Next Article in Journal
Contour Mission Flight Planning of UAV for Photogrammetric in Hillside Areas
Next Article in Special Issue
De-Orbit Maneuver Demonstration Results of Micro-Satellite ALE-1 with a Separable Drag Sail
Previous Article in Journal
Will Artificial Intelligence Provide Answers to Current Gaps and Needs in Chronic Heart Failure?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Numerical Modelling of High-Speed Loading of Periodic Interpenetrating Heterogeneous Media with Adapted Mesostructure
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 13
10.3390/app13137664
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Design of the Sabot-Stopping System for a Single-Stage Light-Gas Gun for High-Velocity Impacts

by
Leonardo Barilaro
1,*,
Mark Wylie
2 and
Theeba Shafeeg
2
1
Department of Aviation, The Malta College of Arts, Science & Technology, Triq Kordin, PLA 9032 Paola, Malta
2
Department of Aerospace, Mechanical and Electronic Engineering, South East Technological University (SETU), Carlow Campus, Kilkenny Rd, Moanacurragh, R93 V960 Carlow, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(13), 7664; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13137664
Submission received: 11 May 2023 / Revised: 16 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 28 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Space Debris)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Collisions of space debris and micrometeorites with spacecraft represent an existential hazard for human activities in near-Earth orbits. Currently, guidelines, policies, and best practices are encouraged to help mitigate further propagation of this space debris field from redundant spacecraft and satellites. However, the existing space debris field is an environment that still poses a great threat and requires the design of contingency and fail-safe systems for new spacecraft. In this context, both the monitoring and tracking of space debris impact paths, along with knowledge of spacecraft design features that can withstand such impacts, are essential. Regarding the latter, terrestrial test facilities allow for replicating of space debris collisions in a safe and controlled laboratory environment. In particular, light-gas guns allow launching impactors at speeds in the high-velocity and hypervelocity ranges. The data acquired from these tests can be employed to validate in-orbit observations and structural simulations and to verify spacecraft components’ survivability. Typically, projectiles are launched and protected using a sabot system. This assembly, known as a launch package, is fired towards a sabot-stopping system. The sabot separates from the rest of the launch package, to avoid target contamination, and allows the projectile to travel towards the target through an opening in the assembly. The response and survivability of the sabot-stopping system, along with the transmission of the forces to the light-gas gun structure and prevention of target contamination, is an important design feature of these test apparatuses. In the framework of the development of Malta’s first high-velocity impact facility, particular attention was dedicated to this topic: in this paper, the description of a novel sabot-stopping system is provided. The system described in this research is mechanically decoupled from the interaction with the impact chamber and the light-gas gun pump tube; this solution avoids damage in case of failures and allows easier operations during the pre- and post-test phases.

1. Introduction

Space debris refers to man-made objects that have been left in orbit around the Earth, such as old satellites, rocket stages, and debris from past space missions. They can range in size from tiny fragments to large, multi-ton objects. The artificial space debris materials can be divided into seven types, which are polymers, non-metal debris, metals and their alloys, oxides, sulphides and their analogs, halides, and carbides. However, aluminium alloys are the most common materials that can lead to the creation of space junk. On the other hand, micrometeorites are tiny natural particles that come from comets, asteroids, and other celestial bodies. They can be formed of a range of substances, such as silicates, iron, and carbonaceous minerals, and are typically less than 1 mm in size. Due to the great speeds at which they travel, even small particles can cause significant damage upon impact, representing a risk to spacecraft and satellites in orbit around the Earth for both space debris and micrometeorites. Therefore, it is important to track and monitor these objects to help protect space assets [1].
The potential for polluting the low-Earth environment with space debris became evident shortly after the first decade of space exploration [2]; more recent investigations highlighted the continuous degradation of the debris environment [3]. In addition, the constant increase in the launch of small satellites [4] as well as the high number of vehicles for large satellite constellations pose an additional risk to the access to low-Earth orbits (LEO) [5,6,7]. Collisions with debris (e.g., [8]) or with uncontrolled large bodies (e.g., [9]) have already affected operational satellites. Unless the most hazardous objects are removed from LEO orbit [10] and all satellites are provided with end-of-life disposal systems [11,12,13,14], only policies and regulations can currently mitigate a further environment degradation and limit the hazards for operative satellites [15,16].
In this context, developing and updating debris population models [17] as well as analysing the vulnerability of spacecraft architectures and components [18,19] is essential to finding solutions for reducing the degradation of the debris environment. In addition, ground test activities on large [20,21,22] and small [23,24] spacecraft mock-ups, CubeSat [25] and Picosat [26,27] models, as well as the development of numerical simulation tools [28,29,30,31,32] through the utilization of ground test data and space breakup event observations are fundamental steps in understanding the generation of space debris formation [25].
On these considerations, the utilization of test facilities [33] that allow replicating collisions in a safe and controlled laboratory environment is still relevant today, and the development of this type of facility is a result of the IADC guidelines for space debris mitigation [25,34]. In particular, light-gas guns (LGG) allow launching impactors at speeds in the high-velocity and the hypervelocity ranges [35,36,37]. In this context, the Malta College of Arts, Science & Technology (MCAST) is developing a novel LGG facility [38] with operational ranges that will allow testing velocities typical of GEO impacts. In particular, system designs from similar facilities [39,40] have been adopted to reduce the maintenance requirements of such a facility and increase the number of tests that can be performed in a single day.
In the development of a hypervelocity impact facility, significant attention is focused on several crucial components, including the launch package and the sabot-stopping system. The launch package serves as a protection for the projectile during acceleration, while the sabot-stopping system is responsible for halting the sabot. Typically, launch-gas guns (LGGs) employ an expandable sabot system to house the projectile. Subsequently, after the acceleration phase, the sabot disengages from the projectile, fragmenting to prevent target contamination. However, this approach can cause damage to the sabot-stopping system, necessitating either complete replacement or time-consuming maintenance [2]. This research paper tackles this issue by presenting an innovative solution: a reusable and modular design for the sabot-stopping system. The objective is to develop a design that ensures operational safety, requires less maintenance compared to conventional LGG designs, and minimizes the transmission of impact forces to the LGG structure. The subsequent sections provide an overview of MCAST’s LGG and a description of the sabot-stopping system, followed by an explanation of the advantages offered by this solution.

2. Single-Stage LGG Overview

In this section, an overview of the single-stage LGG being developed for the MCAST Impacts Facility is presented; in addition, the preliminary layout of the facility is described. The design of the single-stage LGG takes into account the following objectives:
  • To establish a high-velocity impact test facility that can conduct testing for the aviation and space industries. The selected range of projectile velocities is suitable for testing impacts on aircraft parts as well as simulating low-speed impacts, like those observed in GEO orbit [41]. The LGG aims at replicating mainly impacts due to metal impactors, mainly aluminium alloys [42]. Its modular setup can also be adapted to other types of projectiles simulating space debris, such as plastics and silica materials.
  • To set up a laboratory capable of working in conjunction with other European hypervelocity research centres, such as the one at the University of Padova [40]. The Centre of Studies and Activities for Space “Giuseppe Colombo” (CISAS) at the University of Padova hosts a world-class experimental facility for hypervelocity impacts (HVI), utilizing a two-stage LGG system. This two-stage LGG is capable of launching projectiles weighing up to approximately 100 mg at velocities of up to 5.5 km/s. Lower velocities of up to 2.5 km/s can be reached for impactors that are heavier (up to 1 g). The MCAST single-stage LGG facility, which has been developed to accommodate higher launch package weights ranging from 15 to 40 g and enable testing at lower speeds, complements this by expanding the operational range of test campaigns. The Malta facility also has a larger impact testing chamber than the one at CISAS, providing greater experimental versatility. This increased capability makes it easier to conduct comprehensive studies on novel materials that are suitable for use in aviation and space applications.
  • Establishing an LGG facility is to achieve a cost-effective experimental setup that delivers high performance and high frequency while minimizing installation and maintenance expenses.
In the following subsection, the main layout will be described.

LGG Layout

The investigation of gas dynamic aspects for a new single-stage LGG for the MCAST Hypervelocity Impacts Facility is the first step for the definition of the layout. One of the most important parameters is the projectile’s velocity when it hits the target [43], with a focus on the effect of initial loading parameters on the projectile’s velocity as it exits the launch tube [44]. The projectile’s velocity is influenced by initial factors such as gas pressure and compressibility. According to the theory, there is a nonlinear relationship between the initial pressure and the velocity as the gas leaves the barrel. Consequently, a dedicated model in MatlabTM SimulinkTM was developed to accurately simulate the performance of the LGG. The data obtained from the model serve as driver inputs for designing the first-stage reservoir, determining the pump tube length, and selecting the appropriate launch package.
Figure 1 represents the key parts of the single-stage LGG. The launch package, which consists of the protective sabot and the projectile, is accommodated in the pump tube downward and is accelerated with the high-pressure gas from the first stage. The first-stage reservoir contains an inert gas, such as helium (He), under high pressure. After the acceleration phase, a sabot-stopping system enables the projectile to be detached from the sabot; the mechanism of this system is described in Section 3. Two laser blades in the launch tube monitor the projectile’s trajectory toward the target while measuring its velocity; the projectile finally impacts the target in the impact chamber.
A range of pressure values have been considered for the reservoir. The launch package of 40 g at 150 bar allows for velocities up to ≈500 m/s to be achieved using a 3 m long pump tube, as shown in Figure 2.

3. Sabot-Stopping System Conceptual Design

In the development of an LGG system, the structural integrity of the sabot-stopping system is critical to the repeatability and accuracy of the test apparatus [45]. The sudden deceleration, subsequent high forces, and potential for misalignment can damage and fragment the sabot-stopping system, leading to target contamination. An adequate design that will not yield or partially fail due to high strain deformation is required for the characterisation of this system, specifically input/output parameters with the sabot. While there are many serviceable elements in an LGG design, the sabot-stopping system is still the most susceptible element and may require replacement after a few impacts, even under normal operation, causing significant delays to the test campaign as the system may need calibration and characterisation after each replacement. This project proposes the design of a reusable sabot-stopping system (>20 shots) to reduce the likelihood of this issue.
The development of this concept led to the design of a technical solution where the sabot does not expand and break away, since the speed range and projectile masses involved allow for a simpler solution. It is proposed that the sabot can consist of a hollow cylinder closed at the bottom end, from which the projectile comes out after the sabot is stopped. The design of this sabot will be defined at a later stage of the described work.
The concept of the system is schematically shown in Figure 3, which also demonstrates the dissipation mechanism principle for the impact force. A tentative configuration of the key elements is shown in Figure 4. The holder for the sacrificial impact tube assembly, which consists of an impact plate with a rubber disc surrounding it and a rubber cylinder behind it, is part of the sabot system. After the shot, the primary component in interacting directly with the sabot is the impact tube. Between the impact chamber and the LGG pump tube, the holder is inserted into a supporting frame with flanges that allow for different mounting options. Several tests can be completed in a single day due to the unique design of the single-stage LGG, whose components are not destroyed or compromised during shot operations. The novel sabot-stopping system proposed here is also designed to mechanically decouple the target from the sabot-stopping system, overcoming the transmission of unwanted vibrations to the target.
This leads to more accurate and reliable results, making the proposed system highly suitable for use in LGG systems.
Additionally, the suggested sabot-stopping system enables high-velocity projectile testing while minimizing system perturbations and reducing calibration and characterization time, thereby enhancing testing efficiency. Furthermore, by eliminating the risk of target contamination, it improves the accuracy of the testing process, making it applicable in various domains [46,47]. The proposed system design carries significant implications for the progress of LGG systems, and it is expected to contribute significantly to the advancement of this field.

3.1. System Overview

The conceptual overview of the system is described here. The launch package hits the sabot-stopping system and delivers a force to the impact tube, which is dissipated via the rubber cylinder, stopping the sabot and allowing the projectile to continue its path to the target. The LGG supporting structure is protected by the transferred momentum using the properties of stiffness and damping of a rubber disc and cylinder. Radial deformations are reduced by the disc design that surrounds the tube, while axial deformations are kept to a minimum by the cylinder. By adopting this approach, it is possible to protect the holder, which is held up by the support structure and restrained by the two flanges. This structure has the advantage of allowing for the replacement and testing of a variety of impact tube types without adding to the system’s complexity [48].
The detailed study of this system is divided into three phases.
A mass-spring-damper SimulinkTM model has first been implemented to evaluate the system’s reaction force to an impact; the next phase involves doing a finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate the behaviour of the LGG supporting structure.
The third phase involves the structural FEA of the rubber cylinder (partial). Figure 5 presents a general overview of the sabot-stopping system, while Figure 6 shows the sabot-stopping system exploded view, highlighting the main components, in particular the impact tube, rubber disc, holder, and supporting structure.

3.2. System Design

The design of this system is based on results from the parametric dynamic model investigation of the system developed in SimulinkTM, the structure FEA of the LGG supporting structure, and the structural FEA of the rubber cylinder structure (partial) from the sabot-stopping system.
The first part of the design developed a mass-spring-damper SimulinkTM model to assess the reaction force of the system to the impact.
The highest load condition case has been considered in order to have a conservative evaluation. The Simulink model has the following set:
  • Gas: Helium at 150 bar,
  • Launch package mass: m = 40 g,
  • All the launch package is supposed to impact the sabot stopper (worst-case scenario).
Knowing the velocity of the launch package allows for the calculation of the transferred momentum, and following this, the reaction forces of the structure due to the impact. The first evaluations, using different time interval dt, assessed a range of this force between F = 1 × 106 N and F = 1 × 107 N.
The results of this first phase allow for the definition of a preliminary design of the sacrificial tube, made of Fe-310 steel, to minimise the production costs (Figure 7).
The preliminary structural FEA to assess the behaviour of the LGG structure has been performed with the following conservative assumptions:
  • All the impact forces are transmitted to the supporting structure,
  • Fixed constrains are used, even though in the real situation, the other components will help in the damping effect after the shot.
The results show, Figure 8, that in this worst case, the structure’s deformation is within reasonable limits (approximately 7 mm).
This first set of results have been used as a baseline for the design procedure described in the following subsection. This details the third phase, which is the structural FEA of the rubber cylinder damping tube.

3.3. Energy Damping System Design

This section will describe a set of simulations carried out on the most critical energy damping component, i.e., the rubber cylinder. In an effort to understand more about the deformation and the stresses in the energy damper rubber cylinder, a non-linear dynamic hyper-elastic FEM of a 20 mm long partial section was created and shown in Figure 9. In these preliminary studies, only a section of the rubber cylinder was analysed to reduce computational resources via high element count.
The main goal of these studies is to help specify the appropriate rubber material that can withstand the impact of the sabot with projectile for multiple consecutive impacts. The predicted deformation can also help with designing a key component that will not deform such that it will be placed in the path of the projectile and cause contamination of the target impact. The dimensions chosen are a first iteration to study the behaviour of the component; the results will be used to guide the final design.
For these initial studies, 5-parameter Mooney Rivlin constants (C10 = −0.55 MPa, C01 = 0.7 MPa, C20 = 1.7 MPa, C11 = 2.5 MPa, C02 = −0.9 MPa) were adopted and taken from the ANSYS materials library. A mass density of 1000 kg/m3 and Poisson’s ratio of 0.49 was assigned and amounted to a rubber cylinder mass of 145 g. Rayleigh damping constants for the mass (α) and stiffness (β) matrix were taken as 1.26 and 8.69 × 10−6, respectively.
The sabot and projectile, having a mass of 40 g, will make contact with the impact tube, transferring the full momentum to the energy damping system (rubber cylinder). This is a conservative assumption. It is also assumed that the impact tube and the rubber cylinder will share the same impact surface dimensions. The velocity of this assembly is taken as 250 m/s and amounts to 1250 J. Equating strain energy to work and using an estimated travel of 0.003 m, the impact force is taken as 416.6 kN.
The rubber disk is held in a cylindrical metal tube holder and is pressed stationary against the exiting wall. The transfer of momentum upon impact between the sabot and rubber disk causes the rubber disk to compress along its longitudinal axis; but also, through conservation of volume, a reduction of the internal rubber tube diameter occurs. The full surface contact is assumed between the sabot and the rubber disk.
In the FEM, the impact force is applied to all nodes on face 1 and acting in the direction along the longitudinal axis, while the opposite end of the disk (face 2) is fixed in all D.O.F., representing the fixed exiting wall surface. Nodes on the surface of the outer cylinder wall are fixed in all D.O.F. of the cylinders longitudinal axis, i.e., the external diameter is fixed, representing the metal tube wall holder.
Figure 10 shows the model boundary conditions. The duration of the solution time is based on the period, i.e., 1/eigenfrequency. This period was then scaled by a factor of three to ensure capture of three full waves. A modal study predicted the first significant mode (70% mass participation) at 533 Hz, resulting in a solution time of 5.62 ms. The time-step was then estimated by dividing the maximum element dimension (4 mm) in the direction of the wave propagation divided by the speed of sound in rubber, taken as 39 m/s, and this amounted to a time-step of 0.1 ms. This technique is taken from the literature [49].
Mesh density sensitivity was considered for each model. Element size, element growth ratio, and model discretization of the curved surfaces were adjusted and inspected for the maximum element aspect ratio. The meshing of the model employed blended curvature-based solid tetrahedral 3D elements with 16 Jacobian points, resulting in approximately 160 k elements and 227 k nodes, with a maximum element size of 2 mm. An element growth ratio of 1.4 was utilized, and the maximum aspect ratio was 4; 99.8% of elements remained below 3. Refer to Figure 11 for a view of the meshed model.

4. Results

The study leads to four major findings, i.e., a design layout for the LGG, a novel sabot-stopping system, a structural FEA revealing deflection of the sabot stand under a specified force, and the development of a FEM for the rubber cylinder component.
Regarding the first point, the design layout for the single-stage LGG at MCAST is presented, with a chosen configuration featuring a 3 m pump tube and launch package of 40 g, able to reach a maximum velocity of ≈500 m/s. This approach was selected to have a complementary operative range with other facilities hosting a two-stage LGG, similar to the LGG at the CISAS of the University of Padova, which is able to shoot at higher speeds but with smaller projectile masses.
A novel sabot-stopping system is also introduced. It is unique from standard LGG systems that absorb a sabot which breaks apart into multiple sections. Instead, the proposed system allows for a novel design that can absorb and dissipate the energy of a solid sabot that can be machined from a single cylinder and thus, allows for multiple shots using the same sabot-stopping setup, reducing cost and test set-up time.
A structural FEA of the sabot-stopping system stand, the structure that mounts the system to the concrete ground, was carried out. It was found that the sabot stand has a maximum deflection of 7 mm when hit with a 1 × 107 N force.
A FEM was developed for one of the energy damping components of the system, the rubber cylinder.
The FEM was used to estimate the maximum von Mises stress predicted for the rubber cylinder, which was found to be 2.46 MPa (Figure 12). This value is lower than the typical yield strength for rubber (10 MPa) and is within acceptable limits. It is important to note, however, that the stress distribution is not uniform across the rubber cylinder. In fact, the maximum stress occurs at the inner hole on the opposite face to the impact. This could potentially cause an issue if the projectile clearance with the impactor is less than 2 mm, as the maximum displacement predicted (1.96 mm) occurs at the inner hole (Figure 13). This results in a conical decrease of the diameter, which could lead to a collision or interference of the projectile with the sabot-stopping system. To illustrate this issue, Figure 14 has been included, which shows the potential for collision or interference. If such an event were to occur, it could cause the failure of the region in the impactor tube, which could result in contamination of the projectile and/or the target. It is therefore important to carefully consider the displacement relating to the reduction of the length of the impactor tube, which amounted to 0.8 mm.
The study focused on analysing the von Mises stress distribution resulting from a single impact between the sabot and the rubber stopper. However, it is important to note that the study, at this stage, did not include an evaluation of fatigue (i.e., performance requirements for the required number of tests), damage tolerance, or fail-safe considerations, all of which are crucial for design and safety purposes.

5. Conclusions

This paper presents an overview of the development of Malta’s first high-velocity impact facility, with focus on the design process of a novel sabot-stopping system. The system described is mechanically decoupled in the interaction with the impact chamber and the light-gas gun pump tube; this solution avoids damage in the event of failures and allows easier operation during the pre- and post-test phases.
The structural FEM of the rubber cylinder after impact with the sabot predicts a displacement that results in a decrease of the rubber stopper internal diameter of ≈2 mm. Elastomeric material selection, such as EPDM or nitrile, and specification according to the designated standard will be used in future FEMs. The simulations will also be extended to a velocity range up to 500 m/s.
Material characterisation using a prototype is essential for non-linear behaviour estimation and FEM validation.
Results confirm the feasibility of the proposed design and identify the main parameters determining the performance of the full system. Based on the preliminary results of the simulations conducted on the energy damping components of the sabot-stopping system, some critical design issues have been identified that need to be addressed before the LGG can be fully implemented and used for testing and research purposes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.B.; Methodology, L.B., M.W. and T.S.; Formal analysis, L.B., M.W. and T.S.; Writing—original draft, L.B.; Writing—review & editing, L.B. and M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

This activity has been performed in the framework of a collaboration among the Department of Aviation at the Malta College of Arts, Science & Technology (MCAST), Malta; the Aerospace, Mechanical and Electronic Department at South East Technological University (SETU), Carlow campus, Ireland; and the Centre of Studies and Activities for Space (CISAS) “G. Colombo” of the University of Padova, Italy. The authors wish to thank Lorenzo Cocola, Roberto Tiscio, and Marco Chiaradia for the support to the design process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acronyms/Abbreviations

CISASCentre of Studies and Activities for Space
DOFDegrees of Freedom
FEAFinite Element Analysis
FEMFinite Element Model
HVIHypervelocity impact
IADCInter-Agency Space Debris Committee
GEOGeostationary Orbit
LEOLow Earth Orbit
LGGLight-Gas Gun
MCASTMalta College of Arts, Science and Technology
MMODMicrometeoroids and Orbital Debris
SETUSouth East Technological University

References

  1. Kessler, D.J.; Cour-Palais, B.G. Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1978, 83, 2637–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kessler, D.J.; Johnson, N.L.; Liou, J.-C.; Matney, M. The Kessler syndrome: Implications to future space operations. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. 2010, 137, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anselmo, L.; Rossi, A.; Pardini, C. Updated results on the long-term evolution of the space debris environment. Adv. Space Res. 1999, 23, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Karacalioglu, A.G.; Stupl, J. The Impact of New Trends in Satellite Launches on the Orbital Debris Environment; NASA Technical Report; NASA: Houston, TX, USA, 2016. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160011184 (accessed on 14 April 2023).
  5. Virgili, B.B.; Dolado, J.; Lewis, H.; Radtke, J.; Krag, H.; Revelin, B.; Cazaux, C.; Colombo, C.; Crowther, R.; Metz, M. Risk to space sustainability from large constellations of satellites. Acta Astronaut. 2016, 126, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Olivieri, L.; Francesconi, A. Large constellations assessment and optimization in LEO space debris environment. Adv. Space Res. 2019, 65, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lewis, H.; Radtke, J.; Rossi, A.; Beck, J.; Oswald, M.; Anderson, P.; Virgili, B.B.; Krag, H. Sensitivity of the space debris environment to large constellations and small satellites. J. Br. Interplanet. Soc. 2017, 70, 105–117. [Google Scholar]
  8. Krag, H.; Serrano, M.; Braun, V.; Kuchynka, P.; Catania, M.; Siminski, J.; Schimmerohn, M.; Marc, X.; Kuijper, D.; Shurmer, I.; et al. A 1 cm space debris impact onto the Sentinel-1A solar array. Acta Astronaut. 2017, 137, 434–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kelso, T.S. Analysis of the Iridium 33 Cosmos 2251 Collision. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. 2009, 135, 1099–1112. [Google Scholar]
  10. McKnight, D.; Di Pentino, F.; Knowles, S. Massive Collisions In LEO—A Catalyst to Initiate ADR. In Proceedings of the 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, CA, USA, 29 September–3 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  11. Mark, C.P.; Kamath, S. Review of Active Space Debris Removal Methods. Space Policy 2019, 47, 194–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tadini, P.; Tancredi, U.; Grassi, M.; Anselmo, L.; Pardini, C.; Francesconi, A.; Branz, F.; Maggi, F.; Lavagna, M.; DeLuca, L.; et al. Active debris multi-removal mission concept based on hybrid propulsion. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 103, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lorenzo, O.; Valmorbida, A.; Sarego, G.; Lungavia, E.; Vertuani, D.; Lorenzini, E.C. Test of tethered deorbiting of space debris. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. Technol. 2020, 3, 115–124. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tarabini Castellani, L.; García González, S.; Ortega, A.; Madrid, S.; Lorenzini, E.C.; Olivieri, L.; Sarego, G.; Brunello, A.; Valmorbida, A.; Tajmar, M.; et al. Deorbit kit demonstration mission. J. Space Saf. Eng. 2022, 9, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gleason, M.P. Establishing space traffic management standards, guidelines and best practices. J. Space Saf. Eng. 2020, 7, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, D. Upgrading space debris mitigation measures to cope with proliferating cyber threats to space activities. Adv. Space Res. 2023, 71, 4185–4195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Braun, V.; Braun, V.; Horstmann, A.; Lemmens, S.; Wiedemann, C.; Böttcher, L. Recent developments in space debris environment modelling, verification and validation with MASTER. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, 20–23 April 2021; ESA Space Debris Office: Darmstadt, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  18. Duzellier, S.; Gordo, P.; Melicio, R.; Valério, D.; Millinger, M.; Amorim, A. Space debris generation in GEO: Space materials testing and evaluation. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 192, 258–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Olivieri, L.; Giacomuzzo, C.; Francesconi, A.; Stokes, H.; Rossi, A. Experimental characterization of multi-layer 3D-printed shields for microsatellites. J. Space Saf. Eng. 2020, 7, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Carrasquilla, R.E.; Norman, F.-C. DebriSat: Generating a dataset to improve space debris models from a laboratory hypervelocity experiment. Europe 2019, 1, 5–638. [Google Scholar]
  21. Krisko, P.; Horstman, M.; Fudge, M. SOCIT4 collisional-breakup test data analysis: With shape and materials characterization. Adv. Space Res. 2008, 41, 1138–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liou, J.C.; Fitz-Coy, N.; Clark, S.; Werremeyer, M.; Huynh, T.; Sorge, M.; Polk, M.; Roebuck, B.; Rushing, R.; Opiela, J. DebriSat–A planned laboratory-based satellite impact experiment for breakup fragment characterization. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, 22–25 April 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hanada, T.; Liou, J.-C. Comparison of fragments created by low- and hyper-velocity impacts. Adv. Space Res. 2008, 41, 1132–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hanada, T.; Liou, J.-C.; Nakajima, T.; Stansbery, E. Outcome of recent satellite impact experiments. Adv. Space Res. 2009, 44, 558–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abdulhamid, H.; Bouat, D.; Coll’e, A.; Lafite, J.; Limido, J.; Midani, I.; Papy, J.-M.; Puillet, C.; Spel, M.; Unfer, T. On-ground HVI on a nanosatellite. Impact test, fragments recovery and characterization, impact simulations. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, 20–23 April 2021. [Google Scholar]
  26. Olivieri, L.; Smocovich, P.A.; Giacomuzzo, C.; Francesconi, A. Characterization of the fragments generated by a Picosatellite impact experiment. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2022, 168, 104313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Olivieri, L.; Giacomuzzo, C.; Francesconi, A. Analysis of fragments larger than 2 mm generated by a picosatellite fragmentation experiment. Acta Astronaut. 2023, 204, 418–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Johnson, N.L.; Krisko, P.H.; Liou, J.-C.; Anz-Meador, P.D. NASA’s new breakup model of EVOLVE 4.0. Adv. Space Res. 2001, 28, 1377–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McKnight, D.; Maher, R.; Nagl, L. Fragmentation Algorithms for Strategic and Theater Targets (FASTT) Empirical Breakup Model, Ver 3.0. DNA-TR-94-104. December 1994.
  30. Sorge, M.E. Satellite fragmentation modeling with IMPACT. In Proceedings of the AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–21 August 2008. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sorge, M.E.; Mains, D.L. IMPACT fragmentation model developments. Acta Astronaut. 2016, 126, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Francesconi, A.; Giacomuzzo, C.; Olivieri, L.; Sarego, G.; Duzzi, M.; Feltrin, F.; Valmorbida, A.; Bunte, K.D.; Deshmukh, M.; Farahvashi, E.; et al. CST: A new semi-empirical tool for simulating spacecraft collisions in orbit. Acta Astronaut. 2019, 160, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Canning, T.N.; Seiff, A.; James, C.S. Ballistic Range Technology. In AGARDograph; Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development: Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France, 1970; Volume 138, p. 87. [Google Scholar]
  34. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affair. Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. 2010. Available online: https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2023).
  35. Bogdanoff, D.W. Optimization study of the Ames 0.5 two-stage light gas gun. Int. J. Impact Eng. 1997, 20, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Khristenko, Y.F. New light-gas guns for studying high-velocity impact at space velocities. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC.: Melville, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Angrilli, F.; Pavarin, D.; De Cecco, M.; Francesconi, A. Impact facility based upon high frequency two-stage light-gas gun. Acta Astronaut. 2003, 53, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barilaro, L.; Olivieri, L.; Tiscio, R.; Francesconi, A. Evaluation of a Single-Stage Light-Gas Gun Facility in Malta: Business Analysis and Preliminary Design. Aerotec. Missili Spaz. 2022, 101, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pavarin, D.; Francesconi, A. Improvement of the CISAS high-shot-frequency light-gas gun. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2003, 29, 549–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Francesconi, A.; Pavarin, D.; Bettella, A.; Angrilli, F. A special design condition to increase the performance of two-stage light-gas guns. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2008, 35, 1510–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oltrogge, D.; Alfano, S.; Law, C.; Cacioni, A.; Kelso, T. A comprehensive assessment of collision likelihood in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit. Acta Astronaut. 2018, 147, 316–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Slimane, S.A.; Slimane, A.; Guelailia, A.; Boudjemai, A.; Kebdani, S.; Smahat, A.; Mouloud, D. Hypervelocity impact on honeycomb structure reinforced with bi-layer ceramic/aluminum facesheets used for spacecraft shielding. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2021, 29, 4487–4505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Plassard, F.; Mespoulet, J.; Hereil, P. Analysis of a single stage compressed gas launcher behaviour: From breech opening to sabot separation. In Proceedings of the 8th European LS-DYNA Conference; Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC): Strasburg, France, 2011; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tang, W.; Wang, Q.; Wei, B.; Li, J.; Li, J.; Shang, J.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, W. Performance and Modeling of a Two-Stage Light Gas Gun Driven by Gaseous Detonation. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pavarin, D.; Lambert, M.; Francesconi, A.; Destefanis, R. Analysis of goce’s disturbances induced by hypervelocity impact. In Proceedings of the SP-587 Fourth European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, 18–20 April 2005. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ioilev, A.G.; Bebenin, G.V.; Kalmykov, P.N.; Shlyapnikov, G.P.; Lapichev, N.V.; Salnikov, A.V.; Sokolov, S.S.; Motlokhov, V.N. A LGG arrangement for cut-off of the projectile sabot. In Proceedings of the SP-672 Fifth European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, 12 February 2018. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hibbert, R.; Cole, M.; Price, M.; Burchell, M. The Hypervelocity Impact Facility at the University of Kent: Recent Upgrades and Specialized Capabilities. Procedia Eng. 2017, 204, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Barilaro, L. Measurement Techniques for Assessing and Reducing the Risk Posed by Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris to Space Vehicles. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Padova, Padova, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jacquelin, E.; Pashah, S.; Lainé, J.; Massenzio, M. Estimation of the Impact Duration for Several Types of Structures. Shock. Vib. 2012, 19, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 13 07664 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic of a single-stage LGG.
Figure 1. Schematic of a single-stage LGG.
Applsci 13 07664 g001
Applsci 13 07664 g002 550
Figure 2. Single-stage LGG performances at 150 bar.
Figure 2. Single-stage LGG performances at 150 bar.
Applsci 13 07664 g002
Applsci 13 07664 g003 550
Figure 3. Schematic of the sabot-stopping system concept.
Figure 3. Schematic of the sabot-stopping system concept.
Applsci 13 07664 g003
Applsci 13 07664 g004 550
Figure 4. Schematic of the sabot-stopping system.
Figure 4. Schematic of the sabot-stopping system.
Applsci 13 07664 g004
Applsci 13 07664 g005 550
Figure 5. Overview of the sabot-stopping system.
Figure 5. Overview of the sabot-stopping system.
Applsci 13 07664 g005
Applsci 13 07664 g006 550
Figure 6. Sabot-stopping system exploded view.
Figure 6. Sabot-stopping system exploded view.
Applsci 13 07664 g006
Applsci 13 07664 g007 550
Figure 7. Impact tube (top) and sabot-stopping system (bottom).
Figure 7. Impact tube (top) and sabot-stopping system (bottom).
Applsci 13 07664 g007
Applsci 13 07664 g008 550
Figure 8. Sabot stopper supporting structure’s total deformation.
Figure 8. Sabot stopper supporting structure’s total deformation.
Applsci 13 07664 g008
Applsci 13 07664 g009 550
Figure 9. Rubber cylinder (20 mm section).
Figure 9. Rubber cylinder (20 mm section).
Applsci 13 07664 g009
Applsci 13 07664 g010 550
Figure 10. Rubber cylinder—FEM with boundary conditions.
Figure 10. Rubber cylinder—FEM with boundary conditions.
Applsci 13 07664 g010
Applsci 13 07664 g011 550
Figure 11. Rubber cylinder—Meshed FEM.
Figure 11. Rubber cylinder—Meshed FEM.
Applsci 13 07664 g011
Applsci 13 07664 g012 550
Figure 12. Resultant von Mises stress.
Figure 12. Resultant von Mises stress.
Applsci 13 07664 g012
Applsci 13 07664 g013 550
Figure 13. Resultant displacement.
Figure 13. Resultant displacement.
Applsci 13 07664 g013
Applsci 13 07664 g014 550
Figure 14. Resultant conical displacement profile (iso-clipped at 1.2 mm).
Figure 14. Resultant conical displacement profile (iso-clipped at 1.2 mm).
Applsci 13 07664 g014
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barilaro, L.; Wylie, M.; Shafeeg, T. Design of the Sabot-Stopping System for a Single-Stage Light-Gas Gun for High-Velocity Impacts. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7664. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13137664

AMA Style

Barilaro L, Wylie M, Shafeeg T. Design of the Sabot-Stopping System for a Single-Stage Light-Gas Gun for High-Velocity Impacts. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(13):7664. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13137664

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barilaro, Leonardo, Mark Wylie, and Theeba Shafeeg. 2023. "Design of the Sabot-Stopping System for a Single-Stage Light-Gas Gun for High-Velocity Impacts" Applied Sciences 13, no. 13: 7664. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13137664

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop