space debris mitigation guidelines
[13]. 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 consequences 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
Page 15/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
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 a 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. 6.34. 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.
1.4.3. Edition 6
The space environment continued to change rapidly in 2021 with the accelerated deployment of large constellations
in LEOIADC , increasing demand for the deployment of small Payloads, but reduction of launch traffic to GEOIADC .
For the first time, launching more than one payload per launch has become the most common way of getting into
orbit. To put this into perspective, the analyses introduced in Edition 5 of this report were extended to cover different
epochs from the recent space age, i.e. addressing how collision avoidance risk has evolved (Fig. 3.12) and what
would be the outcome of extrapolating various long-term evolution scenarios (Fig. 7.5-7.6). The combination of
changing launch traffic patterns in general, and the dichotomy between constellation-related objects and other
intact objects specifically, has a noticeable impact on both short and long-term risk indicators.
With the increased awareness of space sustainability in the community at large, a new emphasis is placed on
space debris mitigation aspects that were previously less noticeable or are gaining in prominence. As such, new
analyses have been added to this version of the report to highlight the risks posed by Rocket Bodies crossing the
GEOIADC Protected Region (Fig. 6.38), show the variability in disposal orbit strategies in the MEO region (Fig. 6.39),
and focus on the space surveillance issues associated with the release of large amounts of Payloads by various
services (Fig. 2.21). In addition, a review of the United Nation Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space is
added to show the diversification of space actors (Section 2.11).
1.4.4. Edition 7
The accelerated use of space over the last years continued unabated in 2022, leading to launch and re-entry
traffic rates to see new records and challenges in keeping accurate track of the state of the environment. The
metrics presented in this report were further refined to give an overview of the impacts on space debris mitigation
aspects, and to prepare for the trend in calling for stricter guidelines. Notably, forecasting methodologies have
been updated and a greater emphasis on understanding the space debris environment at smaller length scales
has been introduced. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the observed spike in 2022 concerning re-entering
space debris is due to the Kosmos 1408 anti-satellite missile test.
1.4.5. Edition 8
In 2023, the space environment continued to experience substantial growth, with launch traffic once again reaching
record levels. In LEOIADC , large constellations, which have outpaced other payloads not only in number but also
Page 16/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
mass and area, now drive many of the global statistics. While this is leading to increased congestion and challenges
for space traffic coordination in certain orbits, it is also accompanied by an increased usage of controlled re-entry as
a disposal strategy for rocket bodies and new levels of compliance with space debris mitigation guidelines.
In this edition of the report, methodologies for modelling the future evolution of the space environment have been
further refined, specifically for forecasting the growing contribution from constellations, leading to new and updated
results for the analysed years 2022 and 2023. It should be noted that current levels of compliance still result in
an unsustainable environment in the long-term. Consequently, there is a growing trend advocating for stricter
guidelines, with new measures introduced in 2023 as a part of ESA’s Zero Debris Policy and updated Space
Debris Mitigation Standard [3]. These developments imply that notable changes may be anticipated in the next
edition of this report in terms of methodologies and assessed thresholds, reflecting ongoing efforts to address the
challenges of space sustainability.
1.4.6. Edition 9
While the exponential growth in the number of new payloads slowed in 2024, the number of launches continued
to rise, setting new records for both the mass and size of objects sent into Low Earth Orbit. With new launches
targeting lower altitudes, high levels of solar activity, and an increasing (but insufficient) rate of willingness to limit
orbital lifetime, this trend is reflected in re-entries, with new records also in the mass and size of re-entering objects.
However, fragmentation events remain a persistent issue, continuing to pollute the space environment. Related
to this, 2024 saw an increase in the number of space objects with unidentified object class (Figures 2.1, 2.32).
It can be seen from Figures 2.6 and 2.33 that these mostly affect the GEO regime, and are likely associated to
fragmentation events that occurred in the vicinity of this region (Table 3.7). Further work to correlate unidentified
objects to these events may see a reduction in this object class in future editions as they are assigned to known
object classes (such as Payload or Rocket Fragmentation Debris).
This edition of the report contains two main updates. The first, is the release of the MASTER (Meteoroid and Space
Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference) 2024 population, which reveals that the density of active payloads is
approaching that of space debris in heavily populated altitude bands for the first time. Secondly, 2024 marks
the first full year for which the ESA Space Debris Mitigation Standard [3] became applicable to ESA projects.
As such, new analyses have been added to this version of the report to highlight global compliance to the 5-
year post-mission lifetime limit, in addition to the 25-year limit used in previous editions. This change required the
methodology for calculating the orbital lifetimes to be updated to account for solar activity variation, with the lifetime
now calculated probabilistically over a full 11-year solar cycle to ensure robust compliance assessment. The
difference in compliance between these two thresholds can be seen to be on the order of 10%, indicating that global
adherence to stricter guidelines is attainable for ensuring the long-term sustainability of space activities.
Finally, we note that some sections of this report will be updated in a delta release later in 2025 to reflect ongoing
analyses and improvements.
Page 17/144
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, in particular Álvaro Arroyo Parejo. Furthermore, we thank the in-
ternational 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:
Emma Stevenson Francesca Letizia
European Space Agency European Space Agency
Space Debris Office (OPS-SD) Independent Safety Office (TEC-QI)
Keplerlaan 1 Keplerlaan 1
2201 AZ Noordwijk, Netherlands 2201 AZ Noordwijk, Netherlands
[email protected] [email protected]
Stijn Lemmens
European Space Agency
Space Debris Office (OPS-SD)
Keplerlaan 1
2201 AZ Noordwijk, Netherlands
[email protected]
Page 18/144
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. In case of incomplete orbital data, the orbit classification may be affected. This
is the case, for example, of a group of objects for which the last available orbital data is such to classify them
as MEO, but the re-entry epochs are several months later. 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 1st
of January of the indicated year. In all figures within Sections 2.5, 2.8, and 2.9, 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 [9].
Page 19/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.1. Overall Space Environment
Fig. 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 20/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
( Y R O X W L R Q L Q $ O O 2 U E L W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(a) Evolution of number of objects.
( Y R O X W L R Q L Q $ O O 2 U E L W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(b) Evolution of mass.
( Y R O X W L R Q L Q $ O O 2 U E L W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(c) Evolution of area.
Figure 2.1: Evolution of number of objects, mass, and area in geocentric orbit by object class.
Page 21/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
( Y R O X W L R Q L Q $ O O 2 U E L W V
2 W K H U 1 6 2
+ ( 2 * 7 2
0 * 2 ( * 2
/ 0 2 * ( 2
0 ( 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(a) Evolution of number of objects.
( Y R O X W L R Q L Q $ O O 2 U E L W V
2 W K H U 1 6 2
+ ( 2 * 7 2
0 * 2 ( * 2
/ 0 2 * ( 2
0 ( 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(b) Evolution of mass.
( Y R O X W L R Q L Q $ O O 2 U E L W V
2 W K H U 1 6 2
+ ( 2 * 7 2
0 * 2 ( * 2
/ 0 2 * ( 2
0 ( 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(c) Evolution of area.
Figure 2.2: Evolution of number of objects, mass, and area in geocentric orbit by orbit class.
Page 22/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
& X P X O D W L Y H R E M H F W V R Q R U E L W
$ F W X D O R E M H F W V R Q R U E L W
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(a) Evolution of number of objects.
& X P X O D W L Y H R E M H F W V R Q R U E L W
$ F W X D O R E M H F W V R Q R U E L W
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(b) Evolution of mass.
& X P X O D W L Y H R E M H F W V R Q R U E L W
$ F W X D O R E M H F W V R Q R U E L W
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(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 23/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.2. Evolution of Environment in LEO
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R / ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
/ 0 2
* 7 2
/ ( 2
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(a) Evolution of absolute number of objects.
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R / ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
/ 0 2
* 7 2
/ ( 2
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(b) Evolution of absolute mass.
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R / ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
/ 0 2
* 7 2
/ ( 2
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(c) Evolution of absolute area.
Figure 2.4: Evolution of absolute number of objects, mass and area residing in or penetrating LEOIADC .
Page 24/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R / ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
/ 0 2
* 7 2
( T X L Y D O H Q W 2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
/ ( 2
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(a) Evolution of equivalent number of objects.
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R / ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
/ 0 2
* 7 2
( T X L Y D O H Q W 2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
/ ( 2
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(b) Evolution of equivalent mass.
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R / ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
/ 0 2
* 7 2
( T X L Y D O H Q W 2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
/ ( 2
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(c) Evolution of equivalent area.
Figure 2.5: Evolution of equivalent number of objects, mass and area residing in or penetrating LEOIADC .
Page 25/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.3. Evolution of Environment in GEO
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R * ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
0 * 2
* 7 2
( * 2
* ( 2
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(a) Evolution of absolute number of objects.
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R * ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
0 * 2
* 7 2
( * 2
* ( 2
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(b) Evolution of absolute mass.
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R * ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
0 * 2
* 7 2
( * 2
* ( 2
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(c) Evolution of absolute area.
Figure 2.6: Evolution of absolute number of objects, mass and area residing in or penetrating GEOIADC .
Page 26/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R * ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
0 * 2
* 7 2
( T X L Y D O H Q W 2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
( * 2
* ( 2
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(a) Evolution of equivalent number of objects.
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R * ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
0 * 2
* 7 2
( T X L Y D O H Q W 2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
( * 2
* ( 2
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(b) Evolution of equivalent mass.
3 H Q H W U D W L R Q L Q W R * ( 2IADC
2 W K H U
+ ( 2
0 * 2
* 7 2
( T X L Y D O H Q W 2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
( * 2
* ( 2
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
- D - D - D - D - D - D - D
5 H I H U H Q F H ( S R F K
(c) Evolution of equivalent area.
Figure 2.7: Evolution of equivalent number of objects, mass and area residing in or penetrating GEOIADC .
Page 27/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.4. Non-catalogued and modelled objects
According to ESA’s space debris environment model MASTER (Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environ-
ment Reference), at the most recent reference epoch 1st August 2024, the estimated number of space objects in
orbit in the different size ranges is the following:
• 54.000 objects greater than 10 cm (including approximately 9300 active payloads),
• 1.2 million objects from 1 cm to 10 cm,
• 130 million objects from 1 mm to 1 cm.
The distribution of the number of objects as a function of their size is shown in Fig. 2.8: the plot shows the number of
objects larger than the threshold diameter indicated in x-axis, considering space objects crossing the LEO regime.
Fig. 2.9 shows the density profiles with altitude corresponding to different minimum object sizes (respectively 10 cm
in dark blue and 1 cm in red), considering only the LEO region. The logarithmic scale is used in the y-axis to take
into account the different orders of magnitude corresponding to the two populations.
0 $ 6 7 ( 5 U H I H U H Q F H S R S X O D W L R Q
Q X P E H U R I R E M H F W V >N(d > d *) @
( V W L P D W H G F X P X O D W L Y H
' L D P H W H U > P @
Figure 2.8: Estimated number of space objects crossing LEO as a function of the object diameter from the
01/08/2024 reference population.
0 $ 6 7 ( 5 U H I H U H Q F H S R S X O D W L R Q
! F P
! F P
6 S D W L D O G H Q V L W \ > N P3 @
$ O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 2.9: Density profiles in LEO for different space object size ranges from the 01/08/2024 reference population.
Page 28/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
Fig. 2.10 shows the density profiles with altitude for space objects larger than 10 cm, considering only the LEO
region, for the most recent reference epoch 1st August 2024, as well as for the previous MASTER population
release, with reference epoch 1st November 2016. In particular, this highlights the contributions coming from
constellations as well as fragmentation events.
Similarly, Fig. 2.11 shows the difference for space objects larger than 1 cm. Whereas historically, the 1 cm popula-
tion mostly consisted of fragments, this paradigm has now changed for selected altitudes used by constellations,
and the density of active payloads is approaching that of space debris in these heavily populated orbits.
0 $ 6 7 ( 5 U H I H U H Q F H F P S R S X O D W L R Q V
6 S D W L D O G H Q V L W \ > N P3 @
$ O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 2.10: Density profiles in LEO for space objects larger than 10 cm for the 01/08/2024 and 01/11/2016
reference populations.
0 $ 6 7 ( 5 U H I H U H Q F H F P S R S X O D W L R Q V
6 S D W L D O G H Q V L W \ > N P3 @
$ O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 2.11: Density profiles in LEO for space objects larger than 1 cm for the 01/08/2024 and 01/11/2016 reference
populations.
Page 29/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.5. 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 that 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 regularly used ones over recent
years 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 opportuni-
ties, where a single launch vehicle carries a multitude of Payloads from different entities into orbit. For the purpose
of this report, ride-share launches are defined as those launches that carry Payloads with at least three different
mission domains and at least ten Payloads in total. A mission domain is defined by the combination of mission
type, funding, and operator.
For Payload objects in LEOIADC , it is instructive to analyse not only where they reside now, but also how the
destination orbits that enable their operations evolve over time. In particular, as space debris mitigation measures
focus on limiting orbital lifetimes, adoption of these practice leaves a noticeable imprint on the data. This imprint
can distinctively visible as a function of the mission domain, in particular when distinguishing between constellation
and non constellation objects.
Page 30/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
$ P D W H X U
& L Y L O
' H I H Q V H
& R P P H U F L D O
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
& R P P X Q L F D W L R Q 1 D Y L J D W L R Q
, P D J L Q J 6 L J L Q W
6 S D F H V K L S & D O L E U D W L R Q
7 H F K Q R O R J \ : H D W K H U
6 F L H Q F H 2 W K H U
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2.12: Evolution of the launch traffic near LEOIADC per mission funding (top) and type (bottom).
Page 31/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
$ P D W H X U
& L Y L O
' H I H Q V H
& R P P H U F L D O
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
& R P P X Q L F D W L R Q 1 D Y L J D W L R Q
, P D J L Q J 6 L J L Q W
6 S D F H V K L S & D O L E U D W L R Q
7 H F K Q R O R J \ : H D W K H U
6 F L H Q F H 2 W K H U
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2.13: Evolution of the launch traffic near LEOIADC per mission funding (top) and type (bottom) in terms of
mass.
Page 32/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
) D O F R Q 9 H J D
6 R \ X ] / R Q J 0 D U F K
/ R Q J 0 D U F K 6 / 9 3
( O H F W U R Q 3 R O D U 6 / 9
/ R Q J 0 D U F K & H U H V
, 6 6 = K R Q J N H
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
6 R \ X ] 8 V H G H D U O L H U
/ D X Q F K < H D U
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
) D O F R Q 9 H J D
6 R \ X ] / R Q J 0 D U F K
/ R Q J 0 D U F K 6 / 9 3
( O H F W U R Q 3 R O D U 6 / 9
/ R Q J 0 D U F K & H U H V
, 6 6 = K R Q J N H
6 R \ X ] 8 V H G H D U O L H U
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2.14: Evolution of the launch traffic near LEOIADC per launcher family expressed in terms of number of
objects (top) and mass (bottom).
Page 33/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
& L Y L O
' H I H Q V H
& R P P H U F L D O
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
& R P P X Q L F D W L R Q 1 D Y L J D W L R Q
, P D J L Q J 6 L J L Q W
7 H F K Q R O R J \ : H D W K H U
6 F L H Q F H 2 W K H U
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2.15: Evolution of the launch traffic near GEOIADC per mission funding (top) and type (bottom).
Page 34/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
& L Y L O
' H I H Q V H
& R P P H U F L D O
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
& R P P X Q L F D W L R Q 1 D Y L J D W L R Q
, P D J L Q J 6 L J L Q W
7 H F K Q R O R J \ : H D W K H U
6 F L H Q F H 2 W K H U
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2.16: Evolution of the launch traffic near GEOIADC per mission funding (top) and type (bottom) in terms of
mass.
Page 35/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
) D O F R Q ' H O W D , 9
/ R Q J 0 D U F K 6 / 9 3
$ U L D Q H / R Q J 0 D U F K
$ W O D V 9 $ U L D Q H
/ R Q J 0 D U F K 3 R O D U 6 / 9
3 U R W R Q 0 $ Q J D U D $
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
+ , , 8 V H G H D U O L H U
/ D X Q F K < H D U
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
) D O F R Q ' H O W D , 9
/ R Q J 0 D U F K 6 / 9 3
$ U L D Q H / R Q J 0 D U F K
$ W O D V 9 $ U L D Q H
/ R Q J 0 D U F K 3 R O D U 6 / 9
3 U R W R Q 0 $ Q J D U D $
+ , , 8 V H G H D U O L H U
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2.17: Evolution of the launch traffic near GEOIADC per launcher family expressed in terms of number of
objects (top) and mass (bottom).
Page 36/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F R X W V L G H / ( 2 D Q G * ( 2
) D O F R Q $ Q J D U D $
6 R \ X ] 3 U R W R Q 0
$ W O D V 9 / R Q J 0 D U F K
9 H J D 6 / 9 3
/ R Q J 0 D U F K / R Q J 0 D U F K
6 R \ X ] 8 V H G H D U O L H U
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
/ R Q J 0 D U F K
/ D X Q F K < H D U
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F R X W V L G H / ( 2 D Q G * ( 2
) D O F R Q $ Q J D U D $
6 R \ X ] 3 U R W R Q 0
$ W O D V 9 / R Q J 0 D U F K
9 H J D 6 / 9 3
/ R Q J 0 D U F K / R Q J 0 D U F K
6 R \ X ] 8 V H G H D U O L H U
/ R Q J 0 D U F K
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2.18: Evolution of the launch traffic outside LEOIADC and GEOIADC per launcher family expressed in terms
of number of objects (top) and mass (bottom).
Page 37/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
P N J
N J P N J
N J P N J
P ! N J
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V > @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P
P N J
N J P N J
N J P N J
P ! N J
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V > @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 2.19: Evolution of the launch traffic per mass category in terms of number of objects in LEOIADC (top) and
GEOIADC (bottom).
Page 38/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V F D U U L H G
S H U O D X Q F K
@
@
@
@
@
1 X P E H U R I O D X Q F K H V
@
@
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
(a) Payloads
0 L V V L R Q G R P D L Q V
@
@
@
@
@
@
1 X P E H U R I O D X Q F K H V
@
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
(b) Mission domains
Figure 2.20: Evolution of the launch traffic.
Page 39/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
7 L P H W R L G H Q W L I L F D W L R Q D I W H U O D X Q F K > P R Q W K V @
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q W R W R W D O U D W L R
/ D X Q F K H S R F K
Figure 2.21: Identification rate for rideshare launches.
Unidentified Payload objects form a collision risk for active operators as potential avoidance scenarios cannot
be coordinated effectively. In particular, ride-share launches can form an issue for timely identification by space
surveillance networks when deployment is not coordinated with the operators on-board. Fig. 2.21 plot represents
the rate of identification for Payloads on ride-share launches since 2018, applying the definition introduced above.
The x-axis indicates the launch epoch and the y-axis lists some of the crucial timings between launch and identi-
fication. Per ride-share launch event, the grey lines indicate the time interval between the epoch when 10% and
90% of the Payloads in the launch were identified with a cut-off after 12 months (some Payload might never be
identified). If the 90% has not (yet) been reached, the interval is indicated with a dashed line. The location of
the circular marker indicates the time when 50% of the Payloads are identified, the size is proportional to the total
number of Payloads in the ride-share launch, and the colour indicates which fraction of the Payloads belong to a
constellation. The latter makes a practical distinction in terms of amount of Payloads that can be coordinated with
a space surveillance operators.
Page 40/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F $ O O
3 H U L J H H + H L J K W > N P @
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
(a) LEOIADC
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F $ O O
3 H U L J H H + H L J K W > N P @
0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
(b) GEOIADC
Figure 2.22: Evolution of the launch traffic: mass injected.
Page 41/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 3 D \ O R D G V
/ L I H W L P H > \ @
@
@
@
6 K D U H R I R E M H F W V > @
@
@
@
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
(a) Payload objects not belonging to constellations
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 3 D \ O R D G V
/ L I H W L P H > \ @
@
@
@
6 K D U H R I R E M H F W V > @
@
@
@
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
(b) Payload ojects belonging to constellations
Figure 2.23: Estimated lifetime for the Payload destination orbits by launch year: share of objects.
Page 42/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 3 D \ O R D G V
/ L I H W L P H > \ @
@
@
@
6 K D U H R I P D V V > @
@
@
@
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
(a) Payload objects not belonging to constellations
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 3 D \ O R D G V
/ L I H W L P H > \ @
@
@
@
6 K D U H R I P D V V > @
@
@
@
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
(b) Payload objects belonging to constellations
Figure 2.24: Estimated lifetime for the Payload destination orbits by launch year: share of mass.
Page 43/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.6. Constellations in the LEO protected region
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 2 E M H F W V
1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
< H D U
(a) Evolution of number of objects.
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 2 E M H F W V
1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
< H D U
(b) Evolution of mass.
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 2 E M H F W V
1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
< H D U
(c) Evolution of area.
Figure 2.25: Evolution of number of objects, mass, and area in LEOIADC distinguishing constellations and non-
constellation payloads.
Page 44/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.7. Active payloads in the LEO protected region
1 X P E H U R I D F W L Y H S D \ O R D G V
h > N P @
Figure 2.26: Distribution of active payloads in LEO by year and mean altitude.
1 X P E H U R I D F W L Y H S D \ O R D G V
h > N P @
Figure 2.27: Distribution of active payloads not belonging to constellations in LEO by year and mean altitude.
Page 45/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 X P E H U R I D F W L Y H S D \ O R D G V
h > N P @
Figure 2.28: Distribution of active payloads belonging to constellations in LEO by year and mean altitude.
0 D Q R H X Y U D E O H S D \ O R D G V
$ F W L Y H Q R Q P D Q R H X Y U D E O H S D \ O R D G V
, Q D F W L Y H S D \ O R D G V
2 W K H U R E M H F W V
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V
3 H U L J H H D O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 2.29: Number of manoeuvrable and active objects as a function of the perigee altitude.
Page 46/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
$ F W L Y H S D \ O R D G V W R F D W D O R J X H G R E M H F W V G H V W L Q D W L R Q R U E L W V
$ F W L Y H S D \ O R D G V
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q V
5 D W L R
$ O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 2.30: Ratio of active and constellation objects over the total number of catalogued objects.
0 H D Q D F W L Y H S D \ O R D G S U R S H U W L H V
0 D V V > N J @
$ U H D > P2 @
1 R F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q V
$ 0 > P2 N J @
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q V
& R P E L Q H G
Figure 2.31: Payload parameters for active payloads in LEO over time.
Page 47/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.8. New Catalogued Objects in the Space Environment
1 H Z O \ $ G G H G 2 E M H F W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
< H D U
(a) Evolution of newly added object by count.
1 H Z O \ $ G G H G 2 E M H F W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
< H D U
(b) Evolution of newly added mass.
1 H Z O \ $ G G H G 2 E M H F W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
< H D U
(c) Evolution of newly added area.
Figure 2.32: Evolution of newly added objects in each year by object type.
Page 48/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 H Z O \ $ G G H G 2 E M H F W V
1 $ 1 6 2
2 W K H U * 7 2
+ ( 2 ( * 2
0 * 2 * ( 2
/ 0 2 / ( 2
0 ( 2
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
< H D U
(a) Evolution of newly added object by count.
1 H Z O \ $ G G H G 2 E M H F W V
1 $ 1 6 2
2 W K H U * 7 2
+ ( 2 ( * 2
0 * 2 * ( 2
/ 0 2 / ( 2
0 ( 2
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q V @
< H D U
(b) Evolution of newly added mass.
1 H Z O \ $ G G H G 2 E M H F W V
1 $ 1 6 2
2 W K H U * 7 2
+ ( 2 ( * 2
0 * 2 * ( 2
/ 0 2 / ( 2
0 ( 2
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
< H D U
(c) Evolution of newly added area.
Figure 2.33: Evolution of newly added objects in each year by orbit type.
Page 49/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.9. Objects Removed from the Space Environment
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
< H D U
(a) Evolution of re-entered numbers.
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
< H D U
(b) Evolution of re-entered mass.
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
8 , 3 0
5 0 3 '
5 ' 3 )
5 ) 3 /
5 %
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
< H D U
(c) Evolution of re-entered area.
Figure 2.34: Evolution of re-entering objects in each year by object type without human spaceflight.
Page 50/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
2 W K H U 0 ( 2
+ ( 2 * 7 2
/ 0 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
< H D U
(a) Evolution of re-entered numbers.
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
2 W K H U 0 ( 2
+ ( 2 * 7 2
/ 0 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
< H D U
(b) Evolution of re-entered mass.
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
2 W K H U 0 ( 2
+ ( 2 * 7 2
/ 0 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
< H D U
(c) Evolution of re-entered area.
Figure 2.35: Evolution of re-entering objects in each year by orbit type without human spaceflight.
Page 51/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
3 0 3 /
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
< H D U
(a) Evolution of re-entered numbers.
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
3 0 3 /
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
< H D U
(b) Evolution of re-entered mass.
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
3 0 3 /
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
< H D U
(c) Evolution of re-entered area.
Figure 2.36: Evolution of re-entering human spaceflight objects in each year by object type.
Page 52/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
2 W K H U / 0 2
+ ( 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W & R X Q W > @
< H D U
(a) Evolution of re-entered numbers.
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
2 W K H U / 0 2
+ ( 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W 0 D V V > W R Q Q H V @
< H D U
(b) Evolution of re-entered mass.
5 H H Q W H U L Q J 2 E M H F W V
2 W K H U / 0 2
+ ( 2 / ( 2
2 E M H F W $ U H D > P2 @
< H D U
(c) Evolution of re-entered area.
Figure 2.37: Evolution of re-entering human spaceflight objects by orbit type.
Page 53/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
& R Q W U R O O H G
& R Q W U R O O H G
8 Q F R Q W U R O O H G 8 Q F R Q W U R O O H G
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V
7 R W D O P D V V > W @
5 H H Q W U \ \ H D U 5 H H Q W U \ \ H D U
(a) Payloads: Count (b) Payloads: Mass
& R Q W U R O O H G & R Q W U R O O H G
8 Q F R Q W U R O O H G 8 Q F R Q W U R O O H G
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V
7 R W D O P D V V > W @
5 H H Q W U \ \ H D U 5 H H Q W U \ \ H D U
(c) Rocket Bodies: Count (d) Rocket Bodies: Mass
Figure 2.38: Controlled and uncontrolled re-entries for Payloads (top) and Rocket Bodies (bottom).
Page 54/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.10. 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 1980s due to safety concerns. The notable 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 were generally injected into orbits with long orbital lifetimes
after the end of operations of the Payload. There are 82 objects related to NPSs known to have entered Earth
orbit, out of which 7 are asserted but not catalogued. A total of 7 out of those 82 have re-entered, and the orbital
distribution on the remainder is presented in Figure 2.39.
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
/ L I H W L P H > \ H D U V @
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 2.39: Distribution of space objects with nuclear power sources with mean altitude, orbital lifetime, and
inclination.
Page 55/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2.11. Registration of Objects Launched in Outer Space
The United Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space [14] and its implementation was established
as consequence of the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space [15]. State parties to the
treaty are required to establish their own national registries and provide information on their space objects, which
in turn creates transparency on space operations. The increasing amount of launching states of time serves as a
reminder for the need to coordinate space debris mitigation measures across all those actors, as one failure to do
so will affect many others. Notwithstanding the increase in actors, positive trends are the retro-active registration
of objects and the reducing time between launch and registration.
7 R W D O
& X P X O D W L Y H Q X P E H U R I O D X Q F K L Q J V W D W H V
$ P D W H X U
& L Y L O
& R P P H U F L D O
' H I H Q V H
< H D U
Figure 2.40: Launching states with at least one registered space object over time by category.
Page 56/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6 K D U H R I U H J L V W H U H G 3 D \ O R D G V > @
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
Figure 2.41: Share of registered payloads over the total of launched payloads by launch year.
0 H G L D Q
W K 3 H U F H Q W L O H
$ Y H U D J H U H J L V W U D W L R Q G H O D \ > \ H D U V @
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
Figure 2.42: Delay between launch and registration by launch year.
Page 57/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS 2024
In this section, the status of the environment as of end of 2024 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 11682 5126 111 217 949 3747 32 521 112 22497
GEO 800 35 2 8 67 0 0 0 33 945
EGO 543 791 2 50 201 88 4 5 2207 3891
GTO 49 29 1 10 229 203 10 49 666 1246
NSO 290 0 0 1 99 0 0 2 47 439
MEO 74 1 5 50 27 122 1 4 565 849
LMO 85 135 5 44 257 749 21 210 1051 2557
MGO 72 75 1 3 175 2714 5 0 1520 4565
HEO 29 190 0 2 55 143 0 0 1624 2043
Other 48 12 0 4 7 1 0 0 142 214
Total 13672 6394 127 389 2066 7767 73 791 7967 39246
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 43 1 1 73 126 0 16 381 658
LEOIADC (abs) 11830 5327 117 272 1474 4756 63 780 2052 26671
LEOIADC (eqv) 11713 5213 114 228 1001 3920 37 555 268 23048
GEOIADC (abs) 972 995 5 50 307 1031 2 17 4320 7699
GEOIADC (eqv) 845 172 2 18 105 46 0 1 249 1439
none (abs) 887 115 6 68 358 2106 8 10 1976 5534
Page 58/144
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 5205.6 0.0 0.0 4.2 1445.1 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 6661.3
GEO 2652.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 138.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2791.7
EGO 996.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 386.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1388.1
GTO 92.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 512.8 0.0 0.0 21.9 0.0 628.0
NSO 375.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 227.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 602.4
MEO 82.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 46.5 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 133.4
LMO 79.6 0.0 0.0 6.9 520.4 0.0 0.0 86.6 4.0 697.4
MGO 100.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 291.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 394.3
HEO 49.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 141.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.7
Other 73.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.6
Total 9707.4 0.0 0.0 20.9 3727.1 0.0 0.0 119.6 4.0 13579.0
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) 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 166.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 186.6
LEOIADC (abs) 5385.2 0.0 0.0 12.1 2591.5 0.0 0.0 115.0 4.0 8107.8
LEOIADC (eqv) 5232.6 0.0 0.0 5.8 1524.3 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.7 6780.7
GEOIADC (abs) 2977.3 0.0 0.0 6.4 605.9 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 3594.2
GEOIADC (eqv) 2755.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 208.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2967.0
none (abs) 1360.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 695.9 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 2063.7
Page 59/144
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 165542.6 0.0 0.0 39.1 10923.3 1.3 0.0 258.2 0.0 176764.6
GEO 25770.6 0.0 23.6 8.3 1509.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27311.5
EGO 12466.6 0.0 0.6 38.6 4405.9 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 16921.5
GTO 769.2 0.0 0.0 8.8 5238.6 0.0 0.0 627.6 0.0 6644.3
NSO 3196.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 1973.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5170.4
MEO 1128.1 0.0 0.0 11.2 478.7 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 1639.6
LMO 727.4 0.0 0.0 22.7 5483.4 0.6 0.0 1520.8 12.1 7767.0
MGO 925.1 0.0 0.0 14.7 3179.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4119.2
HEO 656.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 1402.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2060.0
Other 475.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 182.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 657.9
Total 211657.7 0.0 24.2 144.9 34777.2 1.9 0.0 2438.0 12.1 249056.1
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) 237.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 1944.4 0.0 0.0 215.8 0.0 2398.2
LEOIADC (abs) 167227.5 0.0 0.0 70.7 22832.5 1.9 0.0 2406.7 12.1 192551.5
LEOIADC (eqv) 165733.9 0.0 0.0 45.8 11779.6 1.4 0.0 460.3 2.2 178023.3
GEOIADC (abs) 29232.2 0.0 23.6 49.3 6587.1 0.0 0.0 216.5 0.0 36108.7
GEOIADC (eqv) 26836.8 0.0 23.6 17.8 2279.2 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 29175.0
none (abs) 15435.7 0.0 0.6 25.0 7302.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 0.0 22794.0
Page 60/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3.1. Status of the Environment in LEO
0 D V V ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 3 / V , Q W H U V H F W L Q J / ( 2IADC
& U R V V L Q J
5 H V L G L Q J
& R X Q W V
0 D V V > N J @
(a) Mass histogram of payloads in LEO.
$ U H D ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 3 / V , Q W H U V H F W L Q J / ( 2IADC
& U R V V L Q J
5 H V L G L Q J
& R X Q W V
$ U H D > P2 @
(b) Area histogram of payloads in LEO.
Figure 3.1: Distribution of mass and area of payloads in LEO.
Page 61/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
0 D V V ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 5 % V , Q W H U V H F W L Q J / ( 2IADC
& U R V V L Q J
5 H V L G L Q J
& R X Q W V
0 D V V > N J @
(a) Mass histogram of rocket bodies in LEO.
$ U H D ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 5 % V , Q W H U V H F W L Q J / ( 2IADC
& U R V V L Q J
5 H V L G L Q J
& R X Q W V
$ U H D > P2 @
(b) Area histogram of rocket bodies in LEO.
Figure 3.2: Distribution of mass and area of rocket bodies in LEO.
Page 62/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 2 E M H F W V U H V L G L Q J L Q / ( 2IADC ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 2 E M H F W V F U R V V L Q J / ( 2IADC
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q i > G H J @ G H J E L Q V
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q i > G H J @ G H J E L Q V
& R X Q W
& R X Q W
3 H U L J H H D O W L W X G H hp > N P @ N P E L Q V 3 H U L J H H D O W L W X G H hp > N P @ N P E L Q V
(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.
0 D V V ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 2 E M H F W V U H V L G L Q J L Q / ( 2IADC 0 D V V ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 2 E M H F W V F U R V V L Q J / ( 2IADC
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q i > G H J @ G H J E L Q V
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q i > G H J @ G H J E L Q V
0 D V V > W R Q V @
0 D V V > W R Q V @
3 H U L J H H D O W L W X G H hp > N P @ N P E L Q V 3 H U L J H H D O W L W X G H hp > N P @ N P E L Q V
(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 63/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
$ U H D ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 2 E M H F W V U H V L G L Q J L Q / ( 2IADC $ U H D ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 2 E M H F W V F U R V V L Q J / ( 2IADC
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q i > G H J @ G H J E L Q V
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q i > G H J @ G H J E L Q V
$ U H D > P2 @
$ U H D > P2 @
3 H U L J H H D O W L W X G H hp > N P @ N P E L Q V 3 H U L J H H D O W L W X G H hp > N P @ N P E L Q V
(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 64/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G / D X Q F K 7 U D I I L F L Q W R hp N P L Q
$ P D W H X U
& L Y L O
& R P P H U F L D O
' H I H Q V H
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V > @
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
$ F W L Y H 3 D \ O R D G V ' L V W U L E X W L R Q
$ P D W H X U
& L Y L O
& R P P H U F L D O
' H I H Q V H
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V > @
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 3.6: Launch traffic in 2024 (top) and distribution of active payloads (bottom) in LEOIADC by mean altitude.
Page 65/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
0 D V V > W R Q Q @
L > G H J @
K > N P @
Figure 3.7: Distribution of active payloads in LEO by mean altitude and inclination.
Page 66/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3.2. Status of the Environment in GEO
0 D V V ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 3 / V , Q W H U V H F W L Q J * ( 2IADC
& U R V V L Q J
5 H V L G L Q J
& R X Q W V
0 D V V > N J @
(a) Mass histogram of payloads in GEO.
$ U H D ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 3 / V , Q W H U V H F W L Q J * ( 2IADC
& U R V V L Q J
5 H V L G L Q J
& R X Q W V
$ U H D > P2 @
(b) Area histogram of payloads in GEO.
Figure 3.8: Distribution of mass and area of payloads in GEO.
Page 67/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
0 D V V ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 5 % V , Q W H U V H F W L Q J * ( 2IADC
& U R V V L Q J
5 H V L G L Q J
& R X Q W V
0 D V V > N J @
(a) Mass histogram of rocket bodies in GEO.
$ U H D ' L V W U L E X W L R Q R I 5 % V , Q W H U V H F W L Q J * ( 2IADC
& U R V V L Q J
5 H V L G L Q J
& R X Q W V
$ U H D > P2 @
(b) Area histogram of rocket bodies in GEO.
Figure 3.9: Distribution of mass and area of rocket bodies in GEO.
Page 68/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3.3. Fragmentations in 2024
In Table 3.7 all established fragmentation events of the year 2024 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 [16].
Table 3.7: Fragmentation events in 2024.
Event Object Mass Catalogued Asserted Event
Orbit
epoch type [kg] objects objects cause
2024-04-02 Rocket Body 6000 0 60 LEO Propulsion
2024-04-08 Payload 2382 0 92 LMO Propulsion
2024-05-27 Payload 2500 0 1 GEO Unknown
2024-06-26 Payload 5691 19 100 LEO Unknown
2024-07-05 Rocket Body 6000 0 44 LEO Propulsion
2024-07-19 Payload 816 4 5 LEO Unknown
2024-08-06 Rocket Body 6000 663 700 LEO Propulsion
2024-09-06 Rocket Body 2020 843 MGO Propulsion
2024-10-19 Payload 2946 1104 GEO Propulsion
2024-12-01 Rocket Body 6000 0 100 LEO Unknown
2024-12-19 Payload 816 0 50 LEO Unknown
Total 41170 2633
Page 69/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3.4. Changes to the Environment in 2024
In this section, the change to the environment during 2024 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 2605 18 5 9 97 663 12 15 46 3470
GEO 20 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 60
EGO 1 790 0 0 2 11 1 1 423 1229
GTO 1 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 88 97
NSO 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 10 21
MEO 2 0 0 0 1 64 0 0 138 205
LMO 1 0 0 0 9 202 0 0 245 457
MGO 1 14 0 0 1 783 0 0 375 1174
HEO 5 178 0 0 9 30 0 0 494 716
Other 4 12 0 0 2 1 0 0 25 44
N/A 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6
Total 2648 1044 5 9 131 1755 13 16 1852 7473
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) 3 25 0 0 8 3 0 0 117 156
LEOIADC (abs) 2612 43 5 9 124 869 12 15 483 4172
LEOIADC (eqv) 2605 18 5 9 98 688 12 15 75 3526
GEOIADC (abs) 24 939 0 0 8 291 0 0 1044 2306
GEOIADC (eqv) 20 167 0 0 0 12 0 0 47 247
none (abs) 15 87 0 0 7 598 1 1 442 1151
Page 70/144
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 1762.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 185.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.2 1960.0
GEO 93.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.9
EGO 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5
GTO 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9
NSO 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3
MEO 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7
LMO 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.2
MGO 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2
HEO 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.8
Other 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4
N/A 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0
Total 1913.6 0.0 0.0 3.2 302.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.2 2229.0
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) 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.9
LEOIADC (abs) 1774.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 278.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.2 2065.1
LEOIADC (eqv) 1762.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 189.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.2 1964.4
GEOIADC (abs) 102.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 133.8
GEOIADC (eqv) 94.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.5
none (abs) 40.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.0
Page 71/144
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 69478.9 0.0 0.0 29.2 1368.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 64.6 70941.9
GEO 814.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 814.0
EGO 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.1
GTO 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 207.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 241.2
NSO 97.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 210.6
MEO 54.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.8
LMO 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 276.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 289.8
MGO 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.9
HEO 85.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 289.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 374.6
Other 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.9
N/A 45.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 66.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 114.0
Total 70629.4 0.0 0.0 29.2 2527.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 64.6 73251.8
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) 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 292.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 308.7
LEOIADC (abs) 69548.4 0.0 0.0 29.2 2227.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 64.6 71871.0
LEOIADC (eqv) 69480.7 0.0 0.0 29.2 1404.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 64.6 70979.9
GEOIADC (abs) 864.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 292.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1156.8
GEOIADC (eqv) 817.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 818.4
none (abs) 233.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 299.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 532.7
Page 72/144
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 1087 515 5 20 108 187 16 67 13 2018
LMO 1 0 0 1 3 6 0 1 0 12
HEO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
N/A 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Total 1089 515 5 21 111 193 16 68 13 2031
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 237.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 218.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 9.2 482.3
LMO 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1
HEO 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7
Total 239.8 0.0 0.0 12.3 227.5 0.0 0.0 5.8 9.2 494.6
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 6260.2 0.0 0.0 85.9 1921.4 0.0 4.7 184.9 64.6 8521.6
LMO 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.2
HEO 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.5
N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.1
Total 6304.0 0.0 0.0 85.9 2009.4 0.0 4.7 184.9 64.6 8653.4
Page 73/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3.5. Conjunction statistics in LEO in 2023
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 ap-
proach between two objects, 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. 2.31. 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 and applied also to 2023 considering the consistent trend in the
properties shown in Fig. 2.31, especially when considering non-constellation payloads. 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 seven 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 the mean across the simulated cases for each target.
In both cases, the trajectory of the targets is propagated for one year (from 1st January 2023 to 31st December
2023) 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) [17]. For the analysis shown here, General Perturbations
(GP) data is retrieved to define the orbits of the secondary objects involved in the conjunctions [18]. 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,
– 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.
– Cosmos-1408 Fragmentation Debris, objects generated by the fragmentation of Cosmos-1408 (1982-
92A), with mass 2180.4, on the 15/11/2021 at an altitude between 465.0 and 490.5 km and inclination
of 82.6 degrees.
Page 74/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
– Other Payload fragmentation debris, all the other payload fragmentation debris.
• Rocket fragmentation debris, five subcategories were defined to collect objects belonging to the fragmenta-
tion events with the highest number of catalogued objects.
– 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.
– L-15 (YF115) Fragmentation Debris, objects generated by the fragmentation of L-15 (YF115) (2022-
151B), with mass 1850.0, on the 12/11/2022 at an altitude between 813.5 and 847.1 km and inclination
of 98.8 degrees.
– Other Rocket fragmentation debris, all the other rocket fragmentation debris.
Additional information on the fragmentation events can be found in ESA Fragmentation Database [16].
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 [19]. The values of positional uncertainty required for the collision probability calculation are ob-
tained with the methodology in [20], 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 objects 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 payload objects and to targets defined along the Sun-Synchronous region. The threshold at
10−6 is usually well below the reaction threshold for payloads 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.
In addition to the yearly statistics, the analysis has been systematically repeated yearly since 2015. This shows,
particularly in the lower LEOIADC regime, the increase of conjunction events that require coordination between
active operators due to the change in space traffic, whereas higher orbits remain dominated by space debris
related events.
Page 75/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
5 R F N H W ' H E U L V
5 R F N H W 0 L V V L R Q 5 H O D W H G 2 E M H F W
/ < ) ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
+ $ 3 6 ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
2 W K H U 5 R F N H W ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
5 R F N H W % R G \
3 D \ O R D G ' H E U L V
3 D \ O R D G 0 L V V L R Q 5 H O D W H G 2 E M H F W
) H Q J \ X Q & ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
& R V P R V ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
& R V P R V ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
, U L G L X P ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
2 W K H U 3 D \ O R D G ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q V
6 P D O O V D W H O O L W H V
1 X P E H U R I F R Q M X Q F W L R Q H Y H Q W V
2 W K H U 3 D \ O R D G
K N P K N P K N P K N P K N P K N P
L L L L L L
Figure 3.10: Conjunction events with collision probability above 10−6 , and corresponding chaser classification, for
a set of representative targets over 2023.
Page 76/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
5 R F N H W ' H E U L V
5 R F N H W 0 L V V L R Q 5 H O D W H G 2 E M H F W
/ < ) ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
+ $ 3 6 ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
2 W K H U 5 R F N H W ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
5 R F N H W % R G \
3 D \ O R D G ' H E U L V
3 D \ O R D G 0 L V V L R Q 5 H O D W H G 2 E M H F W
) H Q J \ X Q & ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
& R V P R V ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
& R V P R V ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
, U L G L X P ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
2 W K H U 3 D \ O R D G ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
1 X P E H U R I F R Q M X Q F W L R Q H Y H Q W V
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q V
6 P D O O V D W H O O L W H V
2 W K H U 3 D \ O R D G
K N P K N P K N P K N P K N P K N P K N P
L L L L L L L
Figure 3.11: Conjunction events with collision probability above 10−6 , and chaser classification, for a set of repre-
sentative targets in Sun-synchronous orbits over 2023.
Page 77/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
K N P L 8 Q N Q R Z Q
5 R F N H W ' H E U L V
5 R F N H W 0 L V V L R Q 5 H O D W H G 2 E M H F W
/ < ) ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
+ $ 3 6 ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
2 W K H U 5 R F N H W ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
5 R F N H W % R G \
K N P L 3 D \ O R D G ' H E U L V
3 D \ O R D G 0 L V V L R Q 5 H O D W H G 2 E M H F W
) H Q J \ X Q & ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
& R V P R V ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
& R V P R V ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
, U L G L X P ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
K N P L 2 W K H U 3 D \ O R D G ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ' H E U L V
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q V
6 P D O O V D W H O O L W H V
2 W K H U 3 D \ O R D G
1 X P E H U R I F R Q M X Q F W L R Q H Y H Q W V
K N P L
K N P L
K N P L
K N P L
Figure 3.12: Conjunction events with collision probability above 10−6 , and chaser classification, for a set of repre-
sentative targets in Sun-synchronous orbits over multiple years.
Page 78/144
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 of a rocket body or payload as part of the mission. 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 expelled 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.
7 R W D O 3 D \ O R D G 0 L V V L R Q 5 H O D W H G 2 E M H F W V
& R X Q W
0 D V V
0 D V V > W R Q V @
& R X Q W
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 4.1: Total number and mass of catalogued mission related objects released from payloads.
Page 79/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
7 R W D O 5 R F N H W 0 L V V L R Q 5 H O D W H G 2 E M H F W V
& R X Q W
0 D V V
0 D V V > W R Q V @
& R X Q W
/ D X Q F K < H D U
Figure 4.2: Total number and mass of catalogued mission related objects released from rocket bodies.
) U D F W L R Q R I 0 5 2 5 H O H D V H ( Y H Q W V E \ 6 R X U F H
3 D \ O R D G V
5 R F N H W V
) U D F W L R Q > @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
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 80/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V
* 7 2
/ ( 2
* ( 2
, * 2
0 ( 2
( 6 2
( * 2
/ 0 2
+ ( 2
* + 2
0 * 2
1 6 2
+ $ 2
R U E L W B F O D V V
Figure 4.4: Distribution of release orbits for Payload Mission Related Objects since the start of the space age.
1 X P E H U R I R E M H F W V
* 7 2
/ ( 2
* ( 2
( * 2
/ 0 2
0 ( 2
1 6 2
0 * 2
+ ( 2
R U E L W B F O D V V
Figure 4.5: Distribution of release orbits for Rocket Body Mission Related Objects since the start of the space age.
Page 81/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @ 0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 4.6: Distribution of release orbits for Payload Mission Related Objects in LEO (left) and outside LEO (right).
The size of the marker is proportional to the object mass.
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @ 0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
Figure 4.7: Distribution of release orbits for Rocket Body Mission Related Objects in LEO (left) and outside LEO
(right). The size of the marker is proportional to the object mass.
Page 82/144
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.
3 U R S H O O D Q W P D V V > N J @
( S R F K
Figure 4.8: Evolution solid rocket motor firings.
/ ( 2
, * 2
* 7 2
* + 2
/ 0 2
1 X P E H U R I I L U L Q J V
0 * 2
+ ( 2
2 W K H U
< H D U
Figure 4.9: Evolution solid rocket motor firings by orbit type.
Page 83/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
5. FRAGMENTATION HISTORY
Since the beginning of the space age until the end of 2024, there have been 656 confirmed on-orbit fragmentation
events. In Fig. 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 84/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
Briz-M: The fourth stage of the Proton rocket which is used to insert satellites into higher orbits.
CZ-6A Upper Stage: The second stage of the Long March (CZ) 6A launcher (L-15 YF-115). Energic break-
up events soon after launch assumed to be Propulsion related.
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 [21].
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 [22].
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.
Page 85/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
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.
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 aggregation. A breakdown of the observed fragmentation events grouped
by the main classes in terms of frequency and resulting catalogued debris is given in Fig. 5.3 and Fig. 5.4, respec-
tively.
Table 5.1: Statistics on fragmentation events.
All history Last 20 years
Number of events 656 220
Non-deliberate events per year 9.4 10.5
Yearly rate of events where 50% of the generated 2.4 1.7
fragments have a lifetime of greater than 10 years
Yearly rate of events where 50% of the generated 1.7 1.3
fragments have a lifetime of greater than 25 years
Mean time (years) between launch and fragmen- 5.7 10.3
tation
Median time (years) between launch and frag- 1.0 6.6
mentation
Page 86/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
8 Q N Q R Z Q 3 U R S X O V L R Q $ Q R P D O R X V ' H O L E H U D W H
$ H U R G \ Q D P L F V ( O H F W U L F D O $ F F L G H Q W D O 6 P D O O , P S D F W R U
& R O O L V L R Q
(a) Whole history.
3 U R S X O V L R Q 8 Q N Q R Z Q $ Q R P D O R X V 6 P D O O , P S D F W R U
( O H F W U L F D O $ H U R G \ Q D P L F V $ F F L G H Q W D O ' H O L E H U D W H
& R O O L V L R Q
(b) Last 10 years.
Figure 5.1: Event causes and their relative share for all past fragmentation events.
Page 87/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 X P E H U ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ( Y H Q W V S H U ( Y H Q W < H D U
1 X P E H U
( Y H Q W < H D U
(a) Number of fragmentation events per event year.
1 X P E H U ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ( Y H Q W V S H U / D X Q F K < H D U
1 X P E H U
/ D X Q F K < H D U
(b) Number of fragmentation events per launch year.
1 R U P D O L V H G 1 X P E H U ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ( Y H Q W V S H U / D X Q F K < H D U
1 X P E H U R I H Y H Q W V S H U O D X Q F K
/ D X Q F K < H D U
(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 88/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 X P E H U ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ( Y H Q W V
8 Q N Q R Z Q
& R O O L V L R Q
$ F F L G H Q W D O
( O H F W U L F D O
$ H U R G \ Q D P L F V
' H O L E H U D W H
$ Q R P D O R X V
3 U R S X O V L R Q
1 X P E H U
( Y H Q W < H D U \ H D U E L Q V
(a) Absolute number of fragmentation events per event cause.
1 X P E H U ) U D J P H Q W D W L R Q ( Y H Q W V
8 Q N Q R Z Q
& R O O L V L R Q
$ F F L G H Q W D O
( O H F W U L F D O
$ H U R G \ Q D P L F V
' H O L E H U D W H
$ Q R P D O R X V
3 U R S X O V L R Q
6 K D U H
( Y H Q W < H D U \ H D U E L Q V
(b) Relative number of fragmentation events per event cause.
Figure 5.3: Historical trend of fragmentation events per event cause.
Page 89/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
5 H V X O W L Q J ) U D J P H Q W V I U R P ( Y H Q W V
8 Q N Q R Z Q
& R O O L V L R Q
$ F F L G H Q W D O
( O H F W U L F D O
$ H U R G \ Q D P L F V
' H O L E H U D W H
$ Q R P D O R X V
3 U R S X O V L R Q
1 X P E H U
( Y H Q W < H D U \ H D U E L Q V
(a) Absolute number of resulting fragments per event cause.
5 H V X O W L Q J ) U D J P H Q W V I U R P ( Y H Q W V
8 Q N Q R Z Q
& R O O L V L R Q
$ F F L G H Q W D O
( O H F W U L F D O
$ H U R G \ Q D P L F V
' H O L E H U D W H
$ Q R P D O R X V
3 U R S X O V L R Q
6 K D U H
( Y H Q W < H D U \ H D U E L Q V
(b) Relative number of resulting fragments per event cause.
Figure 5.4: Historical trend of numbers of fragments produced by fragmentation events.
Page 90/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
7 L P H V L Q F H O D X Q F K > \ H D U V @
* H Q H U D W H G I U D J P H Q W V
8 Q N Q R Z Q
& R V P R V
+ , , $
/ %
$ F F L G H Q W D O
& R V P R V
3 U R S X O V L R Q
' H O W D 8 S S H U 6 W D J H
3 U R W R Q 8 O O D J H 0 R W R U
7 L W D Q 7 U D Q V W D J H
% U L ] 0
$ U L D Q H 8 S S H U 6 W D J H
7 V \ N O R Q 8 S S H U 6 W D J H
= H Q L W 8 S S H U 6 W D J H
& D W H J R U \
& = $ 8 S S H U 6 W D J H
% D W W H U \
' 0 6 3 1 2 $ $
$ H U R G \ Q D P L F V
$ Q R P D O R X V
7 U D Q V L W
6 F R X W
0 H W H R U
9 R V W R N
( 5 6 6 3 2 7
' H O W D
7 2 3 $ = / H D N D J H
& R V P R V
Figure 5.5: Elapsed time between fragmentation and launch by category. The bubble size indicates the number
of generated fragments.
Page 91/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
* H Q H U D W H G I U D J P H Q W V
7 L P H V L Q F H O D X Q F K > \ H D U V @
& R O O L V L R Q
6 P D O O , P S D F W R U
& D W H J R U \
Figure 5.6: Elapsed time between fragmentation and launch for collision events. The bubble size indicates the
number of generated fragments.
* H Q H U D W H G I U D J P H Q W V
7 L P H V L Q F H O D X Q F K > \ H D U V @
$ 6 $ 7
5 2 5 6 $ 7
' H O L E H U D W H
& R V P R V
3 D \ O R D G 5 H F R Y H U \ ) D L O X U H
& D W H J R U \
Figure 5.7: Elapsed time between fragmentation and launch for deliberate events. The bubble size indicates the
number of generated fragments.
Page 92/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
& X W R I I \ H D U
1 R Q H
3 U R E D E L O L W \ > @
7 L P H W R E U H D N X S > \ H D U V @
Figure 5.8: Cumulative distribution function (CDF) 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 sub-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 93/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
& O D V V
$ F F L G H Q W D O
3 U R S X O V L R Q
8 Q N Q R Z Q
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
< H D U V W R H Y H Q W
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
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 177 52
Non-deliberate events per year 2.7 2.7
Yearly rate of events where 50% of the generated 0.7 0.4
fragments have a lifetime of greater than 10 years
Yearly rate of events where 50% of the generated 0.5 0.3
fragments have a lifetime of greater than 25 years
Mean time (years) between launch and fragmen- 5.6 10.3
tation
Median time (years) between launch and frag- 1.3 5.2
mentation
Page 94/144
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 2023, for rocket
body clearance of LEOIADC goes up to 2024, and for payload clearance of GEOIADC goes up to 2024.
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, or significantly shorter [8]. This limit by itself will not lead to a long-term reduction
in the amount of space debris, as will be shown in Section 7.2, but is an important step towards limiting the space
debris growth rate in LEOIADC [13]. In this context, there is also growing consensus that stricter mitigation practices
need to be implemented globally, and in 2023, ESA released its Space Debris Mitigation Standard and associated
policy [3, 4]. Among the measures introduced by this Standard, was the reduction of the post-mission maximum
lifetime limit from 25 down to 5 years. Specifically, the Standard requires that the orbit clearance of a spacecraft
or launch vehicle orbital element from the LEO protected region shall satisfy both following conditions: first, that
the orbit lifetime is less than 5 years; and secondly, that the cumulative collision probability from end of life until
re-entry with space objects larger than 1 cm is below 10−3 [3]. While this is only binding for ESA projects, one goal
of the Zero Debris Approach is to lead by example, and thus compliance to both the 25- and 5-year thresholds is
reported on here, in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 respectively. Various Standards provide an order of preference for
methodologies for achieving compliance to these mitigation measures (respectively the so-called 25- and 5-year
rules) i.e. controlled re-entry, accelerated natural orbital decay, etc.
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 [23].
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
Page 95/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
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 the
maximum lifetime limit, 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 Standards [12, 3] 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 lifetime is then assessed for each object by propagating the last orbital state, at the end of 2024, until re-entry in
combination with a long-term space weather forecast [24]. The introduction of a 5-year lifetime limit necessitates
a probabilistic approach to lifetime estimation that considers the variability of solar activity, a key driver of orbit
evolution in LEO, over a full 11-year solar cycle. Therefore, objects with an estimated lifetime of between 5 and
50 years (to ensure robust assessment to both the 5- and 25-year thresholds) are assessed probabilistically by
uniformly sampling the solar cycle. In practice, this involves varying the start epoch of the propagation with yearly
steps over the 11-year solar cycle. The lifetime used for compliance assessment is then taken to be the median
for circular orbits, while the significant influence of the atmosphere on the spread in orbital predictions for eccentric
orbits (> 0.3) is captured by using the 90th percentile, according to [3]. The used values and obtained results are
stored in DISCOS and distributed on request [9]. The process itself is subject to a significant amount of stochastic
assumptions which are described in [25]. Hence, the reported orbital lifetimes are procedurally defined and need
to be understood as a current best-estimate that can vary between different versions of this report, as discussed
in Section 6.1.4.
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 2023 instead of 2024.
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 kilometres are no longer viable end-of-life
debris mitigation practices [8]. 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 lifetime limit is not met by the mission orbit and no disposal
action has been taken;
Page 96/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
• NCWFB: (Not Compliant With attempt False Before) the lifetime limit 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 lifetime limit 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 lifetime limit 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 lifetime limit, but a disposal
action has been taken nonetheless;
• CWO: (Compliant WithOut attempt) the mission orbit allowed to meet the lifetime limit, 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 if injected into an orbit that fulfils the 25- or 5-year lifetime measure, Successful Attempt when compliant
after an attempt to reduce its orbital lifetime, Insufficient Attempt when not compliant but having attempted to
reduce its orbital lifetime or No Attempt when not compliant with no attempt at all. It should therefore be noted that
‘disposal’ here is defined according to lifetime and does not include passivation aspects, which, as discussed in
Section 1.3, cannot currently be reliably derived from observational data.
6.1.1. Evolution of compliance shares
In Figures 6.1 - 6.3, we show the share of compliance (in terms of space object count) for payloads and rocket
bodies for the two lifetime limits (25 years and 5 years). Here, adherence is achieved by a Successful Attempt as
defined above, as well as Naturally Compliant for the plots including naturally compliant space objects where no
action was needed or taken. The solid lines represent the compliance share using the median (or 90th percentile
for objects with eccentricity > 0.3) lifetime, according to [3], while the dashed lines represent the compliance share
for the 25th and 75th percentiles of the lifetimes.
More details on the levels of adherence to each of the 25 and 5 year lifetime limits are given in Sections 6.1.2 and
6.1.3 respectively.
Page 97/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2 E M H F W V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
/ L I H W L P H W K U H V K R O G
\ H D U V
\ H D U V
& R X Q W V > @
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
2 E M H F W V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ F O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 2 E M H F W V
/ L I H W L P H W K U H V K R O G
\ H D U V
\ H D U V
& R X Q W V > @
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.1: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time to 5 and 25 year lifetime limits by share of space
object count, excluding space objects associated with human spaceflight, including (top) and excluding (bottom)
naturally compliant space objects where no action was needed or taken.
Page 98/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
/ L I H W L P H W K U H V K R O G
\ H D U V
\ H D U V
& R X Q W V > @
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
5 R F N H W % R G L H V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
& R X Q W V > @
/ L I H W L P H W K U H V K R O G
\ H D U V
\ H D U V
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.2: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time to 5 and 25 year lifetime limits by share of space
object count, excluding space objects associated with human spaceflight.
Page 99/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ F O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 3 D \ O R D G V
/ L I H W L P H W K U H V K R O G
\ H D U V
\ H D U V
& R X Q W V > @
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
5 R F N H W % R G L H V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ F O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 5 R F N H W % R G L H V
/ L I H W L P H W K U H V K R O G
\ H D U V
\ H D U V
& R X Q W V > @
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.3: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time to 5 and 25 year lifetime limits by share of space
object count, excluding naturally compliant space objects where no action was needed or taken, and space objects
associated with human spaceflight.
Page 100/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6.1.2. Compliance to a 25-year lifetime limit
6.1.2.1. Evolution of compliance shares
2 E M H F W W \ S H V ( 2 / D I W H U
6 K D U H > @
+ 6
1 R 2 & &
2 & &
6 W D J H
> > > > > >
Q X P E H U P D V V
$ F K L H Y H P H Q W V ( 2 / D I W H U E \ R E M H F W W \ S H
7 R W D O 1 X P E H U > @
F R P S O L D Q W
E \ D F W L Y H
G H R U E L W
F R P S O L D Q W E \
Q D W X U D O G H F D \
Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W
> > > > > > > > > > > >
+ 6 1 R 2 & & 2 & & 6 W D J H
Figure 6.4: Share of payloads 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 2023,
for rocket body clearance of LEOIADC goes up to 2024, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 101/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
$ F K L H Y H P H Q W V ( 2 / D I W H U E \ P L V V L R Q W \ S H
H [ F O X G L Q J 6 W D J H + 6
6 K D U H > @
F R P S O L D Q W
E \ D F W L Y H
G H R U E L W
F R P S O L D Q W E \
Q D W X U D O G H F D \
Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W
> > > > > > > > > > > >
$ P D W H X U & L Y L O & R P P H U F L D O ' H I H Q V H
Figure 6.5: Share of compliance in terms of clearing the LEO protected region by mission type, for a lifetime limit
of 25 years.
$ F K L H Y H P H Q W V ( 2 / D I W H U E \ D U F K L W H F W X U H W \ S H
H [ F O X G L Q J 6 W D J H + 6
7 R W D O 1 X P E H U > @
F R P S O L D Q W
E \ D F W L Y H
G H R U E L W
F R P S O L D Q W E \
Q D W X U D O G H F D \
Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W
> > > > > >
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
$ F K L H Y H P H Q W V ( 2 / D I W H U E \ D U F K L W H F W X U H W \ S H
H [ F O X G L Q J 6 W D J H + 6
6 K D U H > @
F R P S O L D Q W
E \ D F W L Y H
G H R U E L W
F R P S O L D Q W E \
Q D W X U D O G H F D \
Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W
> > > > > >
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
Figure 6.6: Compliance in terms of clearing the LEO protected region for constellation and non-constellation ob-
jects, in absolute numbers and in relative share, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 102/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 3 D \ O R D G V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
& R X Q W V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
( 2 / \ H D U
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 3 D \ O R D G V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
0 D V V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
( 2 / \ H D U
Figure 6.7: 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 end-of-life year, for a lifetime limit of 25
years.
Page 103/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 3 D \ O R D G V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
& R X Q W V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
O D X Q F K \ H D U
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 3 D \ O R D G V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
0 D V V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
O D X Q F K \ H D U
Figure 6.8: 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, for a lifetime limit of 25
years.
Page 104/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 5 R F N H W % R G L H V
& R X Q W V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
( 2 / \ H D U
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 5 R F N H W % R G L H V
0 D V V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
( 2 / \ H D U
Figure 6.9: Relative share of disposal behaviour classes over time in terms of number (top) and mass (bottom) for
Rocket Bodies in LEO by end-of-life, i.e. launch year, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 105/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6 X F F H V V I X O G H R U E L W L Q J D W W H P S W V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
5 R F N H W % R G \
3 D \ O R D G
6 K D U H R I F R P S O L D Q W R E M H F W V > @
( 2 / \ H D U
8 Q V X F F H V V I X O G H R U E L W L Q J D W W H P S W V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
5 R F N H W % R G \
6 K D U H R I Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W R E M H F W V > @
3 D \ O R D G
( 2 / \ H D U
Figure 6.10: Relative shares of success w.r.t. compliance (top) and non-compliance (bottom) over time, excluding
objects associated with human spaceflight, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 106/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
& R X Q W V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
5 R F N H W % R G L H V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
& R X Q W V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.11: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers, for a lifetime limit of 25
years.
Page 107/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V 0 D V V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
0 D V V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
5 R F N H W % R G L H V 0 D V V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
0 D V V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.12: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of mass, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 108/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 3 D \ O R D G V
& R X Q W V > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
5 R F N H W % R G L H V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 5 R F N H W % R G L H V
& R X Q W V > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.13: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers, excluding naturally
compliant objects where no action was needed or taken, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 109/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2 E M H F W V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
& R X Q W V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC .
2 E M H F W V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 2 E M H F W V
& R X Q W V > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC excluding naturally compliant objects where no action was needed or taken.
Figure 6.14: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers, considering payloads
and rocket bodies together, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 110/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6.1.2.2. Evolution of behavioural classes per mass breakdown
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J
& : 2 & : 2
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(a) 1990 (b) 2000
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J
& : 2 & : 2 1 & : 2
1 & : 2
(c) 2010 (d) 2020
Figure 6.15: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass below 10.0 kg, for
a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 111/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 2 & : 2
& : ) %
& : 7 %
1 & : ) %
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(a) 1990 (b) 2000
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 2
& : 2
1 & : 2
1 & : 2 & : ) %
& : 7 %
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
(c) 2010 (d) 2020
Figure 6.16: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass between 10.0 and
100.0 kg, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 112/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 2 & : 2
& : 7 %
& : 7 %
& ' & '
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
& : ) % 1 & : 2
1 & : 7 %
1 & : 2 1 & : ) %
(a) 1990 (b) 2000
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 2 & : 2
& ' & '
& : 7 %
1 & : 2
1 & : 2
1 & : ) %
& : 7 % & : ) %
1 & : 7 %
& : ) % 1 & : ) %
(c) 2010 (d) 2020
Figure 6.17: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass between 100.0
and 1000.0 kg, for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 113/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J
& : 2 & : 2
& '
& '
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(a) 1990 (b) 2000
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J
& : 2
& : 2
& : 7 %
& '
& : ) % & '
& : 7 %
1 & : ) %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(c) 2010 (d) 2020
Figure 6.18: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass above 1000.0 kg,
for a lifetime limit of 25 years.
Page 114/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6.1.3. Compliance to a 5-year lifetime limit
6.1.3.1. Evolution of compliance shares
2 E M H F W W \ S H V ( 2 / D I W H U
6 K D U H > @
+ 6
1 R 2 & &
2 & &
6 W D J H
> > > > > >
Q X P E H U P D V V
$ F K L H Y H P H Q W V ( 2 / D I W H U E \ R E M H F W W \ S H
7 R W D O 1 X P E H U > @
F R P S O L D Q W
E \ D F W L Y H
G H R U E L W
F R P S O L D Q W E \
Q D W X U D O G H F D \
Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W
> > > > > > > > > > > >
+ 6 1 R 2 & & 2 & & 6 W D J H
Figure 6.19: Share of payloads 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
2023, for rocket body clearance of LEOIADC goes up to 2024, for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 115/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
$ F K L H Y H P H Q W V ( 2 / D I W H U E \ P L V V L R Q W \ S H
H [ F O X G L Q J 6 W D J H + 6
6 K D U H > @
F R P S O L D Q W
E \ D F W L Y H
G H R U E L W
F R P S O L D Q W E \
Q D W X U D O G H F D \
Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W
> > > > > > > > > > > >
$ P D W H X U & L Y L O & R P P H U F L D O ' H I H Q V H
Figure 6.20: Share of compliance in terms of clearing the LEO protected region by mission type, for a lifetime limit
of 5 years.
$ F K L H Y H P H Q W V ( 2 / D I W H U E \ D U F K L W H F W X U H W \ S H
H [ F O X G L Q J 6 W D J H + 6
7 R W D O 1 X P E H U > @
F R P S O L D Q W
E \ D F W L Y H
G H R U E L W
F R P S O L D Q W E \
Q D W X U D O G H F D \
Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W
> > > > > >
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
$ F K L H Y H P H Q W V ( 2 / D I W H U E \ D U F K L W H F W X U H W \ S H
H [ F O X G L Q J 6 W D J H + 6
6 K D U H > @
F R P S O L D Q W
E \ D F W L Y H
G H R U E L W
F R P S O L D Q W E \
Q D W X U D O G H F D \
Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W
> > > > > >
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q 1 R Q F R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
Figure 6.21: Compliance in terms of clearing the LEO protected region for constellation and non-constellation
objects, in absolute numbers and in relative share, for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 116/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 3 D \ O R D G V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
& R X Q W V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
( 2 / \ H D U
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 3 D \ O R D G V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
0 D V V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
( 2 / \ H D U
Figure 6.22: 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 end-of-life year, for a lifetime limit of
5 years.
Page 117/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 3 D \ O R D G V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
& R X Q W V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
O D X Q F K \ H D U
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 3 D \ O R D G V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
0 D V V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
O D X Q F K \ H D U
Figure 6.23: 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, for a lifetime limit of 5
years.
Page 118/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 5 R F N H W % R G L H V
& R X Q W V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
( 2 / \ H D U
/ ( 2 F O H D U D Q F H 5 R F N H W % R G L H V
0 D V V > @
& '
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : 7 %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2
( 2 / \ H D U
Figure 6.24: Relative share of disposal behaviour classes over time in terms of number (top) and mass (bottom)
for Rocket Bodies in LEO by end-of-life, i.e. launch year, for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 119/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6 X F F H V V I X O G H R U E L W L Q J D W W H P S W V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
3 D \ O R D G
5 R F N H W % R G \
6 K D U H R I F R P S O L D Q W R E M H F W V > @
( 2 / \ H D U
8 Q V X F F H V V I X O G H R U E L W L Q J D W W H P S W V + 6 H [ F O X G H G
3 D \ O R D G
6 K D U H R I Q R Q F R P S O L D Q W R E M H F W V > @
5 R F N H W % R G \
( 2 / \ H D U
Figure 6.25: Relative shares of success w.r.t. compliance (top) and non-compliance (bottom) over time, excluding
objects associated with human spaceflight, for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 120/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
& R X Q W V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
5 R F N H W % R G L H V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
& R X Q W V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.26: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers, for a lifetime limit of 5
years.
Page 121/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V 0 D V V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
0 D V V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
5 R F N H W % R G L H V 0 D V V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
0 D V V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.27: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of mass, for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 122/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 3 D \ O R D G V
& R X Q W V > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by payloads.
5 R F N H W % R G L H V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 5 R F N H W % R G L H V
& R X Q W V > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC by rocket bodies.
Figure 6.28: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers, excluding naturally
compliant objects where no action was needed or taken, for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 123/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
2 E M H F W V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
& R X Q W V > @
1 D W X U D O O \
& R P S O L D Q W
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(a) Relative clearance of LEOIADC .
2 E M H F W V & O H D U D Q F H L Q / R Z ( D U W K 2 U E L W
H [ O 1 D W X U D O O \ & R P S O L D Q W 2 E M H F W V
& R X Q W V > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( 2 / \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance of LEOIADC excluding naturally compliant objects where no action was needed or taken.
Figure 6.29: Trend of adherence to clearance of LEOIADC over time in terms of numbers, considering payloads
and rocket bodies together, for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 124/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6.1.3.2. Evolution of behavioural classes per mass breakdown
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J
& : 2 & : 2
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(a) 1990 (b) 2000
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m N J
& : 2
& : 2
1 & : 2
1 & : 2
(c) 2010 (d) 2020
Figure 6.30: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass below 10.0 kg for
a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 125/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 2 & : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(a) 1990 (b) 2000
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 2
& : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) % 1 & : 2
1 & : 2
(c) 2010 (d) 2020
Figure 6.31: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass between 10.0 and
100.0 kg for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 126/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 7 %
& : 2 & : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
& ' & '
1 & : ) %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(a) 1990 (b) 2000
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / < m N J
& : 2
& : 2
& : 7 %
& ' & '
& : 7 %
& : ) % 1 & : 2
1 & : ) % 1 & : 2 1 & : ) %
& : ) %
(c) 2010 (d) 2020
Figure 6.32: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass between 100.0
and 1000.0 kg for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 127/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J
& : 2 & : 2
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
& '
& '
& : 7 %
& : ) %
1 & : ) %
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(a) 1990 (b) 2000
/ ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J / ( 2 F R P S O L D Q F H V 3 D \ O R D G V ( 2 / m > N J
& : 2
& : ) % & : 7 %
& : 7 % & : 2
& : ) % 1 & : ) %
& '
1 & : ) %
& '
1 & : 2 1 & : 2
(c) 2010 (d) 2020
Figure 6.33: Breakdown per decade of observed behavioural classes for payloads with a mass above 1000.0 kg
for a lifetime limit of 5 years.
Page 128/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6.1.4. Robustness of the evaluation of compliance shares in LEO
The following 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 and reclas-
sification can take place. Fig. 6.34 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 Fig. 6.34,
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 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.
& R P S O L D Q F H U D W H H [ F O Q D W X U D O O \ F R P S O L D Q W D Q G & '
6 X F F H V V I X O U H G H R U E L W D W W H P S W V I R U 3 D \ O R D G V
5 H S R U W H G L W L R Q
( 2 / \ H D U
Figure 6.34: Successful re-/de-orbit attempts for payloads according to the different report editions, for a lifetime
limit of 25 years.
Page 129/144
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 be 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 for-
mulation [7], 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 attempt 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 [26].
For the rocket bodies delivering payloads in or near the GEO protected region, the long-term disposal orbits are
influenced by a variety of perturbations potentially including Luni-Solar, solar radiation pressure, gravitational res-
onances, and atmospheric drag. This implies that long-term, i.e. over 100 years [8], clearance of both protected
regions by these rocket bodies is only predictable as a stochastic estimate. To assess the adherence by rocket
bodies to the disposal guidelines in a first approximation, we list the amount of rocket bodies predicted to cross one
or both of the protected regions within the next 100 years after launch, as a function of the total number of rocket
bodies that launch payload objects with a destination orbit in GEO. In addition, for those objects crossing the LEO
protected region, an object is marked as LEO-crossing if it crosses LEO and the permanence time in the LEO
region is longer than 25 years. Objects for which no orbital data is available are marked as Not classified.
Page 130/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
& O D V V L I L F D W L R Q R I 2 E M H F W V Q H D U W K H * H R V \ Q F K U R Q R X V 5 L Q J
2 E M H F W V X Q G H U F R Q W U R O
2 E M H F W V L Q G U L I W R U E L W
2 E M H F W V L Q O L E U D W L R Q
1 X P E H U R I 2 E M H F W V > @
/ D X Q F K < H D U
& O D V V L I L F D W L R Q R I 2 E M H F W V Q H D U W K H * H R V \ Q F K U R Q R X V 5 L Q J
( : F R Q W U R O O H G R Q O \
' U L I W F R Q W U R O O H G
( : D Q G 1 6 F R Q W U R O O H G
, Q G H W H U P L Q D W H
+ L J K O \ L Q F O L Q H G
/ L E U D W L Q J D U R X Q G E R W K S R L Q W V
/ L E U D W L Q J D U R X Q G :
/ L E U D W L Q J D U R X Q G (
' U L I W L Q J
Figure 6.35: Orbital evolution status of payloads near the Geostationary orbit during 2024.
Page 131/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G & O H D U D Q F H Q H D U * ( 2IADC
& R X Q W > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( Q G R I / L I H < H D U
(a) Absolute clearance near GEOIADC .
3 D \ O R D G & O H D U D Q F H Q H D U * ( 2IADC
& R X Q W > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( Q G R I / L I H < H D U
(b) Relative clearance near GEOIADC .
Figure 6.36: Trend of adherence to the disposal guideline in GEOIADC .
Page 132/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
3 D \ O R D G & O H D U D Q F H Q H D U * ( 2IADC
0 D V V > W R Q V @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( Q G R I / L I H < H D U
(a) Absolute mass clearance near GEOIADC .
3 D \ O R D G & O H D U D Q F H Q H D U * ( 2IADC
0 D V V > @
6 X F F H V V I X O
$ W W H P S W
, Q V X I I L F L H Q W
$ W W H P S W
1 R $ W W H P S W
( Q G R I / L I H < H D U
(b) Relative mass clearance near GEOIADC .
Figure 6.37: Mass trend of adherence to the disposal guideline in GEOIADC .
Page 133/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
& R P S O L D Q W
* ( 2 D Q G / ( 2 F U R V V L Q J
* ( 2 F U R V V L Q J
/ ( 2 F U R V V L Q J
1 R W F O D V V L I L H G
1 X P E H U R I 5 % V
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
(a) Absolute clearance near GEOIADC .
& R P S O L D Q W
* ( 2 D Q G / ( 2 F U R V V L Q J
* ( 2 F U R V V L Q J
/ ( 2 F U R V V L Q J
1 R W F O D V V L I L H G
6 K D U H R I 5 % V > @
/ D X Q F K \ H D U
(b) Relative clearance near GEOIADC .
Figure 6.38: Trend of adherence to the disposal guideline for rocket bodies used to insert satellites in GEOIADC .
Page 134/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
6.3. End-Of-Life Operations in MEO
Compared to the LEOIADC and GEOIADC regions, MEO contains relatively fewer objects in a larger volume of space.
Notwithstanding the resulting lower space debris density, the region is of importance for global navigation and
communication constellations, and crossed by space objects with large eccentricity and semi-major axis orbits.
Space debris mitigation guidelines call for the avoidance of space debris dense regions by means of targeted
disposals, even outside the protected regions [13]. With this perspective in mind, it is instructive to show the
orbital disposal behaviour of Payload objects in this region.
Page 135/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
$ F W L Y H
, Q D F W L Y H
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
(a) MEO region
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
$ F W L Y H
, Q D F W L Y H
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
(b) GNSS constellations
Figure 6.39: Distribution of payloads in MEO in mean altitude and inclination, distinguishing by activity status
(symbols) and constellation (colour).
Page 136/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
7. ENVIRONMENT METRICS
7.1. Environmental Index in 2023
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 [27] 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 [28] 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 [29]. 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 payload, 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: By far, most of the risk is associated to inactive objects
(97%), with the largest contribution coming from spent rocket bodies.
Page 137/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
$ F W L Y H 3 D \ O R D G
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
, Q D F W L Y H 3 D \ O R D G
5 R F N H W % R G \
, Q F O L Q D W L R Q > G H J @
0 H D Q D O W L W X G H > N P @
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.
, Q D F W L Y H 3 D \ O R D G
& R Q V W H O O D W L R Q
$ F W L Y H 3 D \ O R D G
5 R F N H W % R G \
Figure 7.2: Distribution of the total index among object categories.
Page 138/144
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 (Extr) of the current behaviour in terms of launch traffic, explosion rates, and disposal
success rates;
• No future launches (NFL), where it is assumed that no launch takes place after 2024.
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-4 [30] 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 2025). For each object, physical characteristics such as mass, cross-sectional area,
and orbital parameters are retrieved, while 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 annual explosion rate is taken from statistics on non-system related fragmentations over the last 18 years
(Table 5.2). In the No future launches scenario, we assume a linear decline in the explosion rate, reaching zero
after the first 18 years. No explosion event is simulated after this period, as Fig. 5.8 shows that 95% of non-system-
related fragmentation events occur within 18 years of launch, as described in Section 5.2.
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 2024, discounting the contribution from constellations. For
each constellation, in-orbit or planned (according to the definition given in Section 1.1), a model of deployment
and replenishment was defined using publicly available data. For these constellation Payloads, a capability to
successfully perform collision avoidance manoeuvres is assumed for objects with propulsion for as long as they
are active in the simulation.
A fixed operational lifetime of eight years is assumed for Payloads not belonging to a constellation instead of the
values derived in this report, in line with current long-term space debris environment modelling practices. Spe-
cific values are used for Payloads belonging to constellations, 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 of objects with End-Of-Life equal or later than 2017. In par-
ticular, the post-mission disposal success rate is set to 70% for rocket bodies and 15% for payloads, to reflect
the slow but upwards trend in compliance in combination with the shifting traffic towards destination orbits with
lifetimes below 25 years. For constellation Payloads, specific values for the post-mission disposal success rate
and lifetime are again taken depending on currently available information, else are assumed to be 90% and 25
years respectively. These baseline values reflect the bare minimum identified in [13], whereas in practice, far
higher rates of compliance would need to be observed over time to limit the long-term growth of the space debris
population.
The evolution of the number of objects larger than 10 cm and the cumulative number of catastrophic collisions, i.e.
collisions leading to the complete destruction of target and impactor, are shown in Fig. 7.3 and Fig. 7.4: the bold
line for each scenario represents the mean value over all the Monte Carlo runs, while the lighter-coloured lines
indicate the outcome of each individual 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
[31].
Page 139/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
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
at least 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 2.7
improves the situation [32], the implementation of all space debris mitigation strategies are necessary to avoid an
adverse future.
Establishing the space debris growth rates based on the status of annual environment snapshots provides an
estimate for the consequences of the current levels of global space debris mitigation. To analyse trends in the pre-
dicted environment evolution, additional scenarios can be simulated using different starting epochs, while adopting
the logic laid out above for what concerns deriving space traffic settings for the model.
In particular, in addition to the starting points generated from past and current editions of the report, other two
reference epochs (at 2014 and 2005) were defined, for which the corresponding launch traffic, explosion rate, and
disposal rates were extracted from the data in DISCOS. The years 2014 and 2005 are not chosen arbitrarily, but
respectively correspond to the last year before the fundamental change in launch traffic (due to the increase in
usage of small satellites) and the adoption of the IADC mitigation guidelines in national practices.
The number of objects larger than 10 cm in the final population and the final cumulative number of catastrophic
collisions at the end of the simulation are shown in Fig. 7.5 and Fig. 7.6, where red is used for the extrapolation
scenarios and dark blue for no further launches. For each simulation, this end date is 200 years after the starting
point.
Boxplots are used to visualise the spread of results over the runs: the box covers the range between the first and
the third quartile, with the horizontal line within the box indicating the median; the whiskers indicate the distance
of 1.5 the interquartile range in both directions and any datapoint outside this range is considered an outlier and
indicated with a small dot. For Fig. 7.5, the number of objects at each starting epoch is further denoted by a grey
triangle. It is important to note that in all extrapolation scenarios the simulated space debris environment continues
to deteriorate. Under the current extrapolation conditions, the amount of catastrophic collision could rise quickly.
Even under the no further launches scenarios, the amount of space debris objects is observed to increase in all
cases.
Page 140/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 R I X U W K H U O D X Q F K H V
( [ W U D S R O D W L R Q
2 E M H F W V ! F P L Q / ( 2
< H D U
Figure 7.3: Number of objects in LEOIADC in the simulated scenarios of long-term evolution of the environment.
& X P X O D W L Y H Q X P E H U R I F D W D V W U R S K L F F R O O L V L R Q V
1 R I X U W K H U O D X Q F K H V
( [ W U D S R O D W L R Q
< H D U
Figure 7.4: Number of cumulative collisions in LEOIADC in the simulated scenarios of long-term evolution of the
environment.
Page 141/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
1 ) /
2 E M H F W V ! F P L Q W K H I L Q D O S R S X O D W L R Q
( [ W U
6 W D U W L Q J \ H D U
Figure 7.5: Number of objects in LEOIADC in the simulated scenarios of long-term evolution of the environment.
The number of objects at each starting epoch is denoted by a grey triangle.
& X P X O D W L Y H Q X P E H U R I F D W D V W U R S K L F F R O O L V L R Q V
1 ) /
( [ W U
6 W D U W L Q J \ H D U
Figure 7.6: Number of cumulative collisions in LEOIADC in the simulated scenarios of long-term evolution of the
environment.
Page 142/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
References
[1] United Nations. Guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities (A/AC.105/C.1/L.366),
2019.
[2] Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, IADC-02-01,
Revision 4, 2025.
[3] European Space Agency. ESA Space Debris Mitigation Requirements, ESSB-ST-U-007, Issue 1.
https://technology.esa.int/upload/media/
ESA-Space-Debris-Mitigation-Requirements-ESSB-ST-U-007-Issue1.pdf, 2023.
[4] European Space Agency. ESA Space Debris Mitigation Policy, ESA/ADMIN/IPOL(2023)1.
https://technology.esa.int/upload/media/
ESA-ADMIN-IPOL-2023-1-Space-Debris-Mitigation-Policy-Final.pdf, 2023.
[5] 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.
[6] United Nations. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972.
[7] Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 2002.
[8] International Standards Organisation. Space systems - Space debris mitigation requirements, ISO TC
20/SC 14 24113:2019, 2019.
[9] European Space Agency. Database and information system characterising objects in space.
https://discosweb.esoc.esa.int/, 2021. Accessed: 2024-06-01.
[10] T.S. Kelso. CelesTrak. https://celestrak.com/.
[11] Union of Concerned Scientists. Satellite Database.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database.
[12] International Standards Organisation. Space systems - Estimation of orbit lifetimes, ISO TC 20/SC 14
27852:2016, 2016.
[13] Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, IADC-02-01,
Revision 3, 2021.
[14] United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. United Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer
Space. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/spaceobjectregister/index.html.
[15] United Nations. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1974.
[16] European Space Agency. ESA’s Fragmentation Database. https://fragmentation.esoc.esa.int/, 2020.
Accessed: 2024-06-01.
[17] 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.
[18] United States Space Force’s 18th Space Control Squadron. Space-track.
https://www.space-track.org/, 2021. Accessed: 2024-06-01.
[19] K. T. Alfriend, M. R. Akella, J. Frisbee, J. L. Foster, D. J. Lee, and M. Wilkins. Probability of collision error
Page 143/144
ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Releasable to the Public
analysis. Space Debris, 1(1):21–35, 1999.
[20] ESA Space Debris Office. Assessment of Risk Event Statistics (ARES).
https://sdup.esoc.esa.int/drama/downloads/documentation/Technical-Note-ARES.pdf, 2019.
[21] 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.
[22] 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.
[23] 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.
[24] 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,
Proceedings of the conference, 1993.
[25] 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.
[26] ESA Space Debris Office. Classification of Geosynchronous Objects. Issue 26.
GEN-DB-LOG-00290-OPS-SD, ESA/ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany, 2024.
[27] C. Wiedemann, A. Horstmann, S. Hesselbach, 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.
[28] 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.
[29] 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.
[30] A. Horstmann, S. Hesselbach, C. Wiedemann, S. Flegel, and M. Oswald. Enhancement of S/C
Fragmentation and Environment Evolution Models. Final Report of ESA contract 4000115973/15/D/SR,
2020.
[31] 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.
[32] H.G Lewis. Evaluation of debris mitigation options for a large constellation. Journal of Space Safety
Engineering, 7:192–197, 2020.
Page 144/144
You might also like
- Annette Froehlich - Space Security and Legal Aspects of Active Debris Removal (2019) PDFNo ratings yetAnnette Froehlich - Space Security and Legal Aspects of Active Debris Removal (2019) PDF188 pages
- Space Debris and Orbital Sustainability BGNo ratings yetSpace Debris and Orbital Sustainability BG13 pages
- Space Debris Reasons Types Impacts and ManagementNo ratings yetSpace Debris Reasons Types Impacts and Management8 pages
- ARR Draft For Peer Review, Zachary OverfieldNo ratings yetARR Draft For Peer Review, Zachary Overfield18 pages
- ESSB-HB-U-002-Issue1-19February2015 Space Debris Mitigations Compliance Verification GuidelinesNo ratings yetESSB-HB-U-002-Issue1-19February2015 Space Debris Mitigations Compliance Verification Guidelines95 pages
- Weekly Current Affairs (30th July To 05th Aug)No ratings yetWeekly Current Affairs (30th July To 05th Aug)32 pages
- Economic Aspects of Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities and Space Traffic ManagementNo ratings yetEconomic Aspects of Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities and Space Traffic Management22 pages
- ECSS U 10 Space Debris TEC QI (2023 03 28)No ratings yetECSS U 10 Space Debris TEC QI (2023 03 28)71 pages
- Space Debris Tracking, Aadit Garg (22ba003)No ratings yetSpace Debris Tracking, Aadit Garg (22ba003)12 pages
- Finding A Viable Economic Solution To Space Debris RemovalNo ratings yetFinding A Viable Economic Solution To Space Debris Removal13 pages
- Topic Area B: Tracking and Removing Orbital DebrisNo ratings yetTopic Area B: Tracking and Removing Orbital Debris11 pages
- Space Debris: Assessing Risks and Strategic Mitigation for Sustainable Space Operations: A Qualitative StudyNo ratings yetSpace Debris: Assessing Risks and Strategic Mitigation for Sustainable Space Operations: A Qualitative Study15 pages
- Space Debris As A Threat To Space SustainabilityNo ratings yetSpace Debris As A Threat To Space Sustainability13 pages
- Guaranteeing The Future of Space Activities by Protecting The EnvironmentNo ratings yetGuaranteeing The Future of Space Activities by Protecting The Environment20 pages
- IRGC (2021) - Collision Risk From Space Debris - Current Status, Challenges and Response StrategiesNo ratings yetIRGC (2021) - Collision Risk From Space Debris - Current Status, Challenges and Response Strategies50 pages
- Space Debris and Other Threats From Outer Space (PDFDrive)No ratings yetSpace Debris and Other Threats From Outer Space (PDFDrive)85 pages
- bài đọc 4 hsg- Conquering - Earth's - space - junk - problemNo ratings yetbài đọc 4 hsg- Conquering - Earth's - space - junk - problem11 pages
- Space Debris - Model - UN - Articles - For Reference - 2No ratings yetSpace Debris - Model - UN - Articles - For Reference - 28 pages
- Space Debris Hazard Evaluation and Debris 1st Edition N.N. Smirnov (Editor) 2024 Scribd Download100% (7)Space Debris Hazard Evaluation and Debris 1st Edition N.N. Smirnov (Editor) 2024 Scribd Download70 pages
- Download ebooks file Space Debris Hazard Evaluation and Debris 1st Edition N.N. Smirnov (Editor) all chapters100% (10)Download ebooks file Space Debris Hazard Evaluation and Debris 1st Edition N.N. Smirnov (Editor) all chapters50 pages
- Optical Surveys For Space Debris: Thomas SchildknechtNo ratings yetOptical Surveys For Space Debris: Thomas Schildknecht71 pages
- Large Satellite Constellation Orbital Debris Impacts: Case Studies of Oneweb and Spacex ProposalsNo ratings yetLarge Satellite Constellation Orbital Debris Impacts: Case Studies of Oneweb and Spacex Proposals15 pages
- Gis636 Space Debris Literature Review - Latifi JoridaNo ratings yetGis636 Space Debris Literature Review - Latifi Jorida6 pages
- Download Full Space Debris Hazard Evaluation and Debris 1st Edition N.N. Smirnov (Editor) PDF All Chapters100% (4)Download Full Space Debris Hazard Evaluation and Debris 1st Edition N.N. Smirnov (Editor) PDF All Chapters47 pages
- Space Debris Mitigation in Aerospace LifeNo ratings yetSpace Debris Mitigation in Aerospace Life16 pages
- Statistics and Data on Outer Space IssuesNo ratings yetStatistics and Data on Outer Space Issues6 pages
- Landscape dimensions: Reflections and proposals for the implementation of the European Landscape ConventionFrom EverandLandscape dimensions: Reflections and proposals for the implementation of the European Landscape ConventionNo ratings yet
- Calibration Methods For An Aerolab 375 Sting Balance To Be Used in Wind Tunnel TestingNo ratings yetCalibration Methods For An Aerolab 375 Sting Balance To Be Used in Wind Tunnel Testing47 pages
- ISS Satellite Deployment Nanoracks Value PropositionNo ratings yetISS Satellite Deployment Nanoracks Value Proposition3 pages
- Log in To Mynasa - Sign Up: Followthislinkto Login TomynasaNo ratings yetLog in To Mynasa - Sign Up: Followthislinkto Login Tomynasa5 pages
- Aerodynamic Measurements at Low Reynolds Numbers For Fixed Wing Micro-Air VehiclesNo ratings yetAerodynamic Measurements at Low Reynolds Numbers For Fixed Wing Micro-Air Vehicles33 pages
- Cansat 2019 Post Flight Review (PFR) Outline: Team # 6160 Grizu-263No ratings yetCansat 2019 Post Flight Review (PFR) Outline: Team # 6160 Grizu-26348 pages
- Mcklnney - Some Trim Drag Considerations For Maneuvering Aircraft (1971)No ratings yetMcklnney - Some Trim Drag Considerations For Maneuvering Aircraft (1971)7 pages
- Forensic Ballistics: Queenda C. Arcibal, Rcrim, CcsNo ratings yetForensic Ballistics: Queenda C. Arcibal, Rcrim, Ccs9 pages
- The Most Advanced Medium-Class Launch VehicleNo ratings yetThe Most Advanced Medium-Class Launch Vehicle2 pages
- Brazilian Aviation History: The University of São Paulo CaseNo ratings yetBrazilian Aviation History: The University of São Paulo Case8 pages
- Brief History of Aircraft Structures and Major Structural StressesNo ratings yetBrief History of Aircraft Structures and Major Structural Stresses6 pages
- Isro Trivandrum Visit to Witness the Live Rocket Launch (Students Copy)No ratings yetIsro Trivandrum Visit to Witness the Live Rocket Launch (Students Copy)3 pages
