A Framework for the Quantitative Comparison of Collision Avoidance Maneuver Optimization Methods

In this paper, a methodology for the comparison of Collision Avoidance Maneuver (CAM) planning techniques is proposed, taking into account the accuracy and optimality of the resulting solutions, as well as the computational cost associated with their determination. With the increasing number of Space Objects (SOs), the risk of collisions with active satellites has become an urgent issue. Satellite operators already perform conjunction risk assessment and avoidance activities. This entails a significant cost, making invaluable the employment of CAM planning and execution methods with proven risk-mitigation capabilities, at minimum fuel and computational expense. Multiple authors have explored the topic of the determination of optimal CAMs over the last decades, proposing a variety of approaches. Therefore, the goal of this study is to derive an appropriate set of comparison criteria for the evaluation and performance assessment of these. The criteria proposed consider factors such as the accuracy of the resulting solutions, their optimality, and the computational requirements of each method, maintaining enough generality to be widely applicable across all classes of CAM Optimization (CAMO) techniques. This work contributes to the streamlining of Collision Avoidance (COLA) operations, by reducing the required time for decision-making and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the performed maneuvers. The developed framework is applied to a selection of CAMO methods that address a set of commonly employed optimization goals, constraints, and decision variables. The results are validated for the use case of a single-encounter conjunction scenario, across various conjunction geometries and orbital regimes.