Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Building Small-Satellites to Live Through the Kessler Effect

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Small satellites can carry their own debris-detection and avoidance system, using a thermal infrared camera and lateral solid rocket motors to dodge untracked orbital debris.

desk verdict A useful strawman for CubeSat local debris avoidance, but the detection-range claim is inflated by a factor-of-four radiometric error that needs correcting before the quantitative conclusions can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01342 v1 pith:IKMD3KQG submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.IM cs.ROphysics.space-ph

Steven Morad , Himangshu Kalita , Ravi teja Nallapu , Jekan Thangavelautham This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMcs.ROphysics.space-ph
keywords KesslereffectorbitaldebrisCubeSatlocalavoidancethermalinfrareddetectionsolidrocketmotorWhippleshieldspacemitigation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a small satellite can survive the Kessler effect, the runaway cascade of orbital debris collisions, by carrying its own debris-detection and avoidance system instead of relying on ground tracking. The proposed architecture uses a forward-facing thermal infrared camera to spot debris a few tens of kilometers ahead, then fires laterally mounted solid rocket motors for a fast sideways push out of the collision path. This 'local avoidance' strategy targets debris roughly one centimeter to five centimeters in size, too small for ground radar to track yet large enough to penetrate Whipple shields. The authors assemble the design from existing commercial parts and conclude that the key enabling technology, a low-noise infrared camera in a CubeSat form factor, needs further development before the concept can be realized.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the 'local avoidance' loop: probabilistic hot-pixel detection over multiple thermal infrared frames, followed by a fast lateral burn. Detection uses the fact that debris constantly emits blackbody radiation in the 7 to 16 micron band, so each pixel is modeled as hot or cold with Gaussian noise; tracking a hot pixel across neighboring frames separates a real object from noise without object recognition. Avoidance uses paired solid rocket motors mounted symmetrically about the center of mass on faces orthogonal to the velocity vector, so firing both gives a pure lateral translation with minimal rotation. The third piece is an infrared-transparent ceramic dome that protects the camera while also serving as a Whipple shield against small hypervelocity impacts.

What would settle it

Build a 3U-compatible thermal infrared camera with a measured noise equivalent irradiance at or below 50 fW/$m^{2}$ in the 7 to 16 micron band, then measure its signal from a 1 cm, 273 K blackbody at 10 km under orbital background; if the signal-to-noise ratio falls below detection threshold, the seconds-scale avoidance timeline collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 'local avoidance' is feasible for small satellites: a forward-facing thermal infrared camera can detect a centimeter-sized piece of debris tens of kilometers ahead by its blackbody radiation, and a set of laterally mounted solid rocket motors can push the spacecraft out of the collision path within the seconds available. The authors model debris as a 0.5 cm radius sphere at 273 K with emissivity 0.8, radiating in the 7 to 16 micron band, and show that a sensor with noise equivalent irradiance of 10 to 50 fW/$m^{2}$ retains positive signal-to-noise ratio out to about 10 km. They pair this with two quarter-length Aerotech G339N-P motors that deliver 55 N-s over 0.1 s on a 4 kg 3U CubeSat, producing substantial separation at conjunction against retrograde debris. An infrared-transparent ceramic dome covers the camera and doubles as a Whipple shield, so the detection path is protected from the small impacts that dominate the forward direction. The result is a strawman spacecraft that can survive debris too small for ground tracking but too large for passive shielding.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a CubeSat-sized thermal infrared camera can achieve a noise equivalent irradiance near 10 to 50 fW/$m^{2}$ while looking through an infrared-transparent shield, and the paper itself says it is unclear whether such a sensor can be packaged at that size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 3U CubeSat carrying two quarter-length solid motors can create tens of meters of lateral separation within about a second of detecting retrograde debris, enough to avoid a conjunction at 1000 km altitude.
  • The same system covers debris sizes from roughly 1 cm to 5 cm, the gap between what Whipple shields stop and what ground radar can track.
  • Because detection and maneuvering happen onboard, local avoidance works even when ground contact is lost or when the debris catalog is incomplete.
  • An infrared-transparent ceramic dome can protect the camera and double as a Whipple shield, so forward shielding does not blind the sensor.
  • Carrying multiple solid motors, fired in symmetric pairs, lets the spacecraft perform more than one avoidance maneuver over its lifetime.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same thermal-infrared hot-pixel tracker could serve as a low-cost space situational awareness sensor for inspection and rendezvous, a natural extension of the detection math.
  • If a 0.1 s, 55 N-s lateral burn can move a 4 kg CubeSat tens of meters at 1000 km altitude, then scaling the maneuver to heavier spacecraft will require either more impulse or earlier detection; the separation-versus-range curves imply a testable trade.
  • The design shifts the cost of debris survival from constellation-wide ground tracking to per-satellite autonomy, so if a reliable low-noise CubeSat camera ever becomes commercially available, the economic case for local avoidance strengthens even before the Kessler effect fully arrives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the survivability of small satellites and CubeSats in a Kessler-effect debris environment. It proposes a three-tier survival strategy: ground-based remote avoidance, onboard local avoidance using thermal infrared detection and solid-rocket lateral maneuvers, and passive shielding. The authors develop a strawman CubeSat design, estimate the detection range of a 1 cm debris object with a passive IR sensor in the 7–16 µm band, simulate the separation distance achievable by fired solid motors, and identify technology pathways such as IR-transparent ceramic Whipple shields. The central claim is that a small satellite can autonomously detect untracked debris at kilometer range and execute a lateral avoidance maneuver without ground intervention.

Significance. If the analysis were correct, the paper would fill a genuine gap: local, autonomous collision avoidance for debris sizes between ground-trackability and passive-shield protection. The paper is timely given megaconstellation proliferation, and its strawman design provides a concrete starting point for future small-satellite concepts. The radiometric calculation is presented transparently enough to be checked, which is a strength, and the authors openly acknowledge key uncertainties about CubeSat IR sensor NEI. The concept is plausible in order of magnitude, but as written the quantitative support is compromised by a radiometric factor-of-four error and an unsupported motor-scaling assumption. The central engineering idea remains defensible after correction, but the paper's headline claims overstate what the current analysis demonstrates.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.1, Eq. (9), Fig. 7] Equation (9) computes the radiant intensity as I = ε s ∫ P dλ with s taken as the full surface area 4πr² of a spherical debris piece. For a blackbody sphere, the correct directional intensity is the band-integrated radiance times the projected area, I = ε (πr²) ∫ P dλ, because the radiance P is defined per unit projected area per steradian. Using 4πr² instead of πr² overestimates the irradiance at the sensor by a factor of 4 and the detection range by a factor of 2. With the paper's own parameters (1 cm diameter, 273 K, ε = 0.8, 7–16 µm), the corrected irradiance at 10 km is about 25–35 fW/m², below the 50 fW/m² NEI curve in Fig. 7 that the text claims is still detectable. Consequently, the statement in Section 4 that 'these sensor systems can detect debris tens of kilometers away' is not supported by the calculation as written; the corrected range for the 50 fW/m² NEI is about 5 km.
  2. [3.2] The motor scaling is asserted without physical justification: 'Scaling the length of the actual thruster to one quarter produces a theoretical thruster that provides 27.5N-s over 0.1 seconds.' The original Aerotech G339N-P provides 110 N-s over 0.4 s. Quartering the length does not automatically quarter both impulse and burn time; burn rate, propellant mass, nozzle geometry, and internal ballistics all change in a nonlinear way. The separation distances in Fig. 8 depend directly on this assumed 27.5 N-s / 0.1 s impulse profile. The paper should either provide a scaling law with reference or present separation results as a parametric sweep over plausible impulse and burn-time values.
  3. [3.1 and 4] The manuscript acknowledges that 'It is unclear exactly how much NEI a CubeSat form factor IR sensor would produce' and calls such sensors 'a critical pathway,' yet the Conclusion states as a fact that 'These sensor systems can detect debris tens of kilometers away.' This overstates confidence in a parameter on which the entire detection concept hinges. The abstract and conclusion should be reworded to present the detection range as conditional on achieving an assumed NEI (for example, 7–50 fW/m²), and the paper should include a sensitivity analysis showing how detection range varies with NEI across the plausible range, especially after correcting the radiometric error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.1, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) as printed reads s = 4πr, which is dimensionally incorrect for a surface area; it should be s = 4πr². This appears to be a typographical error, but it should be corrected.
  2. [2.1.1, Eq. (4)] The statement 'the product of Gaussian distributions becomes the Dirac delta function in the limit' is mathematically incorrect: a product of Gaussian probability density functions is itself a Gaussian (up to normalization), not a Dirac delta, unless the variance goes to zero. This does not affect the SNR-based detection range analysis, but the claim should be corrected or removed.
  3. [2.1.1, Eq. (3)] The notation P(H|s, η) ∼ N(µ, σ) is imprecise; the parameters µ and σ are not defined, and a probability is not a Gaussian random variable. Clarify the statistical model.
  4. [1.2] The sentence 'The joint DoD-NASA effort to catalog orbital debris cannot track objects smaller than 5cm [size]' contains a broken citation placeholder '[size]'. A proper reference is needed.
  5. [3.2] The word 'manuever' appears in the text; it should be 'maneuver.' Also, the phrase 'a fast and rough push out of harms way' in Section 4 is informal and should be replaced with more precise technical language.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detection and maneuver claims follow from stated physical/engineering assumptions; only a non-load-bearing SWIMSat self-citation appears.

full rationale

The paper's core derivations are self-contained and do not reduce to their own inputs. Section 3.1 computes detection range from an assumed 273 K blackbody spectrum, emissivity 0.8, a 7-16 micron band, a 0.5 cm radius debris sphere, and literature NEI values (MSX [14]); the SNR curves in Fig. 7 are direct consequences of those stated assumptions rather than retrofits to a target result. Section 3.2's separation-at-conjunction plot follows from the Aerotech G339N-P impulse (110 N-s over 0.4 s, quarter-scaled to 55 N-s over 0.1 s), a 4 kg 3U platform, and circular-orbit geometry; no parameter is fitted to force a desired separation distance. The only use of the authors' own prior work is Fig. 9's caption, 'The system is based off of the SWIMSat CubeSat we previously designed,' and that is a packaging/heritage citation, not a load-bearing premise for the avoidance calculations. The admitted uncertainty about achievable CubeSat IR sensor NEI, including the statement 'It is unclear exactly how much NEI a CubeSat form factor IR sensor would produce,' weakens the engineering claim but is honest uncertainty rather than circular reasoning. The skeptic's projected-area criticism of Eq. (9) is a numerical/correctness concern, not circularity: substituting total surface area for projected area can overestimate irradiance by a factor of four, but the detection claim is still an independent application of blackbody radiometry rather than a prediction constructed from its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative analysis uses hand-picked environment and hardware parameters (debris temperature, emissivity, radius, band, sensor NEI, motor impulse, length scale, spacecraft mass, and conjunction geometry) and six modeling assumptions. None of these are fitted to a target result, so the circularity burden is low. The least supported inputs are the sensor NEI range and the motor length scaling, both of which directly control the claimed detection range and separation distance.

free parameters (9)
  • Debris temperature = 273 K
    Assumed representative blackbody temperature for orbital debris in Sec. 3.1; directly sets the spectral radiance and thus the claimed detection range.
  • Debris emissivity = 0.8
    Chosen in Sec. 3.1 from the range of material emissivities; scales the emitted radiant intensity.
  • Debris radius = 0.5 cm
    Selected as the dangerous 1 cm diameter threshold in Sec. 3.1; defines the emitting surface area.
  • Detector wavelength band = 7 to 16 micrometers
    Theoretical sensor band in Sec. 3.1; defines the integrated blackbody power and the SNR curve.
  • Noise Equivalent Irradiance = 10 to 50 fW/m^2
    Assumed CubeSat IR sensor noise levels in Sec. 3.1, anchored to the MSX instrument; the 10 km detection claim depends on the upper end of this range.
  • Baseline motor impulse = 110 N-s over 0.4 s
    COTS Aerotech G339N-P specification in Sec. 3.2 used as the starting point for the scaled avoidance motor.
  • Motor length scale factor = 0.25
    Chosen in Sec. 3.2 to make two motors fit a 3U CubeSat; the 27.5 N-s over 0.1 s figure follows from an unvalidated linear scaling assumption.
  • Spacecraft mass = 4 kg
    Assumed 3U CubeSat mass in Sec. 3.2; determines the separation distance created by each impulse.
  • Conjunction geometry = 1000 km circular, retrograde, 0 to 25 deg inclination
    Worst-case relative-orbit scenarios in Sec. 3.2 used to generate Fig. 8; the separation numbers are specific to these geometries.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The product of per-frame Gaussian hot-pixel probabilities converges to a Dirac delta as the number of frames goes to infinity.
    Sec. 2.1.1, Eq. (4) uses this limit to argue that accumulated frames isolate debris. As written it is not a standard result; a product of fixed-variance Gaussians is a Gaussian, not a delta. It is not used in the later SNR calculation.
  • domain assumption At the small orbital scales of an encounter, satellite and debris trajectories can be treated as linear.
    Sec. 2.1.1 states this to justify extrapolating the debris position from the camera plane; it ignores along-track curvature and differential gravity over the reaction timeline.
  • domain assumption Most small collisions occur head-on or retrograde with shallow relative inclination.
    Sec. 3.1 relies on Vance and Mense [23] for this geometry to justify a single forward-facing camera and lateral thrusters.
  • ad hoc to paper A quarter-length solid motor preserves the specific impulse profile and yields a linear reduction in burn time from 0.4 s to 0.1 s.
    Sec. 3.2 derives 27.5 N-s over 0.1 s by scaling the G339N-P length by 0.25; no casing, grain, or thrust-time model is provided, and this exact timing drives the avoidance timeline.
  • domain assumption Circular-orbit relative velocity is adequate for estimating the separation at conjunction.
    Sec. 3.2 computes relative orbital speed using circular orbits at 1000 km with varying relative inclinations, neglecting eccentricity, drag, and non-Keplerian perturbations.
  • domain assumption IR-transparent ceramic domes can double as effective Whipple shields while preserving optical performance.
    Sec. 3.3 combines missile dome ceramics [20] with ceramic composite impact studies [19], but no integrated optical-plus-hypervelocity-impact test for the combined camera window is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Building Small-Satellites to Live Through the Kessler Effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IKMD3KQG

@misc{pith2026190901342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Building Small-Satellites to Live Through the Kessler Effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IKMD3KQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01342}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid advancement and miniaturization of spacecraft electronics, sensors, actuators, and power systems have resulted in growing proliferation of small-spacecraft. Coupled with this is the growing number of rocket launches, with left-over debris marking their trail. The space debris problem has also been compounded by test of several satellite killer missiles that have left large remnant debris fields. In this paper, we assume a future in which the Kessler Effect has taken hold and analyze the implications on the design of small-satellites and CubeSats. We use a multiprong approach of surveying the latest technologies, including the ability to sense space debris in orbit, perform obstacle avoidance, have sufficient shielding to take on small impacts and other techniques to mitigate the problem. Detecting and tracking space debris threats on-orbit is expected to be an important approach and we will analyze the latest vision algorithms to perform the detection, followed by quick reaction control systems to perform the avoidance. Alternately there may be scenarios where the debris is too small to track and avoid. In this case, the spacecraft will need passive mitigation measures to survive the impact. Based on these conditions, we develop a strawman design of a small spacecraft to mitigate these challenges. Based upon this study, we identify if there is sufficient present-day COTS technology to mitigate or shield satellites from the problem. We conclude by outlining technology pathways that need to be advanced now to best prepare ourselves for the worst-case eventuality of Kessler Effect taking hold in the upper altitudes of Low Earth Orbit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01342 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A picture of debris in low Earth orbit from 2009. Since then, the problem has only gotten worse. [12] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Launch of a RIM-161 SM3 anti-satellite missile [18]. We utilize systems similar to the RIM-161 SM3 kinetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Picture from a RIM-161 SM3 thermal infrared camera, tracking a target in space [22]. The difference between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The orange satellite and white debris are on a collision course with a shallow difference in inclination. Since [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A 3U CubeSat with color-coded two-thruster groups that fire in unison to move the spacecraft away from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral radiance curve εP(λ) for an object emitting blackbody radiation at 273K. We use an emissivity of ε = 0.8. εP(λ) can be integrated to find the total detectable radiation emitted by a piece of space debris. field of view should be able to detect a majority of co…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Signal to Noise Ratio in decibels for various NEIs. The short detection distance means fast reactions are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Separation for various relative inclination orbits if the thruster is fired at debris detection. A CubeSat travelling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A conceptual CubeSat design that demonstrates our space debris avoidance system. The system is based off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Design and performance equations for advanced meteoroid and debris shields

    Eric L Christiansen. “Design and performance equations for advanced meteoroid and debris shields”. In: Inter- national Journal of Impact Engineering 14.1-4 (1993), pp. 145–156

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Space station MMOD shielding

    Eric L Christiansen et al. “Space station MMOD shielding”. In: Acta Astronautica 65.7-8 (2009), pp. 921–929

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Large satellite constellation orbital debris impacts: Case studies of oneweb and spacex proposals

    Veronica L Foreman, Afreen Siddiqi, and Olivier De Weck. “Large satellite constellation orbital debris impacts: Case studies of oneweb and spacex proposals”. In:AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition. 2017, p. 5200

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    SpaceX’s space-Internet woes: Despite technical glitches, the company plans to launch the first of nearly 12,000 satellites in 2019

    Jeff Foust. “SpaceX’s space-Internet woes: Despite technical glitches, the company plans to launch the first of nearly 12,000 satellites in 2019”. In: IEEE Spectrum 56.1 (2018), pp. 50–51

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    SWIMSat: Space Weather and Meteor Impact Monitoring using a Low-Cost 6U Cube- Sat

    Victor Hernandez et al. “SWIMSat: Space Weather and Meteor Impact Monitoring using a Low-Cost 6U Cube- Sat”. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites. 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Analysis of the 2007 Chinese ASAT Test and the Impact of its Debris on the Space Environment

    TS Kelso. “Analysis of the 2007 Chinese ASAT Test and the Impact of its Debris on the Space Environment”. In: 8th Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, Maui, HI. V ol. 7. 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt

    Donald J Kessler and Burton G Cour-Palais. “Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt”. In: Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 83.A6 (1978), pp. 2637–2646

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

    The kessler syndrome: implications to future space operations

    Donald J Kessler et al. “The kessler syndrome: implications to future space operations”. In: Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 137.8 (2010), p. 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence Systems

    Carlo Kopp. Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence Systems. Tech. rep. Air Power Australia, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    A 1 cm space debris impact onto the sentinel-1a solar array

    H Krag et al. “A 1 cm space debris impact onto the sentinel-1a solar array”. In: Acta Astronautica 137 (2017), pp. 434–443

    2017

  3. [11]

    On-Orbit Smart Camera System to Observe Illuminated and Unilluminated Space Objects

    Steve Morad et al. “On-Orbit Smart Camera System to Observe Illuminated and Unilluminated Space Objects”. In: Proceedings of the Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference. 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    July 2009

    Orbital Debris. July 2009. URL: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/40173/space-debris

    2009

  5. [13]

    A technical comparison of three low earth orbit satellite constellation systems to provide global broadband

    Inigo del Portillo, Bruce G Cameron, and Edward F Crawley. “A technical comparison of three low earth orbit satellite constellation systems to provide global broadband”. In: Acta Astronautica 159 (2019), pp. 123–135

    2019

  6. [14]

    Spectral irradiance calibration in the infrared. XV . Absolute calibration of standard stars by experiments on the midcourse space experiment

    SD Price et al. “Spectral irradiance calibration in the infrared. XV . Absolute calibration of standard stars by experiments on the midcourse space experiment”. In: The Astronomical Journal 128.2 (2004), p. 889

    2004

  7. [15]

    Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1997

    Protecting the Space Station from Meteoroids and Orbital Debris . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1997. ISBN : 978-0-309-05630-4. DOI: 10.17226/5532 . URL: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/ 5532/protecting-the-space-station-from-meteoroids-and-orbital-debris

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

    Uncooled emissive infrared imager for CubeSats

    Jeffery J Puschell and Paolo Masini. “Uncooled emissive infrared imager for CubeSats”. In: Remote Sensing System Engineering V. V ol. 9223. International Society for Optics and Photonics. 2014, p. 922307

    2014

  9. [17]

    Interactions of the space debris environment with mega constellations—Using the example of the OneWeb constellation

    Jonas Radtke, Christopher Kebschull, and Enrico Stoll. “Interactions of the space debris environment with mega constellations—Using the example of the OneWeb constellation”. In: Acta Astronautica 131 (2017), pp. 55–68

    2017

  10. [18]

    Brandon Schulze. RIM-161. Nov. 2007. URL: http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp

    2007

  11. [19]

    An investigation of ceramic/aluminium composites as shields for hypervelocity impacts

    VV Silvestrov et al. “An investigation of ceramic/aluminium composites as shields for hypervelocity impacts”. In: International journal of impact engineering 23.1 (1999), pp. 859–867

    1999

  12. [20]

    Nano-composite optical ceramics for infrared windows and domes

    Todd Stefanik, Richard Gentilman, and Patrick Hogan. “Nano-composite optical ceramics for infrared windows and domes”. In: Window and Dome Technologies and Materials X. V ol. 6545. International Society for Optics and Photonics. 2007, 65450A

    2007

  13. [21]

    MMT-Cam: A New Miniature Multispectral Ther- mal Infrared Camera System for Capturing Dynamic Earth Processes

    James O Thompson, Michael S Ramsey, and Jeffrey L Hall. “MMT-Cam: A New Miniature Multispectral Ther- mal Infrared Camera System for Capturing Dynamic Earth Processes”. In: IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Two-shot salvo - Defensive technologies destroy a ballistic missile target in test . Mar. 2019. URL: https : //www.raytheon.com/news/feature/two-shot-salvo

    2019

  15. [23]

    Value analysis for orbital debris removal

    Leonard Vance and Allan Mense. “Value analysis for orbital debris removal”. In: Advances in Space Research 52.4 (2013), pp. 685–695

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.