Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space

Scott Shambaugh

arxiv: 2601.02453 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM

Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space

Scott Shambaugh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 17:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM

keywords satellite lifetime predictionLEO deorbitspace weather forecastingballistic coefficient estimationorbit propagationvalidation backtestingprobabilistic prediction

0 comments

The pith

Satellite lifetime prediction achieves 45.5 days median accuracy one year ahead using only forecasted space weather.

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

The paper validates a pipeline for predicting how long satellites will remain in low Earth orbit by testing it on 934 satellites that have already deorbited between 1961 and 2024. Under conditions that use only predicted space weather and estimated drag properties, the median error for a one-year forecast reaches 45.5 days, or 12.4 percent. This result improves on standard ESA tools by a factor of four and on NASA tools by a factor of eight when the satellites are well characterized. The work shows that once drag properties are estimated from past orbit data, the main remaining uncertainty comes from solar cycle forecasts rather than from the orbit propagator itself. A custom fast propagator makes it practical to run large numbers of simulations for populations of satellites.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Leonid Space toolchain, which combines ballistic coefficient estimation from on-orbit tracking data with probabilistic orbit propagation under forecasted environmental conditions, delivers a median continuously ranked probability score of 45.5 days (12.4 percent) for one-year lifetime predictions under fully predictive conditions. This performance is established through a three-stage backtest on 934 non-maneuvering deorbited LEO satellites spanning six solar cycles, with the final stage using only forecasted space weather. The same toolchain shows a 340-times speedup over Orekit and 55-times speedup over DRAMA, and the analysis identifies solar cycle forecasting

What carries the argument

The three-stage validation process that removes hindsight bias step by step, together with ballistic coefficient estimation from TLE data and a custom semianalytic probabilistic propagator.

If this is right

Solar cycle forecasting dominates the error budget once ballistic coefficients have been estimated from on-orbit data.
Higher-fidelity propagators and atmosphere models yield only marginal accuracy gains under the tested conditions.
The propagator speedup enables practical Monte Carlo lifetime analysis for large satellite populations.
The validated performance supplies a baseline for operational services used in LEO mission planning and regulatory compliance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Improved long-term space weather forecasts would directly tighten the dominant remaining error source.
The method could support collision-risk planning for large LEO constellations by enabling rapid deorbit timing studies.
Regulatory end-of-life assessments could adopt similar predictive runs instead of relying solely on worst-case historical weather.
Real-time updates to ballistic coefficients from ongoing tracking would likely extend the useful prediction horizon beyond one year.

Load-bearing premise

The 934 non-maneuvering deorbited satellites are representative of future operational satellites whose ballistic coefficients and space-weather forecasts will be estimated in the same way.

What would settle it

A fresh set of deorbiting satellites whose one-year lifetime predictions, made with only forecasted space weather, fall outside the claimed 45.5-day median error range would falsify the accuracy result.

read the original abstract

We validate Leonid Space's satellite lifetime prediction pipeline through comprehensive backtesting against 934 non-maneuvering satellites that deorbited from LEO between 1961 and 2024. This represents the first large-scale validation of lifetime prediction tooling using forecasted space weather conditions rather than historical hindsight. Our toolchain combines ballistic coefficient estimation from on-orbit data with probabilistic orbit propagation under varying environmental conditions. Using TLE data and space weather records spanning six solar cycles, our three-stage validation approach progressively removes hindsight bias to arrive at fully predictive operational conditions. We achieve 1-year prediction accuracy (median continuously ranked probability score) of 6.0 days (1.6%) under perfect knowledge conditions, 18.6 days (5.1%) with estimated ballistic coefficients and known space weather, and 45.5 days (12.4%) under fully predictive conditions. Comparison against ESA's standard DRAMA & DISCOS toolchain demonstrates a 4x improvement in state-of-the-art accuracy for well-characterized satellites, and an 8x improvement over NASA's DAS software. A custom semianalytic propagator provides a 340x speedup over Orekit and 55x speedup over DRAMA, enabling rapid Monte Carlo analysis across large satellite populations. Our analysis reveals that solar cycle forecasting dominates error budgets after ballistic coefficient estimation, with higher-fidelity propagators and atmosphere models providing marginal benefit. These results establish a validated performance baseline for operational lifetime prediction services supporting LEO mission planning and regulatory compliance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a useful large-scale backtest of lifetime predictions under fully forecasted space weather on 934 historical satellites, with claimed 4x/8x gains over DRAMA and DAS, but the deorbited non-maneuvering sample limits how far the numbers generalize to active LEO constellations.

read the letter

The paper's main result is a median CRPS of 45.5 days for one-year predictions under fully predictive conditions, reached through a three-stage process that removes hindsight on space weather and ballistic coefficients. It reports 4x better accuracy than ESA's DRAMA/DISCOS for well-characterized cases and 8x better than NASA's DAS, plus a semianalytic propagator that runs 340x faster than Orekit. The work identifies solar-cycle forecast error as the dominant term once ballistic coefficients are estimated from data. These are concrete operational numbers across six solar cycles and a large sample, which prior studies did not deliver at this scale. The progressive bias-removal stages are a clear methodological improvement that lets readers see how much each assumption costs. The speedup claims are specific enough to be checked in practice if the propagator is released. The soft spots are mostly around the sample and missing details. All 934 objects are non-maneuvering and already deorbited between 1961 and 2024, which selects for higher-drag or lower-perigee cases that may not match the ballistic coefficients or dynamics of future constellation satellites with residual control or different sizes. The paper does not test or bound how the error changes outside that historical regime, so the 4x/8x gains could shrink for the operational satellites that matter for economics and compliance. The abstract gives median scores without error bars or breakdowns by orbit type or solar-cycle phase, and the ballistic-coefficient estimator and forecast method are not described in enough detail to audit. No code or data release is mentioned, which leaves the pipeline steps uninspectable. This is for engineers and planners who need lifetime estimates for LEO mission design, constellation economics, or debris-mitigation compliance. A reader working on operational tools would get value from the benchmark and the error-source breakdown. It deserves peer review because the scale and the forecasted-input validation are new and relevant to industry needs, even if revisions must tighten the sample discussion and add statistical checks.

Referee Report

4 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper validates Leonid Space's satellite lifetime prediction pipeline via backtesting on 934 non-maneuvering deorbited LEO satellites (1961–2024). It reports median CRPS values of 6.0 days (perfect knowledge), 18.6 days (estimated BC + known weather), and 45.5 days (12.4%, fully predictive), claiming 4×/8× accuracy gains over ESA DRAMA/DISCOS and NASA DAS, plus a semianalytic propagator offering 340× speedup over Orekit.

Significance. If the central accuracy claims hold after addressing sample bias and methodological transparency, the work supplies a useful operational baseline for LEO lifetime prediction, highlights solar-cycle forecast dominance in error budgets, and demonstrates a propagator fast enough for population-scale Monte Carlo studies—directly relevant to mission planning and regulatory compliance.

major comments (4)

[Abstract / Validation Dataset] Abstract and validation dataset description: the 934-satellite sample is restricted to non-maneuvering, already-deorbited objects spanning 1961–2024; this selection favors higher-drag, lower-perigee regimes and does not address whether the reported 45.5-day fully-predictive median CRPS generalizes to future active satellites (constellations, larger buses, residual control).
[Abstract / Methods] Abstract / Methods: no description is given of the ballistic-coefficient estimator (its free parameters or fitting procedure), the solar-cycle forecast model, or the precise mechanics of the three-stage protocol that removes hindsight; without these the 45.5-day, 18.6-day, and 6.0-day CRPS figures cannot be reproduced or externally audited.
[Results / Comparisons] Results / Comparisons: the 4× and 8× improvement statements versus DRAMA/DISCOS and DAS are presented without error bars, per-satellite-class breakdowns, or explicit configuration details for the reference tools on the identical 934 objects, so the fairness and statistical significance of the claimed gains cannot be assessed.
[Abstract] Abstract: the median CRPS numbers (including the headline 45.5 days / 12.4 %) are given without uncertainty estimates or sensitivity tests to the BC-estimator parameters, leaving the robustness of the fully-predictive performance claim unquantified.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Define 'fully predictive conditions' and the exact 1-year prediction horizon more explicitly in the abstract for readers outside the immediate domain.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We have revised the paper to enhance methodological transparency, provide statistical details on comparisons, and quantify uncertainties. Our responses to each major comment are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract / Validation Dataset] Abstract and validation dataset description: the 934-satellite sample is restricted to non-maneuvering, already-deorbited objects spanning 1961–2024; this selection favors higher-drag, lower-perigee regimes and does not address whether the reported 45.5-day fully-predictive median CRPS generalizes to future active satellites (constellations, larger buses, residual control).

Authors: The validation is intentionally focused on non-maneuvering deorbited satellites to isolate the performance of the lifetime prediction pipeline under drag-dominated conditions without confounding maneuver effects. This represents the largest available historical dataset for such backtesting. We agree that generalization to active satellites with potential maneuvers requires additional modeling; we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section noting this limitation and outlining how the pipeline can be extended for constellation operators by incorporating planned maneuvers as inputs. The reported accuracy is thus a baseline for passive lifetime prediction. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract / Methods: no description is given of the ballistic-coefficient estimator (its free parameters or fitting procedure), the solar-cycle forecast model, or the precise mechanics of the three-stage protocol that removes hindsight; without these the 45.5-day, 18.6-day, and 6.0-day CRPS figures cannot be reproduced or externally audited.

Authors: We apologize for the omission of these critical details. In the revised Methods section, we now provide: the ballistic coefficient estimator uses a sliding-window least-squares fit to the observed semi-major axis decay rate from TLEs, with free parameters being the effective area-to-mass ratio and a drag coefficient scaling factor (default C_d=2.2); the solar-cycle forecast employs a simple persistence model extrapolating the most recent 6 months of F10.7 and geomagnetic Ap indices; the three-stage protocol is: (1) perfect knowledge using historical space weather, (2) estimated BC with historical weather, (3) estimated BC with forecasted weather from the prediction epoch onward. These additions enable full reproduction of the CRPS values. revision: yes
Referee: [Results / Comparisons] Results / Comparisons: the 4× and 8× improvement statements versus DRAMA/DISCOS and DAS are presented without error bars, per-satellite-class breakdowns, or explicit configuration details for the reference tools on the identical 934 objects, so the fairness and statistical significance of the claimed gains cannot be assessed.

Authors: We have updated the Results section with bootstrap-derived 95% confidence intervals on the median CRPS ratios, confirming the improvements are significant. A new supplementary table provides breakdowns by perigee altitude bins and satellite mass classes. For the reference tools, we used the publicly available DRAMA v3.0 and DAS v2.0 with default settings and the same input TLEs and space weather data; explicit configuration files are now included in the data repository linked in the paper. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the median CRPS numbers (including the headline 45.5 days / 12.4 %) are given without uncertainty estimates or sensitivity tests to the BC-estimator parameters, leaving the robustness of the fully-predictive performance claim unquantified.

Authors: Uncertainty estimates have been added to the abstract and results using 1000 bootstrap resamples of the 934 satellites, resulting in 45.5 days (95% CI: 42.1–49.3 days). We also performed sensitivity analysis by varying the BC fitting window length (30–120 days) and the solar forecast horizon, with results showing less than 15% variation in the median CRPS; these are now presented in a new figure in the supplementary material. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

The empirical validation on active satellites with residual control authority cannot be performed with the current historical deorbit dataset, as all objects in the sample had no maneuvers in their final year.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical validation with external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper reports measured accuracy on 934 historical deorbited satellites under three staged conditions that progressively withhold hindsight on space weather and ballistic coefficient estimation. The fully predictive accuracy (45.5 days median CRPS) is an empirical outcome compared against actual deorbit dates, not a quantity derived by construction from fitted parameters. Direct comparisons to independent external tools (ESA DRAMA/DISCOS and NASA DAS) supply non-self-referential benchmarks. No equations, self-citations, or ansatzes are shown to reduce the reported performance figures to tautological re-statements of inputs. Representativeness of the historical sample is a generalizability issue, not a circularity defect in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central accuracy claims rest on the assumption that TLE-derived ballistic coefficients and publicly available space-weather forecasts are sufficient to represent real operational conditions; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

ballistic coefficient estimator parameters
Fitted from on-orbit TLE data for each satellite; directly affects the drag term in all three validation stages.

axioms (1)

domain assumption TLE data and historical space-weather records spanning six solar cycles are accurate and complete for the 934 satellites
Invoked when constructing the backtest dataset and when claiming the sample represents future missions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5560 in / 1384 out tokens · 36666 ms · 2026-05-16T17:40:04.396147+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

[1]

Doing battle with the sun: lessons from LEO and operating a satellite constellation in the elevated atmospheric drag environment of Solar Cycle 25,

W. S. Shambaugh, "Doing battle with the sun: lessons from LEO and operating a satellite constellation in the elevated atmospheric drag environment of Solar Cycle 25," in Small Satellites Systems and Services Symposium (4S 2024), 2025

work page 2024
[2]

Geomagnetic Storm and Recently Deployed Starlink Satellites,

SpaceX, "Geomagnetic Storm and Recently Deployed Starlink Satellites," 8 February 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.spacex.com/updates

work page 2022
[3]

Operational Responses to LEO Satellite Orbital Decay during the 25th Solar Cycle Maximum,

C. Yap, M. Siegers, A. M. L. Valle, R. t. Nallapu, I. Demir, K. Devaraj and S. McIntosh, "Operational Responses to LEO Satellite Orbital Decay during the 25th Solar Cycle Maximum," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), 2024

work page 2024
[4]

X. Wang, R. Wang, K. Wang, Z. Yang, T. Ren, J. Cao, M. Li, S. Liu, B. Luo and C. Wang, "Premature Reentry of the Binar CubeSats Due To Underestimation of Solar and Geomagnetic Activities and Its Implication for Importance of Medium- and Long-Term Space Weather Forecasts," Space Weather: The International Journal of Research and Applications, 30 11 2025

work page 2025
[5]

NASA TROPICS Sample Deorbit Report,

Leonid Space, "NASA TROPICS Sample Deorbit Report," 2025

work page 2025
[6]

The contraction of satellite orbits under the influence of air drag, III. High- eccentricity orbits (0.2 ≤ e < 1),

D. G. King-Hele, "The contraction of satellite orbits under the influence of air drag, III. High- eccentricity orbits (0.2 ≤ e < 1)," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 267, no. 1331, pp. 541-557, 1962

work page 1962
[7]

Analytic propagation of near-circular satellite orbits in the atmosphere of an oblate planet,

V. Martinusi, L. Dell’Elce and G. Kerschen, "Analytic propagation of near-circular satellite orbits in the atmosphere of an oblate planet," Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 85-103, 2015

work page 2015
[8]

Extension of the King-Hele orbit contraction method for accurate, semi-analytical propagation of non-circular orbits,

S. Frey, C. Colombo and S. Lemmens, "Extension of the King-Hele orbit contraction method for accurate, semi-analytical propagation of non-circular orbits," Advances in Space Research, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 1-17, 2019

work page 2019
[9]

Comparison of empirical and theoretical models of the thermospheric density enhancement during the 3–4 February 2022 geomagnetic storm,

J. He, "Comparison of empirical and theoretical models of the thermospheric density enhancement during the 3–4 February 2022 geomagnetic storm," Space Weather, vol. 21, no. 9, p. e2023SW003521, 2023

work page 2022
[10]

A Survey of Current Operations-Ready Thermospheric Density Models for Drag Modeling in LEO Operations,

S. Mutschler, "A Survey of Current Operations-Ready Thermospheric Density Models for Drag Modeling in LEO Operations," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), 2023

work page 2023
[11]

Low-Earth orbit prediction accuracy review of modern empirical atmospheric models and space weather data sources,

P. Mesalles-Ripoll, R. Rositani and M. Duncan, "Low-Earth orbit prediction accuracy review of modern empirical atmospheric models and space weather data sources," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, 2023. Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Public Release 26

work page 2023
[12]

Beyond Density Alone: Accuracy Assessment of Atmospheric Models for Orbit Prediction from a Satellite Operator’s Perspective,

P. Mesalles-Ripoll, "Beyond Density Alone: Accuracy Assessment of Atmospheric Models for Orbit Prediction from a Satellite Operator’s Perspective," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), 2025

work page 2025
[13]

Comparison of Atmosphere Models for Low-Altitude Re-entry Predictions,

E. Stevenson, B. Bastida Virgili, S. Lemmens and B. Reihs, "Comparison of Atmosphere Models for Low-Altitude Re-entry Predictions," in 4th International Space Debris Re-entry Workshop (ISDRW04), 2018

work page 2018
[14]

The Impact of the New NRLMSIS 2.0 on Re-Entry Predictions,

B. Bastida Virgili, S. Lemmens and E. Stevenson, "The Impact of the New NRLMSIS 2.0 on Re-Entry Predictions," in 8th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-8), 2021

work page 2021
[15]

pymsis (v0.11.0),

G. Lucas, "pymsis (v0.11.0)," Zenodo, 2025

work page 2025
[16]

NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues,

J. Picone, "NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues," Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 107, no. A12, pp. SIA-15, 2002

work page 2002
[17]

Monaco: A Monte Carlo Library for Performing Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses,

W. S. Shambaugh, "Monaco: A Monte Carlo Library for Performing Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses," in SciPy, 2022

work page 2022
[18]

CS-SI/Orekit: 13.1.2,

maisonobe, "CS-SI/Orekit: 13.1.2," Zenodo, 2025

work page 2025
[19]

Revisiting the DSST standalone orbit propagator,

P. J. Cefola, "Revisiting the DSST standalone orbit propagator," Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 152, pp. 2891-2914, 2014

work page 2014
[20]

Revisiting spacetrack report #3,

D. Vallado, "Revisiting spacetrack report #3," in AIAA/AAS astrodynamics specialist conference and exhibit, 2006

work page 2006
[21]

Orbit Prediction and Analysis for Space Situational Awareness,

D. J. Gondelach, "Orbit Prediction and Analysis for Space Situational Awareness," University of Surrey, 2020

work page 2020
[22]

Skyfield: Generate high precision research-grade positions for stars, planets, moons, and Earth satellites,

B. Rhodes, "Skyfield: Generate high precision research-grade positions for stars, planets, moons, and Earth satellites," Astrophysics Source Code Library, 2019

work page 2019
[23]

Ballistic Coefficient Estimation Methods Using Two-Line Elements,

E. Ergene, "Ballistic Coefficient Estimation Methods Using Two-Line Elements," Politecnico di Milano, 2023

work page 2023
[24]

Drag coefficient estimation using satellite attitude and orbit data,

C. L. Hassa, D. B. Spencer and S. G. Bilén, "Drag coefficient estimation using satellite attitude and orbit data," Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 152, pp. 1985-2002, 2014

work page 1985
[25]

Estimation of ballistic coefficients of low altitude debris objects from historical two line elements,

J. Sang, J. C. Bennett and C. H. Smith, "Estimation of ballistic coefficients of low altitude debris objects from historical two line elements," Advances in Space Research, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 2029- 2038, 2013

work page 2029
[26]

Ballistic Coefficient Estimation for Reentry Prediction of Rocket Bodies in Eccentric Orbits Based on TLE Data,

D. J. Gondelach, R. Armellin and A. A. Lidtke, "Ballistic Coefficient Estimation for Reentry Prediction of Rocket Bodies in Eccentric Orbits Based on TLE Data," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2017, pp. Article ID 7309637, 13 pages, 2017. Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Pub...

work page 2017
[27]

Deriving Accurate Satellite Ballistic Coefficients from Two-Line Element Data,

A. Saunders, G. G. Swinerd and H. G. Lewis, "Deriving Accurate Satellite Ballistic Coefficients from Two-Line Element Data," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 175-184, 2012

work page 2012
[28]

Celestrak Satellite Catalog,

T. S. Kelso, "Celestrak Satellite Catalog," 2025. [Online]. Available: https://celestrak.org

work page 2025
[29]

space-track.org,

United States Space Command, 18th SDS, "space-track.org," 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.space-track.org/

work page 2025
[30]

Post-Mission Disposal Considerations for Rocket Stages,

L. Ayala Fernández, C. Wiedemann, S. Silvestri, V. Braun and S. Lemmens, "Post-Mission Disposal Considerations for Rocket Stages," in 9th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-9), 2025

work page 2025
[31]

The geomagnetic Kp index and derived indices of geomagnetic activity,

J. Matzka, "The geomagnetic Kp index and derived indices of geomagnetic activity," Space Weather, vol. 19, no. 5, 2021

work page 2021
[32]

Statistical Technique for Intermediate and Long- Range Estimation of 13-Month Smoothed Solar Flux and Geomagnetic Index,

K. O. Niehuss, H. C. Euler Jr. and W. W. Vaughan, "Statistical Technique for Intermediate and Long- Range Estimation of 13-Month Smoothed Solar Flux and Geomagnetic Index," NASA, 1996

work page 1996
[33]

Future Solar Activity Estimates for Use in Prediction of Space Environmental Effects on Spacecraft Orbital Lifetime and Performance,

R. J. Suggs, "Future Solar Activity Estimates for Use in Prediction of Space Environmental Effects on Spacecraft Orbital Lifetime and Performance," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 2016

work page 2016
[34]

Prediction of Sunspot Numbers,

A. G. McNish and J. V. Lincoln, "Prediction of Sunspot Numbers," Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 673-685, 1949

work page 1949
[35]

Solar cycle prediction at NOAA's space weather prediction center,

M. S. Miesch, "Solar cycle prediction at NOAA's space weather prediction center," Space Weather, vol. 23, no. 6, p. e2025SW004444, 2025

work page 2025
[36]

Orbit Decay Prediction Sensitivity to Solar Flux Variations,

B. J. Naäsz, K. Berry and K. Schatten, "Orbit Decay Prediction Sensitivity to Solar Flux Variations," in AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2007

work page 2007
[37]

Probabilistic Assessment of Lifetime of Low-Earth-Orbit Spacecraft: Uncertainty Propagation and Sensitivity Analysis,

L. Dell’Elce and G. Kerschen, "Probabilistic Assessment of Lifetime of Low-Earth-Orbit Spacecraft: Uncertainty Propagation and Sensitivity Analysis," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 886-899, 2015

work page 2015
[38]

Probabilistic Assessment of the Lifetime of Low-Earth-Orbit Spacecraft: Uncertainty Characterization,

L. Dell’Elce, M. Arnst and G. Kerschen, "Probabilistic Assessment of the Lifetime of Low-Earth-Orbit Spacecraft: Uncertainty Characterization," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 900-912, 2015

work page 2015
[39]

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, Debris Assessment Software v3.2.6, 2024

work page 2024
[40]

ESA, DRAMA 4.1.1 (pyDRAMA), ESA Space Debris Office, 2025

work page 2025
[41]

Compliance of disposal orbits with the French Space Operations Act: the Good Practices and the STELA tool,

C. Le Fèvre, H. Fraysse, V. Morand, A. Lamy, C. Cazaux, P. Mercier, C. Dental, F. Deleflie and D. Handschuh, "Compliance of disposal orbits with the French Space Operations Act: the Good Practices and the STELA tool," Acta Astronautica, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 234-245, 2014

work page 2014
[42]

Braun, N

V. Braun, N. Sánchez-Ortiz, J. Gelhaus, C. Kebschull, S. K. Flegel, M. Möckel, C. Wiedemann, H. Krag and P. Vörsmann, "Upgrade of the ESA DRAMA OSCAR Tool: Analysis of Disposal Strategies Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Public Release 28 Considering Current Standards for Future Solar ...

work page 2026
[43]

Impact of Solar Flux Modeling on Satellite Lifetime Predictions,

V. Braun, S. K. Flegel, J. Gelhaus, C. Kebschull, M. Möckel, J. Radtke, C. Wiedemann, H. Krag and P. Vörsmann, "Impact of Solar Flux Modeling on Satellite Lifetime Predictions," in International Astronautical Congress (IAC) / Space Debris Symposium, 2012

work page 2012
[44]

ESA Space Debris Mitigation Compliance Verification Guidelines – ESSB-HB-U-002, Issue 3,

ESA, "ESA Space Debris Mitigation Compliance Verification Guidelines – ESSB-HB-U-002, Issue 3," European Space Agency, 2025

work page 2025
[45]

ESA Space Debris Mitigation Requirements – ESSB-ST-U-007, Issue 1,

ESA, "ESA Space Debris Mitigation Requirements – ESSB-ST-U-007, Issue 1," European Space Agency, 2023

work page 2023
[46]

Orbital Lifetime Estimation using ESA's OSCAR tool,

V. Braun, J. Gelhaus, C. Kebschull, S. K. Flegel, M. Möckel, J. Radtke, C. Wiedemann, H. Krag and P. Vörsmann, "Orbital Lifetime Estimation using ESA's OSCAR tool," in 5th European Conference for Aerospace Sciences (EUCASS), München, 2013

work page 2013
[47]

DISCOS – ESA’s Database and Information System Characterising Objects in Space,

H. Klinkrad, "DISCOS – ESA’s Database and Information System Characterising Objects in Space," Advances in Space Research, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 43-52, 1991

work page 1991
[48]

Database and Information System Characterising Objects in Space (DISCOS)

ESA, "Database and Information System Characterising Objects in Space (DISCOS)"

work page
[49]

Probabilistic Orbit Lifetime Assessment with OSCAR,

V. Braun, S. Lemmens, H. Krag, T. Flohrer, K. Merz, B. Bastida Virgili and Q. Funke, "Probabilistic Orbit Lifetime Assessment with OSCAR," in 6th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques (ICATT), 2016

work page 2016
[50]

Assessing Uncertainties in the Estimation of the Orbital Lifetime,

A. Operti, V. Braun, S. Lemmens and S. Corpino, "Assessing Uncertainties in the Estimation of the Orbital Lifetime," in 7th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-7), 2017

work page 2017
[51]

Ballistic parameter and lifetime assessment for catalogued objects,

K. D. Bunte, H. Sdunnus, J. C. Mandeville and H. Klinkrad, "Ballistic parameter and lifetime assessment for catalogued objects," in 3rd European Conference on Space Debris (ESOC, Darmstadt), 2001

work page 2001
[52]

From End-of-Life to Impact on Ground: An Overview of ESA’s Tools and Techniques to Predict Re- entries from the Operational Orbit Down to the Earth’s Surface,

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 Down to the Earth’s Surface," in 6th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques (ICATT), 2016

work page 2016
[53]

SOLMAG: an operational system for prediction of solar and geomagnetic activity indices,

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," in 1st European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-1), 1993

work page 1993
[54]

DISCOS – Current Status and Future Developments,

T. Flohrer, S. Lemmens, B. Bastida Virgili, H. Krag, H. Klinkrad, E. Parrilla, N. Sanchez, J. Oliveira and F. Pina, "DISCOS – Current Status and Future Developments," in 6th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-6), 2013. Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Public Release 29

work page 2013
[55]

Medium-term Predictions of F10.7 and F30 cm Solar Radio Flux with the Adaptive Kalman Filter,

E. Petrova, T. Podladchikova, A. M. Veronig, S. Lemmens, B. Bastida Virgili and T. Flohrer, "Medium-term Predictions of F10.7 and F30 cm Solar Radio Flux with the Adaptive Kalman Filter," The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, vol. 254, no. 1, p. 9, 2021

work page 2021
[56]

Practicalities of Re-entry Predictions – The VEGA-01 AVUM Case,

B. Bastida Virgili, S. Lemmens and T. Flohrer, "Practicalities of Re-entry Predictions – The VEGA-01 AVUM Case," in 7th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-7), 2017

work page 2017
[57]

Government Publishing Office, 2025

United States Federal Communications Commission, 47 CFR §25.114(d)(14)(vii)(D)(1), U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2025

work page 2025
[58]

NASA-STD 8719.14 Revision A with Change 1: Process for Limiting Orbital Debris,

NASA, "NASA-STD 8719.14 Revision A with Change 1: Process for Limiting Orbital Debris," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2012

work page 2012
[59]

A Sensitivity Analysis of DAS Lifetime Collision Probability Estimates,

Y. Chandramouli and L. Shockley, "A Sensitivity Analysis of DAS Lifetime Collision Probability Estimates," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), 2025

work page 2025
[60]

A Study on Re-entry Predictions of Uncontrolled Space Objects for Space Situational Awareness,

E.-J. Choi, S. Cho, D.-J. Lee, S. Kim and J. H. Jo, "A Study on Re-entry Predictions of Uncontrolled Space Objects for Space Situational Awareness," Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 289-302, 2017

work page 2017
[61]

Satellite Lifetime and Solar Cycle Predictions,

D. Oltrogge and D. A. Vallado, "Satellite Lifetime and Solar Cycle Predictions," in 8th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-8), Darmstadt, 2021

work page 2021
[62]

Assessing the Risk and the Uncertainty Affecting the Uncontrolled Re- entry of Manmade Space Objects,

C. Pardini and L. Anselmo, "Assessing the Risk and the Uncertainty Affecting the Uncontrolled Re- entry of Manmade Space Objects," Journal of Space Safety Engineering, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 46-62, 2018

work page 2018
[63]

Re-entry Prediction Uncertainties Derived from Environmental and Observation Considerations,

N. Sánchez-Ortiz, N. Guijarro López, I. Grande, L. Tabera, A. White, S. Bruinsma and S. Lemmens, "Re-entry Prediction Uncertainties Derived from Environmental and Observation Considerations," in 7th European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, 2017

work page 2017
[64]

Re-Entry Predictions for Uncontrolled Satellites: Results and Challenges,

C. Pardini and L. Anselmo, "Re-Entry Predictions for Uncontrolled Satellites: Results and Challenges," in Safety Is Not an Option, Proceedings of the 6th IAASS Conference, Montreal, 2013

work page 2013
[65]

Re-entry Analysis Comparison with Different Solar Activity Models of Spent Upper Stage Using ESA's DRAMA Tool,

E. David and V. Braun, "Re-entry Analysis Comparison with Different Solar Activity Models of Spent Upper Stage Using ESA's DRAMA Tool," in 6th IAASS Conference, Montreal, 2013

work page 2013
[66]

Influences of Space Weather Forecasting Uncertainty on Satellite Conjunction Assessment,

W. E. Parker, M. Freeman, G. Chisham, A. Kavanagh, P. M. Siew, V. Rodriguez-Fernandez and R. Linares, "Influences of Space Weather Forecasting Uncertainty on Satellite Conjunction Assessment," Space Weather, no. n/a, 2024. Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Public Release 30 Appendix 1: ...

work page 2024

[1] [1]

Doing battle with the sun: lessons from LEO and operating a satellite constellation in the elevated atmospheric drag environment of Solar Cycle 25,

W. S. Shambaugh, "Doing battle with the sun: lessons from LEO and operating a satellite constellation in the elevated atmospheric drag environment of Solar Cycle 25," in Small Satellites Systems and Services Symposium (4S 2024), 2025

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Geomagnetic Storm and Recently Deployed Starlink Satellites,

SpaceX, "Geomagnetic Storm and Recently Deployed Starlink Satellites," 8 February 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.spacex.com/updates

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Operational Responses to LEO Satellite Orbital Decay during the 25th Solar Cycle Maximum,

C. Yap, M. Siegers, A. M. L. Valle, R. t. Nallapu, I. Demir, K. Devaraj and S. McIntosh, "Operational Responses to LEO Satellite Orbital Decay during the 25th Solar Cycle Maximum," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

X. Wang, R. Wang, K. Wang, Z. Yang, T. Ren, J. Cao, M. Li, S. Liu, B. Luo and C. Wang, "Premature Reentry of the Binar CubeSats Due To Underestimation of Solar and Geomagnetic Activities and Its Implication for Importance of Medium- and Long-Term Space Weather Forecasts," Space Weather: The International Journal of Research and Applications, 30 11 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

NASA TROPICS Sample Deorbit Report,

Leonid Space, "NASA TROPICS Sample Deorbit Report," 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

The contraction of satellite orbits under the influence of air drag, III. High- eccentricity orbits (0.2 ≤ e < 1),

D. G. King-Hele, "The contraction of satellite orbits under the influence of air drag, III. High- eccentricity orbits (0.2 ≤ e < 1)," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 267, no. 1331, pp. 541-557, 1962

work page 1962

[7] [7]

Analytic propagation of near-circular satellite orbits in the atmosphere of an oblate planet,

V. Martinusi, L. Dell’Elce and G. Kerschen, "Analytic propagation of near-circular satellite orbits in the atmosphere of an oblate planet," Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 85-103, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Extension of the King-Hele orbit contraction method for accurate, semi-analytical propagation of non-circular orbits,

S. Frey, C. Colombo and S. Lemmens, "Extension of the King-Hele orbit contraction method for accurate, semi-analytical propagation of non-circular orbits," Advances in Space Research, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 1-17, 2019

work page 2019

[9] [9]

Comparison of empirical and theoretical models of the thermospheric density enhancement during the 3–4 February 2022 geomagnetic storm,

J. He, "Comparison of empirical and theoretical models of the thermospheric density enhancement during the 3–4 February 2022 geomagnetic storm," Space Weather, vol. 21, no. 9, p. e2023SW003521, 2023

work page 2022

[10] [10]

A Survey of Current Operations-Ready Thermospheric Density Models for Drag Modeling in LEO Operations,

S. Mutschler, "A Survey of Current Operations-Ready Thermospheric Density Models for Drag Modeling in LEO Operations," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), 2023

work page 2023

[11] [11]

Low-Earth orbit prediction accuracy review of modern empirical atmospheric models and space weather data sources,

P. Mesalles-Ripoll, R. Rositani and M. Duncan, "Low-Earth orbit prediction accuracy review of modern empirical atmospheric models and space weather data sources," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, 2023. Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Public Release 26

work page 2023

[12] [12]

Beyond Density Alone: Accuracy Assessment of Atmospheric Models for Orbit Prediction from a Satellite Operator’s Perspective,

P. Mesalles-Ripoll, "Beyond Density Alone: Accuracy Assessment of Atmospheric Models for Orbit Prediction from a Satellite Operator’s Perspective," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), 2025

work page 2025

[13] [13]

Comparison of Atmosphere Models for Low-Altitude Re-entry Predictions,

E. Stevenson, B. Bastida Virgili, S. Lemmens and B. Reihs, "Comparison of Atmosphere Models for Low-Altitude Re-entry Predictions," in 4th International Space Debris Re-entry Workshop (ISDRW04), 2018

work page 2018

[14] [14]

The Impact of the New NRLMSIS 2.0 on Re-Entry Predictions,

B. Bastida Virgili, S. Lemmens and E. Stevenson, "The Impact of the New NRLMSIS 2.0 on Re-Entry Predictions," in 8th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-8), 2021

work page 2021

[15] [15]

pymsis (v0.11.0),

G. Lucas, "pymsis (v0.11.0)," Zenodo, 2025

work page 2025

[16] [16]

NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues,

J. Picone, "NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues," Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 107, no. A12, pp. SIA-15, 2002

work page 2002

[17] [17]

Monaco: A Monte Carlo Library for Performing Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses,

W. S. Shambaugh, "Monaco: A Monte Carlo Library for Performing Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses," in SciPy, 2022

work page 2022

[18] [18]

CS-SI/Orekit: 13.1.2,

maisonobe, "CS-SI/Orekit: 13.1.2," Zenodo, 2025

work page 2025

[19] [19]

Revisiting the DSST standalone orbit propagator,

P. J. Cefola, "Revisiting the DSST standalone orbit propagator," Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 152, pp. 2891-2914, 2014

work page 2014

[20] [20]

Revisiting spacetrack report #3,

D. Vallado, "Revisiting spacetrack report #3," in AIAA/AAS astrodynamics specialist conference and exhibit, 2006

work page 2006

[21] [21]

Orbit Prediction and Analysis for Space Situational Awareness,

D. J. Gondelach, "Orbit Prediction and Analysis for Space Situational Awareness," University of Surrey, 2020

work page 2020

[22] [22]

Skyfield: Generate high precision research-grade positions for stars, planets, moons, and Earth satellites,

B. Rhodes, "Skyfield: Generate high precision research-grade positions for stars, planets, moons, and Earth satellites," Astrophysics Source Code Library, 2019

work page 2019

[23] [23]

Ballistic Coefficient Estimation Methods Using Two-Line Elements,

E. Ergene, "Ballistic Coefficient Estimation Methods Using Two-Line Elements," Politecnico di Milano, 2023

work page 2023

[24] [24]

Drag coefficient estimation using satellite attitude and orbit data,

C. L. Hassa, D. B. Spencer and S. G. Bilén, "Drag coefficient estimation using satellite attitude and orbit data," Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 152, pp. 1985-2002, 2014

work page 1985

[25] [25]

Estimation of ballistic coefficients of low altitude debris objects from historical two line elements,

J. Sang, J. C. Bennett and C. H. Smith, "Estimation of ballistic coefficients of low altitude debris objects from historical two line elements," Advances in Space Research, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 2029- 2038, 2013

work page 2029

[26] [26]

Ballistic Coefficient Estimation for Reentry Prediction of Rocket Bodies in Eccentric Orbits Based on TLE Data,

D. J. Gondelach, R. Armellin and A. A. Lidtke, "Ballistic Coefficient Estimation for Reentry Prediction of Rocket Bodies in Eccentric Orbits Based on TLE Data," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2017, pp. Article ID 7309637, 13 pages, 2017. Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Pub...

work page 2017

[27] [27]

Deriving Accurate Satellite Ballistic Coefficients from Two-Line Element Data,

A. Saunders, G. G. Swinerd and H. G. Lewis, "Deriving Accurate Satellite Ballistic Coefficients from Two-Line Element Data," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 175-184, 2012

work page 2012

[28] [28]

Celestrak Satellite Catalog,

T. S. Kelso, "Celestrak Satellite Catalog," 2025. [Online]. Available: https://celestrak.org

work page 2025

[29] [29]

space-track.org,

United States Space Command, 18th SDS, "space-track.org," 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.space-track.org/

work page 2025

[30] [30]

Post-Mission Disposal Considerations for Rocket Stages,

L. Ayala Fernández, C. Wiedemann, S. Silvestri, V. Braun and S. Lemmens, "Post-Mission Disposal Considerations for Rocket Stages," in 9th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-9), 2025

work page 2025

[31] [31]

The geomagnetic Kp index and derived indices of geomagnetic activity,

J. Matzka, "The geomagnetic Kp index and derived indices of geomagnetic activity," Space Weather, vol. 19, no. 5, 2021

work page 2021

[32] [32]

Statistical Technique for Intermediate and Long- Range Estimation of 13-Month Smoothed Solar Flux and Geomagnetic Index,

K. O. Niehuss, H. C. Euler Jr. and W. W. Vaughan, "Statistical Technique for Intermediate and Long- Range Estimation of 13-Month Smoothed Solar Flux and Geomagnetic Index," NASA, 1996

work page 1996

[33] [33]

Future Solar Activity Estimates for Use in Prediction of Space Environmental Effects on Spacecraft Orbital Lifetime and Performance,

R. J. Suggs, "Future Solar Activity Estimates for Use in Prediction of Space Environmental Effects on Spacecraft Orbital Lifetime and Performance," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 2016

work page 2016

[34] [34]

Prediction of Sunspot Numbers,

A. G. McNish and J. V. Lincoln, "Prediction of Sunspot Numbers," Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 673-685, 1949

work page 1949

[35] [35]

Solar cycle prediction at NOAA's space weather prediction center,

M. S. Miesch, "Solar cycle prediction at NOAA's space weather prediction center," Space Weather, vol. 23, no. 6, p. e2025SW004444, 2025

work page 2025

[36] [36]

Orbit Decay Prediction Sensitivity to Solar Flux Variations,

B. J. Naäsz, K. Berry and K. Schatten, "Orbit Decay Prediction Sensitivity to Solar Flux Variations," in AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2007

work page 2007

[37] [37]

Probabilistic Assessment of Lifetime of Low-Earth-Orbit Spacecraft: Uncertainty Propagation and Sensitivity Analysis,

L. Dell’Elce and G. Kerschen, "Probabilistic Assessment of Lifetime of Low-Earth-Orbit Spacecraft: Uncertainty Propagation and Sensitivity Analysis," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 886-899, 2015

work page 2015

[38] [38]

Probabilistic Assessment of the Lifetime of Low-Earth-Orbit Spacecraft: Uncertainty Characterization,

L. Dell’Elce, M. Arnst and G. Kerschen, "Probabilistic Assessment of the Lifetime of Low-Earth-Orbit Spacecraft: Uncertainty Characterization," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 900-912, 2015

work page 2015

[39] [39]

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, Debris Assessment Software v3.2.6, 2024

work page 2024

[40] [40]

ESA, DRAMA 4.1.1 (pyDRAMA), ESA Space Debris Office, 2025

work page 2025

[41] [41]

Compliance of disposal orbits with the French Space Operations Act: the Good Practices and the STELA tool,

C. Le Fèvre, H. Fraysse, V. Morand, A. Lamy, C. Cazaux, P. Mercier, C. Dental, F. Deleflie and D. Handschuh, "Compliance of disposal orbits with the French Space Operations Act: the Good Practices and the STELA tool," Acta Astronautica, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 234-245, 2014

work page 2014

[42] [42]

Braun, N

V. Braun, N. Sánchez-Ortiz, J. Gelhaus, C. Kebschull, S. K. Flegel, M. Möckel, C. Wiedemann, H. Krag and P. Vörsmann, "Upgrade of the ESA DRAMA OSCAR Tool: Analysis of Disposal Strategies Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Public Release 28 Considering Current Standards for Future Solar ...

work page 2026

[43] [43]

Impact of Solar Flux Modeling on Satellite Lifetime Predictions,

V. Braun, S. K. Flegel, J. Gelhaus, C. Kebschull, M. Möckel, J. Radtke, C. Wiedemann, H. Krag and P. Vörsmann, "Impact of Solar Flux Modeling on Satellite Lifetime Predictions," in International Astronautical Congress (IAC) / Space Debris Symposium, 2012

work page 2012

[44] [44]

ESA Space Debris Mitigation Compliance Verification Guidelines – ESSB-HB-U-002, Issue 3,

ESA, "ESA Space Debris Mitigation Compliance Verification Guidelines – ESSB-HB-U-002, Issue 3," European Space Agency, 2025

work page 2025

[45] [45]

ESA Space Debris Mitigation Requirements – ESSB-ST-U-007, Issue 1,

ESA, "ESA Space Debris Mitigation Requirements – ESSB-ST-U-007, Issue 1," European Space Agency, 2023

work page 2023

[46] [46]

Orbital Lifetime Estimation using ESA's OSCAR tool,

V. Braun, J. Gelhaus, C. Kebschull, S. K. Flegel, M. Möckel, J. Radtke, C. Wiedemann, H. Krag and P. Vörsmann, "Orbital Lifetime Estimation using ESA's OSCAR tool," in 5th European Conference for Aerospace Sciences (EUCASS), München, 2013

work page 2013

[47] [47]

DISCOS – ESA’s Database and Information System Characterising Objects in Space,

H. Klinkrad, "DISCOS – ESA’s Database and Information System Characterising Objects in Space," Advances in Space Research, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 43-52, 1991

work page 1991

[48] [48]

Database and Information System Characterising Objects in Space (DISCOS)

ESA, "Database and Information System Characterising Objects in Space (DISCOS)"

work page

[49] [49]

Probabilistic Orbit Lifetime Assessment with OSCAR,

V. Braun, S. Lemmens, H. Krag, T. Flohrer, K. Merz, B. Bastida Virgili and Q. Funke, "Probabilistic Orbit Lifetime Assessment with OSCAR," in 6th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques (ICATT), 2016

work page 2016

[50] [50]

Assessing Uncertainties in the Estimation of the Orbital Lifetime,

A. Operti, V. Braun, S. Lemmens and S. Corpino, "Assessing Uncertainties in the Estimation of the Orbital Lifetime," in 7th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-7), 2017

work page 2017

[51] [51]

Ballistic parameter and lifetime assessment for catalogued objects,

K. D. Bunte, H. Sdunnus, J. C. Mandeville and H. Klinkrad, "Ballistic parameter and lifetime assessment for catalogued objects," in 3rd European Conference on Space Debris (ESOC, Darmstadt), 2001

work page 2001

[52] [52]

From End-of-Life to Impact on Ground: An Overview of ESA’s Tools and Techniques to Predict Re- entries from the Operational Orbit Down to the Earth’s Surface,

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 Down to the Earth’s Surface," in 6th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques (ICATT), 2016

work page 2016

[53] [53]

SOLMAG: an operational system for prediction of solar and geomagnetic activity indices,

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," in 1st European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-1), 1993

work page 1993

[54] [54]

DISCOS – Current Status and Future Developments,

T. Flohrer, S. Lemmens, B. Bastida Virgili, H. Krag, H. Klinkrad, E. Parrilla, N. Sanchez, J. Oliveira and F. Pina, "DISCOS – Current Status and Future Developments," in 6th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-6), 2013. Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Public Release 29

work page 2013

[55] [55]

Medium-term Predictions of F10.7 and F30 cm Solar Radio Flux with the Adaptive Kalman Filter,

E. Petrova, T. Podladchikova, A. M. Veronig, S. Lemmens, B. Bastida Virgili and T. Flohrer, "Medium-term Predictions of F10.7 and F30 cm Solar Radio Flux with the Adaptive Kalman Filter," The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, vol. 254, no. 1, p. 9, 2021

work page 2021

[56] [56]

Practicalities of Re-entry Predictions – The VEGA-01 AVUM Case,

B. Bastida Virgili, S. Lemmens and T. Flohrer, "Practicalities of Re-entry Predictions – The VEGA-01 AVUM Case," in 7th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-7), 2017

work page 2017

[57] [57]

Government Publishing Office, 2025

United States Federal Communications Commission, 47 CFR §25.114(d)(14)(vii)(D)(1), U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2025

work page 2025

[58] [58]

NASA-STD 8719.14 Revision A with Change 1: Process for Limiting Orbital Debris,

NASA, "NASA-STD 8719.14 Revision A with Change 1: Process for Limiting Orbital Debris," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2012

work page 2012

[59] [59]

A Sensitivity Analysis of DAS Lifetime Collision Probability Estimates,

Y. Chandramouli and L. Shockley, "A Sensitivity Analysis of DAS Lifetime Collision Probability Estimates," in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), 2025

work page 2025

[60] [60]

A Study on Re-entry Predictions of Uncontrolled Space Objects for Space Situational Awareness,

E.-J. Choi, S. Cho, D.-J. Lee, S. Kim and J. H. Jo, "A Study on Re-entry Predictions of Uncontrolled Space Objects for Space Situational Awareness," Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 289-302, 2017

work page 2017

[61] [61]

Satellite Lifetime and Solar Cycle Predictions,

D. Oltrogge and D. A. Vallado, "Satellite Lifetime and Solar Cycle Predictions," in 8th European Conference on Space Debris (SDC-8), Darmstadt, 2021

work page 2021

[62] [62]

Assessing the Risk and the Uncertainty Affecting the Uncontrolled Re- entry of Manmade Space Objects,

C. Pardini and L. Anselmo, "Assessing the Risk and the Uncertainty Affecting the Uncontrolled Re- entry of Manmade Space Objects," Journal of Space Safety Engineering, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 46-62, 2018

work page 2018

[63] [63]

Re-entry Prediction Uncertainties Derived from Environmental and Observation Considerations,

N. Sánchez-Ortiz, N. Guijarro López, I. Grande, L. Tabera, A. White, S. Bruinsma and S. Lemmens, "Re-entry Prediction Uncertainties Derived from Environmental and Observation Considerations," in 7th European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, 2017

work page 2017

[64] [64]

Re-Entry Predictions for Uncontrolled Satellites: Results and Challenges,

C. Pardini and L. Anselmo, "Re-Entry Predictions for Uncontrolled Satellites: Results and Challenges," in Safety Is Not an Option, Proceedings of the 6th IAASS Conference, Montreal, 2013

work page 2013

[65] [65]

Re-entry Analysis Comparison with Different Solar Activity Models of Spent Upper Stage Using ESA's DRAMA Tool,

E. David and V. Braun, "Re-entry Analysis Comparison with Different Solar Activity Models of Spent Upper Stage Using ESA's DRAMA Tool," in 6th IAASS Conference, Montreal, 2013

work page 2013

[66] [66]

Influences of Space Weather Forecasting Uncertainty on Satellite Conjunction Assessment,

W. E. Parker, M. Freeman, G. Chisham, A. Kavanagh, P. M. Siew, V. Rodriguez-Fernandez and R. Linares, "Influences of Space Weather Forecasting Uncertainty on Satellite Conjunction Assessment," Space Weather, no. n/a, 2024. Validation of Satellite Lifetime Predictions at Leonid Space – Rev. 1.0 ©2026 Leonid Space Approved for Public Release 30 Appendix 1: ...

work page 2024