1

Automated Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment at Mars and 

the Moon - A Five Year Update

David S. Berry,

1 Zahi B. Tarzi2

, Ralph B. Roncoli3, Roby S. Wilson4

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA

It is well known that the Earth has an ongoing problem with orbiting space debris. Some Earth orbiting 

missions have regular warnings of close approaches with debris or other satellites. At Mars and the Moon, due 

to the growing number of orbiter missions and the current inability to track orbital debris in these 

environments, the creation of a hazardous debris field must be avoided because a debris field would greatly 

complicate both existing and future operations. Work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the area of 

automated spacecraft conjunction assessment at Mars and the Moon has been conducted over the past six years

using a process called "MADCAP" ("Multimission Automated Deepspace Conjunction Assessment Process"). 

A paper introducing this work was presented at Space Ops in Stockholm, Sweden in 2012. In that inaugural 

paper, the then current state of operations was presented along with a number of items that were identified for 

potential future work. The fundamental design concepts of MADCAP have not materially changed in the last 

five years, however, since 2012 a number of the changes to MADCAP identified in the previous paper have 

been implemented. Some other previously planned work has not progressed appreciably; several of these items 

remain on a "parking lot" list. In addition to the items that were listed as prospective future work, JPL's 

Mars/Moon conjunction assessment efforts have also been extended in a few unplanned but important areas. 

This follow-up paper will provide a five year update on MADCAP operations at Mars and the Moon.

I. I. Introduction

HAT the Earth has an ongoing problem with space debris in its orbital environment, both Low Earth Orbit (LEO) 

and Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO), is well known [1]. Some Earth orbiting missions have several warnings of 

close approaches with debris objects each month (for example, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2)). 

Thankfully, the Earth's orbital environment is continuously surveyed by the Space Surveillance Network (SSN), which 

can track objects down to approximately 10 cm in radar cross section [2]. At Mars and the Moon, the growing number 

of orbiter missions makes the debris management job one of avoiding the creation of a hazardous debris field in the 

first place. An orbital debris environment does not honor national boundaries; once created by any space operator, 

either accidentally or intentionally, virtually all space programs with assets in the affected orbital environment are 

potentially subject to risks of collisions with debris.

NASA currently expends resources to monitor satellite conjunctions in environments with multiple orbiters. Earth's

satellite and orbital debris environment is monitored by NASA's Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) 

program [3,4] located at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Conjunction assessments were performed manually 

at Mars by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) starting in 2004 for the operational spacecraft there (Mars Global 

Surveyor, Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Express) [5]. Automated spacecraft conjunction assessment 

at Mars and the Moon has been conducted by JPL using the Multimission Automated Deepspace Conjunction 

Assessment Process (MADCAP) starting in 2011 [6-8]; a paper introducing this work was presented at Space Ops in 

Stockholm, Sweden in 2012 [6]. In that inaugural paper, produced after approximately one year of operations, the then 

current state of operations was presented along with a number of items that were identified for potential future work. 

This follow-up paper will present an update that identifies which future work items identified in 2012 have been 

completed in the past five years, which have not yet been completed, and the current status of the overall effort. As in 

the 2012 paper, this paper will conclude by identifying a few items for potential future work. Planning for some of 

these is already in progress.

 1 Program Area Manager, Mission Design and Navigation Section, david.s.berry@jpl.nasa.gov, AIAA Senior 

Member.

2 Navigation Engineer, Mission Design and Navigation Section, zahi.b.tarzi@jpl.nasa.gov . 3 Deputy Section Manager, Mission Design and Navigation Section, ralph.b.roncoli@jpl.nasa.gov . 4 Group Supervisor, Mission Design and Navigation Section, roby.s.wilson@jpl.nasa.gov, AIAA Senior Member.

T

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 

 2018 SpaceOps Conference 

 28 May - 1 June 2018, Marseille, France 

 10.2514/6.2018-2678 

 Copyright © 2018 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 

 The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental purposes. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner. 

 SpaceOps Conferences 
2

II. The Orbital Debris Problem

NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office cites that approximately 18,500 objects in Earth orbit are officially 

cataloged by the US Space Surveillance Network (SSN), down to objects approximately 10 cm in radar cross section. 

Over half of these objects are "fragmentation debris", which includes satellite breakup debris and anomalous event 

debris. Figure 1 below displays a summary of all objects in Earth orbit officially cataloged by the SSN. [9] 

Fig. 1: Monthly Number of Cataloged Objects in Earth Orbit by Object Type [9]

Currently there is no known orbital debris field at the Moon or Mars, but it would be very undesirable to create 

one given that there is no way to realistically track the debris from Earth as is done with the Earth-based SSN. Such a 

debris field at the Moon or Mars would greatly complicate both existing and future operations in those orbital 

environments (both robotic and future human missions), because even small particle impacts are capable of causing 

spacecraft damage and generating additional fragmentation events. [1]

The intentional destruction of the Fengyun-1C (FY-1C) weather satellite in a Chinese anti-satellite test in January 

of 2007 and the accidental collision between Cosmos 2251 and the operational Iridium 33 in February of 2009 are 

considered the worst Earth orbiter breakups in history [10]. According to the NASA orbital debris office, a total of 

5579 fragments were cataloged by the United States Space Surveillance Network (SSN) for these two events, and over 

4200 of them still remained in orbit as of April 2018 (2833 from Fengyun 1C, 1076 from Cosmos 2251, and 335 from 

Iridium 33) [11]. In addition to these cataloged objects, models predict that hundreds of thousands of fragments down 

to millimeter size were also generated during the breakups. These fragments are too small to be tracked by the SSN, 

but still pose risks to spacecraft operations. [12,13]

At Mars and the Moon, the growing number of orbiter missions, coupled with the current inability to track orbital 

debris in these environments, suggest that the debris management job must focus on avoiding the creation of a 

hazardous debris field in the first place. The necessity of this debris prevention function provided the inspiration for 

the Multimission Automated Deepspace Conjunction Assessment Process (MADCAP). One of the primary virtues of 

MADCAP processing is that it works to preserve two important orbital environments that are currently free of a 

hazardous debris field. Once there is a collision of two objects in orbit around the Moon or Mars, a debris field would 

be created that could take many years to dissipate, depending on the altitude and several other factors [14]. It could 

require several years before a viable debris monitoring system could be put in place in these environments since debris 

monitoring would be impossible with Earth-based radars. During the time between debris field creation and the 

implementation of an adequate monitoring system (which has not been proposed or funded), all missions operating in 

the affected environment would run the risk of a catastrophic collision with untrackable debris, which would 

compound the problem. Such debris fields could affect the plans of any space operator that plans to send missions to 

the Moon or Mars, and there are several such plans in the works (e.g., ISRO's Chandrayaan-2 mission, NASA's Lunar 

Orbital Platform-Gateway, UAE's "Hope" mission, Elon Musk's SpaceX plans for Mars, etc.). The risk would be 

particularly great for human missions. One major potential source of lunar spacecraft is NASA's Space Launch 

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
3

System/Exploration Mission 1 (SLS/EM-1) and SLS/EM-2. Current plans call for up to 13 cubesats on SLS/EM-1 

and up to 40 cubesats on SLS/EM-2. This large number of spacecraft, several of which are lower budget or 

experimental spacecraft could potentially lead to more inactive, uncontrollable spacecraft in the lunar environment.

III. MADCAP Fundamental Design Concepts

The fundamental design concepts of MADCAP have not materially changed since their conception in 2011. A 

parameter file is setup for each orbital environment to be analyzed, which allows conjunction analyses in any orbital 

environment without modifying the underlying software. The parameters fall into a few general classes: environment 

(central body, coordinate system); bodies within the environment (active spacecraft, inactive spacecraft, natural 

bodies); thresholds used to classify conjunction events and control report generation; options for detailed reports and 

plots; and email lists for report participants. The main parameters that establish the orbital environment are the 

specification of the central body and a list of at least two spacecraft (or other bodies including natural satellites or 

debris). MADCAP is automatically initiated and automatically downloadsthe latest ephemerides from the Deep Space 

Network's (DSN) Service Preparation Subsystem (SPS) portal that were prepared by the navigation teams for tracking 

purposes. Two basic types of files are downloaded from SPS: "predicts grade" ephemerides and "scheduling grade" 

ephemerides. The predicts grade ephemerides represent the navigation team's best estimate of the spacecraft trajectory; 

these ephemerides are used in the generation of DSN pointing and frequency predicts. The scheduling grade 

ephemerides may represent a lower fidelity predict used for scheduling antenna time, or a "reference trajectory".

Reference ephemeris files are usually longer duration ephemeris files that represent a reference, baseline, or nominal 

trajectory, and often include some future planned maneuvers. The reference ephemeris files are typically updated less 

frequently than predicts grade ephemerides.

In addition to downloading from SPS, missions have the option to include in the parameter file one supplementary 

ephemeris file to be included in the analysis. This ephemeris may be a test case representing an alternative scenario 

such as a "no-burn" option in the case of a planned maneuver, or some other scenario. Supplementary ephemerides 

for planned and/or non-operational missions and natural bodies that are not available on the SPS can also be added in 

this way, as can ephemerides from missions that are not using the DSN/SPS. MADCAP then performs pairwise close 

approach event searches among the objects listed in the parameter file using the collection of ephemerides. 

Comparisons occur for up to 100 days of the overlapping time period of the two ephemeris files analyzed (this duration 

can be adjusted by the MADCAP operations team if needed for special analyses). An event search is carried out for 

the minimum relative distance between the two spacecraft analyzed. Each relative minimum is classified as a "close

approach event". Candidate close approach events are then evaluated against mission-established, risk-based

thresholds prepared by the navigation teams to classify them as "red" or "not red". A "red event" is a close approach 

event 14 days or less in the future for which the selected orbital attribute is below the defined threshold values (several 

orbital attributes are instrumented). A red event requires some level of attention by a navigation team. Reports are 

prepared and communicated by email to interested parties.

Three types of reports are generated and distributed. A detailed output table is created for each pair of spacecraft 

analyzed, each line of which contains information on the conjunction attributes requested in the parameter file. 

Depending on the amount of overlap between the two ephemeris files in the comparison, these detailed reports can be 

quite long. MADCAP also generates two-dimensional plots of several of the conjunction attributes. The primary and 

most widely distributed report that most MADCAP users pay attention to is the Summary Report. It captures a large 

amount of information in a single, easily digested format. The reports are discussed in detail in Ref. [7] so they will 

not be described in detail here. A sample Summary Report is shown in the Appendix.

IV. Conjunction Assessment at Mars and the Moon Circa 2012

JPL's work with automated spacecraft conjunction assessment at Mars and the Moon was presented at Space Ops 

in Stockholm, Sweden in 2012 [6] after MADCAP had been in regular operations for about a year. The fundamental 

concepts of MADCAP had been designed and implemented, but there were many thoughts as to improvements.

As of 2012, the primary attribute for MADCAP's conjunction assessment was the "close approach distance" metric. 

MADCAP's Summary Report focused on this metric, and categorized the close approaches as green, yellow, or red 

depending on the magnitude of the close approach and the thresholds established by the navigation teams for the 

various missions. At that time, MADCAP could only use a "constant covariance" because there was no means to 

incorporate a covariance into the SPICE/SPK (Spacecraft Planetary Kernel) ephemeris files used by the DSN/SPS.

In the Stockholm paper, a number of items were identified for potential future work, including: formalize a process 

for responding when approaches are "too close"; refine uncertainty modeling to improve collision probability 

calculation; explore collaboration with NASA/GSFC and the European Space Agency's (ESA) Space Situational 

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
4

Awareness (SSA) program; incorporate more sophisticated automation than Linux "cron"; include other shared orbital 

environments of potential interest (e.g., Sun-Earth L1/L2, Earth-Moon L1/L2); and provide an option to output a 

Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) Conjunction Data Message (CDM), which was at the time 

an emerging international standard. 

V. Conjunction Assessment at Mars and the Moon - Planned Changes Since 2012

Since 2012 a number of the planned changes to MADCAP identified in the previous paper have been implemented, 

as detailed in the following sections.

A. Responding to "Too Close" Situations

In 2012, a formal response to approaches that were "too close" had not yet been documented; the rare close 

approaches of the three Mars orbiters at the time (NASA's Mars Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and ESA's 

Mars Express) were handled on a case-by-case basis, not systematically. Occasional close approaches with low miss 

distance warranted some increased communication with navigation teams and discussion as to whether any action was 

in fact necessary. At the time it was acknowledged that a formal process would be desirable. Accordingly, such a

formal process for responding to spacecraft approaches that are "too close" was collaboratively developed by JPL's

Mission Design and Navigation Section and the Mars Program Office at JPL in late 2014, around the time that NASA's 

MAVEN and ISRO's Mars Orbiter Mission joined the environment. The succinct document "Conjunction Assessment 

Process For Mars Orbiters" discusses requirements, has procedure flowcharts for a "Monitor Process" and a "Response 

Process", and specifies who should receive notification of the events identified by MADCAP; it has since been lightly 

revised twice. [15]

In essence, the Monitor Process is realized in the MADCAP Summary Report that is emailed at the end of each 

analysis run. This report provides an overall assessment of the orbital environment and identifies both red events

within 14 days of the analysis that satisfy certain criteria and "not red events" that are predicted beyond the 14 day 

horizon. The Response Process is triggered when there is a red event reported in a Summary Report. A member of the 

MADCAP team designated as the "MDNAV MADCAP Representative" is responsible for contacting the Navigation 

Team Chiefs for the two spacecraft involved in the conjunction, discussing possible options for mitigating the 

conjunction, working out a time table for actions that might be necessary, ensuring that the two navigation teams are 

communicating directly, and providing a status email to the key personnel identified in the process document. Key 

personnel include members of JPL's Mars Program Office, members of the project management teams for the two 

flight projects, and relevant members of the JPL Mission Design and Navigation Section (including the MADCAP 

team). In many cases the red events disappear "naturally" as the time to the event decreases and updated ephemerides 

are provided by the two navigation teams, especially if the events initially appear at the 14-day horizon for red events 

used by MADCAP. However, in some cases it has been necessary for at least one of the spacecraft to maneuver to 

avoid a potential collision. These maneuvers are usually scheduled as late as possible after the threat has been 

determined to be real because the trajectory uncertainties generally reduce as the time-to-event draws near.

B. What Is "Too Close"?

As part of the formalization of the Response Process, the operational definitions of "too close" have been 

significantly refined since 2012. This has primarily involved refinements of trajectory uncertainty modeling. 

Prior to the arrival of the MAVEN spacecraft into Mars orbit in September 2014, the orbiters being tracked at Mars 

had all been in relatively stable, well-predicted orbits (an exception was when MRO was aerobraking). But since the 

periapsis altitude of the MAVEN science orbit dips into the Martian atmosphere, the spacecraft experiences 

atmospheric drag during each periapsis passage. The variability of the density of the atmosphere creates a downrange 

uncertainty that makes long range predictions of the position of the MAVEN spacecraft difficult. As a result, the 

uncertainty in the spacecraft position within its orbit can exceed 1000 kilometers when trying to predict the spacecraft 

position just a few days into the future. In order to analyze such cases using MADCAP, it proved more useful to focus 

on the orbit crossing distance (OXD) and orbit crossing timing (OXT) instead of the absolute close approach distances 

between two spacecraft. If orbit crossing distance and timing are used instead of closest approach distance, the radial 

and downtrack errors can be examined separately. A larger threshold can be used for the timing which corresponds to 

downtrack error, with a smaller threshold on orbit crossing distance, eliminating events that are somewhat close in 

timing but where the orbits do not get close to each other. This helps reduce the problem of "false" red events; events 

which would not actually present any collision risk. Accordingly, MADCAP was updated to use orbit crossing distance 

and timing as the principal conjunction assessment metrics instead of using just the closest approach distance; the 

minimum orbit distance is used in place of orbit crossings when the orbits are close to coplanar. 

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
5

Along with changing the conjunction attributes significantly, the changes in late 2014 also included a move away 

from fixed constant thresholds towards the instrumentation of dynamic polynomial-based or covariance-based data 

conjunction thresholds. The solution implemented was a variable threshold scheme based on the predicted time until 

a conjunction event. In the absence of covariance data in trajectory files, this method allows events to be assessed by 

risk level based on an uncertainty which changes as predictions are carried further in time. MADCAP was updated to 

allow for thresholds which are represented by a quadratic fit of the 3-sigma uncertainty values as a function of the 

time to the event. To simplify both the establishment of thresholds and reporting, the process was changed to focus

only on "red" and "not red" conjunctions (instead of green, yellow, red). If an event has an orbit crossing distance and 

orbit crossing time less than both mission-established thresholds for these attributes, and it is less than or equal to 14 

days in the future, it is then classified as a red event. It is "not red" if greater than 14 days in the future. The change in 

conjunction attributes did not require any logic changes in MADCAP given that "close approach distance", "orbit 

crossing distance", and "orbit crossing timing" were already criteria upon which MADCAP processing could be based,

and classifying events based on thresholds was well established. However, the logic for establishing thresholds based 

on polynomials or covariance matrices did require significant changes and there were many necessary changes to the 

MADCAP Summary Report. For those Mars missions that agreed to use the new covariance matrix feature, process 

changes were also necessary. The polynomial coefficients and covariance matrices are provided by the navigation 

teams; the MADCAP team does not dictate these.

The polynomial equations used to calculate red event threshold values for bodies without covariance data are 

described as follows:

Red OX Distance Threshold = OXD0 + (OXD1 * t) + (OXD2 * t^2) [km] (1)

Red OX Timing Threshold = OXT0 + (OXT1 * t) + (OXT2 * t^2) [sec] (2)

where t = Close Approach Epoch - Ephemeris Submit Time (in days)

These six coefficients are then listed for each body in a table in the Summary Report (except for inactive spacecraft 

which are not considered for red events). Missions preferring constant thresholds simply have zero values for the 

linear and quadratic coefficients OXD1, OXD2, OXT1, and OXT2. For conjunction events beyond the 14-day horizon, 

only two types of threshold categories are used: orbit crossing distance (OXD) thresholds and close approach distance

(CAD) thresholds.

The MADCAP parameter file maintains several parameters for use in calculating the probability of collision 

(coordinate system, the radii of the objects in kilometers (km), and the covariance reference frame). In the initial 

version of MADCAP, constant "covariance" sigmas in kilometers were provided as parameters because the true 

covariance data is not contained in the SPICE/SPK ephemeris files available on the DSN/SPS. To correct this

deficiency, a method of utilizing true covariance data provided by the spacecraft navigation team was added to 

MADCAP in summer 2015 by using the covariance matrix feature available in the CCSDS Orbit Ephemeris Message 

(OEM) Version 2 [16]. To use the covariance data, in addition to downloading the latest predicts grade SPK type 

ephemeris file available on SPS, MADCAP will also check to see if there are OEM files available on the SPS. If an 

OEM file is available that is based on the same input as the most recent SPK file, then it will be downloaded and 

checked for covariance data. If the file contains covariance data, then it will be used to calculate the conjunction

thresholds for the analysis run. Various Mars mission Navigation Teams have also agreed to generate OEM trajectory 

files with covariance data and submit them to the DSN. The polynomial uncertainty approximations are still specified 

and used for files which do not contain covariance information or in cases where the covariance data does not cover 

the portion of the ephemerides being analyzed. Currently, Mars navigation teams are starting their conversion to using 

OEMs with covariance data.

Covariance information can also improve the collision probability computation. A change in the collision 

probability formulation was also necessary to use the OEM covariance data. However, to date there has not been much 

interest from MADCAP customers in collision probability calculations, so they have not been routinely calculated.

C. Working With NASA CARA and ESA

JPL has been working on a somewhat informal basis with NASA's Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis 

program. A division of labor has essentially been agreed upon, such that CARA monitors the Earth orbital 

environment, and JPL monitors the Lunar and Martian environments.

JPL's Mission Design and Navigation Section Manager has set an objective for the MADCAP team that MADCAP 

processing be as similar as is feasible to that of CARA processing. Conceptually such a collaboration might focus on 

comparing techniques, process improvements based on technical interchange, cost-sharing, etc. Pursuant to this 

objective, members of the MADCAP team have participated in a few CARA User Forums and also participated in 

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
6

development of the NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) document on orbital debris and conjunction assessment

that discusses CARA in some detail and includes some considerations referring to MADCAP [17]. The specifications 

for covariance matrix attributes provided to JPL's Mars orbiter navigation teams match those of the CARA program

(i.e., one minute intervals between covariance matrices). There have also been team discussions regarding evaluation 

of incorporating into MADCAP the 3D probability method pioneered by CARA [18], though there has not been much 

emphasis since 2012 on calculating and reporting collision probability.

Work with ESA's Space Situational Awareness program has not explicitly commenced (though there has been

some indirect work accomplished through the activities of the CCSDS Navigation Working Group). There was also 

significant coordination between JPL Navigation and ESA's European Space Operations Center navigation team

during the aerobraking period of ESA's ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) mission. In fact, during this time the 

highest number of red events in a single analysis run was achieved over a sustained period. The frequency of red 

events jumped dramatically (new ones nearly each day), and some conjunctions would appear, then disappear, then 

reappear a day later. Until TGO aerobraking started, the MADCAP team had experienced an average of around 7 red 

events per year. During the TGO aerobraking end game, there was one MADCAP Summary Report that showed 9 for 

a single run; these were due to the very large uncertainties inherent in aerobraking operations, and many of them 

disappeared as the time to event and uncertainties decreased.

D. Improved Workflow Automation

In 2012, MADCAP was activated by a Linux cron job on a schedule based on the ephemeris update frequency of 

the spacecraft operating in the Mars and Moon environments. MADCAP was run daily for the lunar environment, but 

only run twice weekly for the Mars environment. In October/November 2014, the Mars run frequency was increased 

to daily given the larger number of spacecraft operating in the environment (MAVEN and MOM had both arrived 

within a few days of each other) and the characteristics of MAVEN's orbit (eccentric, with periodic deep dips into the 

Martian atmosphere that constituted a quasi-aerobraking effect). JPL Mission Design and Navigation's "TARDIS"

(Traceable Automation with Remote Display and Interruptible Scheduler) workflow automation tool [19] was

implemented to improve the invocation and workflow monitoring functions of MADCAP in late October 2014. Along 

with changing the invocation of the MADCAP runs, with TARDIS it was possible to incorporate several 

improvements to error control and logic flow in order to respond to some errors occasionally encountered in the daily 

operations (e.g., halting the run and not sending reports if the ephemeris downloads from SPS have failed).

Event driven automation was originally considered and is feasible given that the DSN/SPS provides an email 

message when a new ephemeris file is accepted into its repository. TARDIS could subscribe to the messages from 

SPS and kickoff a MADCAP analysis run any time an ephemeris for one of the spacecraft being monitored is uploaded 

by the navigation team. However, this event driven automation was subsequently eliminated from consideration given 

the asynchronous schedule with which missions upload ephemeris files. Several sets of reports would be distributed 

on particular days when Mars missions tend to upload ephemerides, subjecting customers to "incomplete" reports. 

Only the last report on a multi-update day would truly reflect the full set of recent updates.

E. Work Planned as of 2012, But Incomplete

Some other previously planned work has not progressed appreciably; several of these items remain on a "parking 

lot" list. In 2012 it was thought there might be interest in including monitoring of missions orbiting at L1/L2 Lagrange 

points. A parameter file was prepared and tested, but there has been no active interest in monitoring these orbital 

environments. The CCSDS Conjunction Data Message (CDM) [20], which was still under development in 2012, has 

now been used in flight operations for the past five years, primarily by the United States Air Force. Although the 

principal use of the CDM is in the densely populated Earth orbital environment, provision is made within the standard 

to report conjunctions detected in orbital environments other than Earth. In accordance with CCSDS policy, 

prototyping of the CDM was necessary prior to its becoming an international standard [21]; a simple prototype was 

built into MADCAP, but a full operations version has not been implemented. Though the CDM and the MADCAP 

Summary Report both focus on reporting information about conjunctions, one important difference between the two 

reports is that the CDM focuses in detail on one predicted conjunction, whereas the MADCAP Summary Report 

provides less information over a longer time frame and can encompass a large number of predicted conjunctions. The 

CDM's detailed focus on a single conjunction was not one of the MADCAP reporting design points.

VI. Unplanned Accomplishments Since 2012

Since 2012, JPL's Mars/Moon conjunction assessment efforts have also been extended in a few unplanned but 

important areas, as detailed in the following sections.

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
7

A. Improved Analysis Methods

Orbit crossing distance calculations are inaccurate during periods of coplanarity between the two bodies. A refined 

algorithm was developed to calculate minimum orbit distances when orbits are coplanar or nearly coplanar; it has an 

increased run time, but provides more accurate results in this situation. A check has been inserted to determine when 

the orbits being compared are coplanar (operationally defined as having angular momentum vectors within an operator 

specified parameter value). For each close approach event, if the orbits are determined to be coplanar, the refined 

algorithm is used to calculate minimum orbit distances and timing which are reported as orbit crossing distances and 

timing in MADCAP reports. To avoid long run times for bodies which are often coplanar (e.g. Phobos vs. Deimos), 

the coplanar algorithm is only used for events within 60 days from the analysis time.

B. Improved Knowledge of Non-Operational Spacecraft/Objects

One thing the MADCAP team has been interested in for some time is how to best include non-operational

spacecraft left in the Moon and Mars orbital environments. Long-term orbital predictions can be easily produced by 

simply propagating a previously known state, but these predictions typically contain large uncertainties, particularly 

with respect to the orbit phase. Because of these uncertainties, the identification of conjunction events between one 

active and one inactive spacecraft, or two inactive spacecraft, is somewhat suspect. In 2014, MADCAP started 

including inactive objects in its analysis, and produces the detailed reports and plots for pairs of objects that include

at least one inactive object (satellite or natural object), but warnings via the Summary Report are not produced. While 

it may be interesting to track the inactive spacecraft relative to active, the data are too unreliable to trigger a response 

from an active spacecraft's navigation team.

If a spacecraft is not currently being tracked by the DSN, there generally will not be an ephemeris on SPS. For 

example, ephemeris files for ISRO's Chandrayaan-1, JAXA's Ouna, and NASA's MGS and Viking5 orbiters are not 

uploaded to the SPS. These spacecraft are no longer operational, but they are still believed to be in orbit and can be 

used in analyses if an appropriate ephemeris is available. Ephemeris files for this type of non-operational spacecraft 

can be added by specifying an ephemeris file path in one of the MADCAP parameters. Though the uncertainty of the 

states in such ephemerides is greater than that of current solutions, these long-term predictions are better than nothing.

NASA's SLS/EM-1 mission will orbit the Moon in the relatively near future (schedule still TBD). In preparation 

for this mission, engineers at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) were aware of the dead satellites at the Moon and 

inquired of JPL whether knowledge of these trajectories could be improved so the EM-1 trajectory could be planned

to avoid them. This inquiry led the MADCAP team to consider using the DSN's Goldstone Solar System Radar

(GSSR) [22] to detect the dead satellites and improve their trajectories for use in MADCAP runs. Optical telescopes 

are unable to search for small objects hidden in the bright glare of the moon, so radar seemed the only plausible 

method. While using Earth-based radars to observe Chandrayaan-1 and Ouna seemed feasible, success was not certain.

To test the concept, and potentially improve the knowledge of trajectories for non-operational lunar orbiters, 

between 02-Jul-2016 and 23-Sep-2016, JPL conducted five radar tracks using a variety of different transmit/receive 

configurations and a variety of radio telescopes in an attempt to locate the ISRO Chandrayaan-1 and JAXA Ouna 

spacecraft (see Table 1). Chandrayaan-1 had stopped operating in 2009, and Ouna was last contacted in 2010.

MADCAP had been using trajectories for the Chandrayaan-1 and Ouna satellites based on propagations of their last 

known states. Uncertainties were acknowledged to be significant, but no better trajectories were available. Using the 

GSSR, JPL was successful in locating the Chandrayaan-1 orbiter (a cube about 1.5 meters on each side with a large 

solar panel 2.15 meters x 1.8 meters that significantly increased its radar cross section), obtaining sufficient 

observations to significantly improve the knowledge of the trajectory [23]. It was found that the orbit plane was 

essentially unchanged, but the downtrack position was significantly out of phase compared to the prior runout. It was 

necessary to shift the position of Chandrayaan-1 by nearly 180 degrees, or about half a cycle from the old orbital 

estimates from 2009 [23,24]. MADCAP is now using this updated trajectory, but it has now been about 1.5 years since 

it was produced so it has undoubtedly degraded again somewhat. JPL did not successfully locate the Ouna spacecraft 

despite several attempts, though it is thought to still be in orbit. One "candidate" observation of Ouna was obtained in 

late August 2016, but it could not be confirmed before the end of the experiment. Scheduling the GSSR was difficult 

because it was a very constrained resource, and the available funding for the experiment was exhausted by the end of 

fiscal year 2016. Earth-based radar detection of dead satellites at the Moon was challenging and required a reasonably 

good a priori trajectory (+/- 100 km). Due to the a priori requirement and the resource contention issues, it was 

concluded that the GSSR is not particularly suitable for a broad search similar to those within the capability of the US 

SSN [2]. As of this writing there are klystron issues that prevent the GSSR from operating at full power.

 5 Drew Jones, "Viking1 Orbit Propagation Study", JPL Internal Report, 2 March 2017.

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
8

Table 1. Dead Lunar Orbiter Radar Observations Summary

Date Objective Transmit Receive Results Summary

02-Jul-2016 (1) Detect calibration satellite 

(2) Detect Chandrayaan-1

(Doppler)

DSS-14

(X-band)

Green Bank 

Telescope

(1) Calibrator detected

(2) Candidate echo

03-Jul-2016 (1) Confirm Chandrayaan-1

detection (Doppler, range)

DSS-14

(X-band)

Green Bank 

Telescope

(1) Chandrayaan-1 confirmed

31-Jul-2016 (1) Detect Ouna

(2) Confirm Chandrayaan-1

DSS-14

(X-band)

Green Bank 

Telescope

DSS-13

(1) No Ouna detection

(2) Detection, but predicted time 

was off due to error in orbit 

determination.

26-Aug-2016 (1) Detect Ouna

(2) Confirm Chandrayaan-1

Arecibo 

(S-band)

Green Bank 

Telescope

(1) Candidate Ouna echo

(2) Chandrayaan-1 confirmation

23-Sep-2016 (1) Detect Ouna

(2) Confirm Chandrayaan-1

DSS-14

(X-band)

Arecibo (1) Ouna not confirmed

(2) Chandrayaan-1 confirmation

Work by JPL researcher Dr. Marina Brozovic shows how unlikely it is to use Earth based radars to detect a debris 

field at Mars. In Fig. 2 below6, the "D" in the legend is the diameter of a metallic spherical spacecraft. The plot shows 

that even if such a spacecraft had a diameter of 50 meters, it could only be detected to about 10 lunar distances 

(approximately 4 million kilometers). Mars at its closest to Earth (during opposition) is around 56 million kilometers

(approximately 140 lunar distances), i.e., dead satellites at Mars could not be detected using Earth-based radars due 

to the distance (echo power decay).

Fig. 2: Radar Detectability of Metallic Sphere at N Lunar Distances 

 6 Personal communication, Marina Brozovic to David Berry.

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
9

C. Improved Reporting

Since 2012 there have been a number of improvements and enhancements to the set of reports produced at the 

conclusion of each MADCAP run. A number of these newer features were presented in 2015 at the International 

Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics [7]; this section will focus on a few of the notable changes since 2015.

In the past five years, most of the improvements in MADCAP reporting have appeared in the Summary Report,

the purpose of which is to inform recipients of any noteworthy upcoming conjunction events at the bodies analyzed.

Events which meet specified thresholds are listed along with the necessary information to interpret these events. The 

Summary Report provides information about the bodies included in the analysis and whether they are active, inactive, 

or a natural body; about the ephemeris files and whether they are predicts grade, reference, or something else; about 

the event thresholds and the method used to establish them; and a variety of important information about the ephemeris 

files used in the run (name, span, and submit date). This report is contained within the body of an email and sent out 

to a wide distribution. As previously noted, this essentially constitutes the "Monitor" function of the "Conjunction 

Assessment Process for Mars Orbiters" [15], providing a "quick look" that conveys whether or not there is an 

observation that requires further attention. If a red event is identified, the "Response" function is activated.

In 2012, it was necessary to actually open a MADCAP Summary Report to determine if there had been any red 

events in a given analysis run. In May 2015, the number of red events identified in a given run was added to the email 

subject line (zero to n events). Thus a Summary Report recipient could determine if a given report contained anything 

meriting a response without opening the email; this feature allows a recipient to ignore the Summary Report if the 

number of red events is zero.

Until August 2017, it was necessary to compare successive MADCAP Summary Reports to determine if there had 

been any changes from one run to the next. In an updated release of MADCAP software, counters for changes in the 

run compared to the previous run were added at the top of the report; there were counters for the number of ephemeris 

file updates that had occurred and the number of thresholds that had changed. The changed items were colored blue 

and flagged with an asterisk "*" so they stood out from the normal black text of the report. 

Internally, MADCAP sends text messages to its operations team at the end of each run to confirm that it has in 

fact run, with an additional text message when any red events are identified in the run. This facilitates a timely response 

by the MADCAP team, and is particularly useful over weekends or holidays. Text messages are not at this time

provided outside the MADCAP team, though they could potentially be offered in the future. 

D. "Renaming the Baby"

One relatively minor change that was implemented was to rename the MADCAP program. In the beginning (2011), 

it had been named the "MArs Deepspace Collision Avoidance Process" (MADCAP) given that funding for the effort 

was primarily provided via the Mars Exploration Program, and the Mars environment was the first extraterrestrial

environment of interest for study with MADCAP. However, a bit later some funding to support the lunar environment 

was obtained from the GRAIL mission and NASA/CARA. Several enhancements were then implemented based on 

lunar mission requests. To better reflect the large number of applicable missions, the multiple environments, and the 

functions involved, the MADCAP acronym was re-purposed and the process was re-christened the "Multimission

Automated Deepspace Conjunction Assessment Process".

VII. Conjunction Assessment at Mars and the Moon - A New List of Future Plans

As in the 2012 paper, this paper concludes by identifying a few items for potential future work. Planning for some

of these is already in progress, though budgeting for actual implementations is still uncertain.

A. User Requested Runs

Though typically MADCAP is invoked by automation, the capability to initiate an unscheduled run is preserved 

for several reasons. MADCAP can be executed manually from the Linux command line, passing it the required 

parameter file, if an analysis is desired outside the automation framework. This capability is utilized by the MADCAP 

team when new releases are tested, and also when it is necessary to restart the process after an error from which 

recovery is not automated. In February 2014, this capability was also used for a special collision avoidance study 

between NASA's Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 

(LRO). The special study was conducted because MADCAP reports showed that the orbit crossing distance between 

LRO and LADEE would be less than 1 km for a few orbits. As described in Ref. [7]:

The LADEE navigation team designed several potential maneuvers to increase the orbit crossing 

distances over this period of close conjunctions. Special MADCAP runs were conducted to test out the 

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
10

impact of the possible maneuvers on the orbit geometries.... the maneuvers did not yield the desired 

results in terms of increasing orbit crossing distances for the entire period of interest and across LADEE's 

maneuver dispersions. Based on these MADCAP reports, both projects redesigned maneuvers to 

mitigate the risk of collision. LRO delayed a momentum wheel desaturation maneuver by 1 day to 

February 25th, 2014 and LADEE delayed an orbit maintenance maneuver by 2 days to February 27th 

2014 to adjust periselene altitude. The LADEE maneuver was redesigned to maximize the in-track 

separation between the two spacecraft while keeping orbit crossing distance largely the same. The 

maneuver was retargeted to maximize the in-track distance between LADEE and two subsequent 

crossings of LRO such that the distance at closest approach would be greater than 1 km in the radial 

direction and greater than 4 km in the in-track direction. These conditions were required to hold across 

a sweep of maneuver performance errors. Special MADCAP runs were again conducted to evaluate the 

risk of a number of different post-maneuver trajectories including maneuver execution and orbit 

determination errors. The above requirements were met and the maneuvers successfully implemented.

Working together through MADCAP, the projects were able to mitigate the risk and ensure the safety of 

both spacecraft.

This use of MADCAP to conduct special ad hoc analyses helped both projects avoid a potential collision, but it 

required a substantial time allocation by some members of the MADCAP operations team for a number of weekend 

runs using special ephemeris files. It also inspired the idea of allowing flight projects to conduct ad hoc studies on 

their own, i.e., "user requested runs". Such a feature would allow users to run studies at essentially any time without 

involving the MADCAP operations team (with some blackout limitations during regularly scheduled MADCAP 

operations runs). A high-level concept for such a capability has been brainstormed, but is not yet implemented.

B. Enhanced Visualization of Orbit Conjunctions

The current two-dimensional (2D) plots sent out by MADCAP aid in the interpretation of how the spacecraft orbits 

and timing vary with respect to one another over time. However, they do not display much information on the geometry 

of the orbits at the time of the conjunction event. Much better insight could be gained from a three-dimensional (3D)

visualization of the spacecraft orbits at the time of the conjunction. JPL's Monte navigation software is being enhanced 

to make generation of 3D orbital representations more seamless and straightforward. It may be possible for MADCAP 

to utilize this improvement to generate 3D images of the spacecraft orbits at the time of conjunction and include them

as attachments in the emailed reports. The MADCAP team has been exploring this new capability.

C. Collision Probability (2D and 3D)

The recent addition of covariance data used by MADCAP for calculating threshold values leads to a natural 

progression into using the data to calculate collision probabilities. Since the data sources used by MADCAP (SPICE 

SPK files, OEMs) do not contain spacecraft attitude information, MADCAP cannot take attitude into account in any 

probability calculations. Thus the calculation is necessarily based on a keep-out sphere around each spacecraft or 

natural body. MADCAP has the capability to calculate 2D collision probabilities based on spherical spacecraft radii

provided as input parameters [6] and the covariance data from OEM files currently used for threshold calculations. It 

has been suggested that MADCAP implement the 3D collision probability algorithm that NASA/CARA is using for 

Earth orbiters [18]. The 3D algorithm does not depend upon some of the simplifying assumptions used in calculating

the 2D collision probability (e.g., 2D assumes a straight trajectory, 3D allows use of a more realistic curvilinear 

trajectory; 2D assumes a static covariance size and orientation, 3D allows the size and orientation of the volume 

defined by the covariance to vary with time).

Calculating and publishing collision probabilities as supplementary information is a future MADCAP goal, though 

there is currently no plan to use probabilities as the main conjunction metric which triggers the Response Process. We 

have also commenced initial research into a different metric for establishing red event thresholds to address a concern 

that has arisen with the current method of using covariances to calculate thresholds (and collision probability) for 

spacecraft in highly elliptical orbits.

D. Work with NASA/JSC on SLS/EM-1 and SLS/EM-2 Missions

The MADCAP team has been discussing with NASA/JSC the use of MADCAP to perform conjunction 

assessments including the large number of cubesats planned for co-manifest on NASA's SLS/EM-1 and SLS/EM-2.

As noted previously, current plans call for up to 13 cubesats on SLS/EM-1 and up to 40 cubesats on SLS/EM-2.

Options under consideration include an implementation of the User Requested Run feature in JPL's MADCAP 

implementation, and establishing a second instantiation of MADCAP at NASA/JSC. It is possible that there could be 

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
11

a near-term implementation of the CDM in order to support the SLS/EM-1 and SLS/EM-2 missions. NASA/JSC is 

familiar with the CDM, and may be interested in receiving CDMs for conjunction events that occur in cis-lunar space 

during these missions.

VIII. Conclusion

This paper has presented an update on the techniques used at JPL for automated conjunction assessment at Mars 

and the Moon using the MADCAP software. Much of the future work that was planned during a previous presentation

in 2012 has since been implemented to some degree. Other unanticipated enhancements have also been applied in 

order to improve MADCAP's conjunction assessment analysis and reporting. Some further areas of potential future 

work to improve the current operation have been outlined. 

MADCAP provides a "watchdog" infrastructure service at the Moon and Mars, extraterrestrial environments likely 

to experience an increase in exploration activity by spacefaring nations, where there are already multiple objects in 

orbit. Assuming accurate trajectories for future missions are made available on a regular basis, MADCAP can provide 

analyses to help prevent a debris field from being created, benefitting all spacefaring nations wishing to explore these 

shared orbital environments.

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
12

IX. Appendix - A Sample MADCAP Summary Report

From: JPL MDNAV <jplmdnav@airmail.fltops.jpl.nasa.gov>

Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 2:56 PM

To: mars_madcap_monitor <mars_madcap_monitor@jpl.nasa.gov>

Subject: MADCAP -- Mars -- Summary -- 1 Red

Analysis Time: 2018-03-05 21:33:54 UTC

RED Threshold Updates: 0

ALL Threshold Updates: 0

Ephemeris Updates: 5

Conjunction Assessment Bodies and Types

Body Name Type

1 Odyssey Active

1r Odyssey Active/Reference

2 Mars_Express Active

2r Mars_Express Active/Reference

3 MRO Active

4 MAVEN Active

5 MOM Active

6 TGO Active

6r TGO Active/Reference

7 Phobos Natural

8 Deimos Natural

9 VIKING1 Inactive

10 MGS Inactive

Red (Conjunction Data < 'Red' Thresholds and Event < 14 days from Analysis Time)

Bodies OXD value/limit (km) OXT value/limit (sec) CAD value/limit (km) CA Epoch (UTC-SCET)

3-4 -1.6 5.5 4P 84.4 254.2 4P 68.4 ----- -- 2018-03-16 17:57:50

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
13

All (Conjunction Data < 'All' Thresholds for <= 100 days)

Bodies OXD (km) OXT (sec) CAD (km) CA Epoch (UTC-SCET)

3-4 -10.0 -1336.7 1143.7 2018-03-16 08:49:23

3-4 -9.1 5397.9 2719.6 2018-03-16 09:46:21

3-4 -5.9 2741.8 1624.3 2018-03-16 13:49:28

3-4 -1.6 84.4 68.4 2018-03-16 17:57:50

3-4 0.4 -2562.3 2197.2 2018-03-16 22:03:50

3-4 3.3 4171.1 2164.1 2018-03-16 22:59:17

3-4 8.1 1512.8 1093.3 2018-03-17 03:05:32

3-4 9.4 -1142.4 981.4 2018-03-17 07:13:50

1-6 9.9 -35.6 79.2 2018-04-14 14:52:20

1r-6 9.9 -35.6 79.2 2018-04-14 14:52:20

1-6r 9.9 -35.6 79.2 2018-04-14 14:52:20

1r-6r 9.9 -35.6 79.2 2018-04-14 14:52:20

1-6 9.6 7043.4 88.1 2018-04-27 22:07:50

1r-6 9.6 7043.4 88.1 2018-04-27 22:07:50

1-6r 9.6 7043.4 88.1 2018-04-27 22:07:50

1r-6r 9.6 7043.4 88.1 2018-04-27 22:07:50

1-6 9.2 6997.3 97.3 2018-05-20 08:07:34

1r-6 9.2 6997.3 97.3 2018-05-20 08:07:34

1-6r 9.2 6997.3 97.3 2018-05-20 08:07:34

1r-6r 9.2 6997.3 97.3 2018-05-20 08:07:34

1-6 9.8 3.6 10.7 2018-05-20 13:03:03

1r-6 9.8 3.6 10.7 2018-05-20 13:03:03

1-6r 9.8 3.6 10.7 2018-05-20 13:03:03

1r-6r 9.8 3.6 10.7 2018-05-20 13:03:03

1-6 7.7 45.0 56.2 2018-05-20 15:01:15

1r-6 7.7 45.0 56.2 2018-05-20 15:01:15

1-6r 7.7 45.0 56.2 2018-05-20 15:01:15

1r-6r 7.7 45.0 56.2 2018-05-20 15:01:15

Notes

OXD means "Orbit Crossing Distance". OXT means "Orbit Crossing Timing". CAD means "Close Approach Distance".

Data for active spacecraft and natural bodies are displayed in the tables above. Data for inactive spacecraft are not 

displayed, but they are available in the conjunction metric tables and plots, which have been stored in the output directory 

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
14

listed below. Data for reference trajectories are not considered for Red events, but are considered in the All section for 

events at least 14 days ahead from the analysis time. Reference trajectories use the same thresholds as the nominal 

trajectories.

For more information, please see the point of contact listed below.

Analysis time: 2018-03-05 21:33:54 UTC

Active spacecraft: Odyssey, Mars Express, MRO, MAVEN, MOM, TGO

Natural bodies: Phobos, Deimos

Inactive spacecraft: VIKING1, MGS

Output directory: /nav/home/jplmdnav/MADCAP/Mars/archive

Point of contact: MADCAP_Mars@jpl.nasa.gov

MADCAP build: 2.04.0

Red Thresholds -- Polynomial Coefficients

Body Name OXD0 (km) OXD1 (km/t) OXD2 (km/t^2) OXT0 (sec) OXT1 (sec/t) OXT2 (sec/t^2)

1 Odyssey 0.0009 0.0013 0.0000 0.0705 -0.0411 0.0096

2 Mars_Express 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3000.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3 MRO 0.0877 -0.0315 0.0040 0.0100 0.4939 0.0765

4 MAVEN 1.3357 0.3322 0.0042 0.0100 3.9752 1.7560

5 MOM 0.2498 0.0014 0.0012 0.0100 33.0089 0.3246

6 TGO 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3000.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7 Phobos 30.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15.0000 0.0000 0.0000

8 Deimos 40.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Red OX Distance Threshold (t) = OXD0 + (OXD1 * t) + (OXD2 * t^2)

Red OX Timing Threshold (t) = OXT0 + (OXT1 * t) + (OXT2 * t^2)

where t = CA Epoch - Ephemeris File Submit Time (in days)

Red thresholds are based on 3-sigma values. Thresholds listed as "P" are based on a quadratic fit of the 3-sigma values as a 

function of time to the event. The polynomial coefficients used are listed in the table above. Lines for coefficients which 

have been updated since the last run are colored blue, and each line's body is marked with an "*". Thresholds listed as "C" are 

based on 3-sigma covariance data provided by the mission.

All Thresholds -- Constants

Body Name OXD (km) CAD (km)

1 Odyssey 10 100

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
15

2 Mars_Express 10 100

3 MRO 10 300

4 MAVEN 10 3000

5 MOM 20 100

6 TGO 10 100

7 Phobos 45 100

8 Deimos 60 200

All OX Distance Threshold = OXD

All CA Distance Threshold = CAD

All thresholds are always constants. The constants used are listed in the table above. Lines for constants which have been 

updated since the last run are colored blue, and each line's body is marked with an "*".

Ephemerides

Body Ephemeris Submitted Begin End

1 p_m_od71869-71873_72975_v1.bsp 2018-02-27 00:05:46 UTC 25-FEB-2018 21:13:50 UTC 27-MAY-2018 23:58:50 UTC

1r p_m_od71869-71873_72975_v1.bsp_V0.1 Analysis Time 25-FEB-2018 21:13:50 UTC 27-MAY-2018 23:58:50 UTC

2* MOEM_180305OAS_PREDICT__0001.CR.bsp 2018-03-05 14:00:47 UTC 22-FEB-2018 12:35:36 UTC 27-MAR-2018 19:22:41 UTC

2r MOEM_180122OAS_SCHED____0001.CR.bsp 2018-01-23 15:52:01 UTC 21-JAN-2018 01:08:49 UTC 01-JAN-2022 00:00:00 UTC

3 pf_psp_rec54351_54346_55121_p-v1.bsp 2018-03-01 18:11:07 UTC 01-MAR-2018 03:48:50 UTC 30-APR-2018 14:07:50 UTC

4* trj_orb_06667-06670_06831_v1_mvn.bsp 2018-03-05 19:06:52 UTC 05-MAR-2018 03:48:50 UTC 04-APR-2018 16:48:50 UTC

5* mom_spk_180301-180501_od494_v1_dsn.bsp 2018-03-05 21:22:58 UTC 01-MAR-2018 14:30:00 UTC 01-MAY-2018 12:00:00 UTC

6* TOEM_180305OAS_PREDICT__0001.CR.bsp 2018-03-05 11:52:54 UTC 04-MAR-2018 23:49:28 UTC 16-JUL-2018 04:46:38 UTC

6r* TOEM_180302OAS_SCHEDULE_0001.CR.bsp 2018-03-05 14:55:08 UTC 26-FEB-2018 08:51:18 UTC 02-NOV-2019 14:49:42 UTC

7 mar097.2010-2029.bsp Analysis Time 29-DEC-2009 23:58:53 UTC 01-JAN-2030 23:58:50 UTC

8 mar097.2010-2029.bsp Analysis Time 29-DEC-2009 23:58:53 UTC 01-JAN-2030 23:58:50 UTC

9 viking1_nominal_01032017_01032019.bsp Analysis Time 28-FEB-2017 23:58:50 UTC 28-FEB-2019 23:58:50 UTC

10 p_171030-181030-061214_10yr_nominal.nio Analysis Time 30-OCT-2017 05:28:50 UTC 30-OCT-2018 06:28:50 UTC

Ephemeris files for the bodies analyzed are listed in the table above. Lines for files which have been updated since the last

run are colored blue, and each line's body is marked with an "*".

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678 
16

X. Acknowledgments

This work was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 

California, under contract to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The authors thank members of JPL's 

Mission Design and Navigation Section who contributed to the requirements development and incremental 

improvement of the MADCAP, particularly those involved in orbital navigation operations at Mars and the Moon.

Special thanks are extended to colleagues who reviewed early drafts of this paper and offered comments. Clearance 

number CL#18-2074.

Copyright © 2018 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. The U.S. Government has a royaltyfree license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental purposes. All other rights are 

reserved by the copyright owner.

XI. References

[1] Klinkrad, Heiner, Space Debris - Models and Risk Analysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network

[3] NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis, URL: https://satellitesafety.gsfc.nasa.gov/CARA.html.

[4] Newman, Lauri Kraft, "The NASA Robotic Conjunction Assessment Process: Overview and Operational Experiences", 

Proceedings of the 59th International Astronautical Congress 2008, IAC-08-A.6.2.6.

[5] Long, Stacia, et al., "Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Aerobraking Daily Operations and Collision Avoidance", Proceedings of 

the 20th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, September 24, 2007.

[6] David S. Berry, Joseph R. Guinn, Zahi B. Tarzi, and Stuart W. Demcak. "Automated Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment at 

Mars and the Moon", SpaceOps 2012 Conference, SpaceOps Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 11 June 2012.

[7] Zahi B. Tarzi, David S. Berry, Ralph B. Roncoli, "An Updated Process for Automated Deepspace Conjunction Assessment", 

25th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, October 2015.

[8] "Traffic Around Mars Gets Busy", (2015, May 4). Retrieved from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2015-150

[9] NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News, Feb. 2018, Vol. 22, No. 1, URL: https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/QuarterlyNews/pdfs/ODQNv22i1.pdf

[10] http://www.aerospace.org/crosslinkmag/fall-2015/the-collision-of-iridium-33-and-cosmos-2251/

[11] http://celestrak.com/satcat/search.asp

[12] Leonard David, "Effects of Worst Satellite Breakups in History Still Felt Today", www.space.com, January 28, 2013, URL: 

https://www.space.com/19450-space-junk-worst-events-anniversaries.html

[13] NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News, Jan. 2013, Vol. 17, No. 1, URL: https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/QuarterlyNews/pdfs/ODQNv17i1.pdf

[14] Kessler, Donald J., and Cour-Palais, Burton G., "Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt", 

Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 83, No. A6, June, 1, 1978.

[15] Guinn, J., "Conjunction Assessment Process For Mars Orbiters", JPL Internal Document D-93790, Rev. 2, Jan. 8, 2018.

[16] Orbit Data Messages, Recommendation for Space Data System Standards, CCSDS 502.0-B-2, Blue Book, Issue 2, CCSDS, 

Washington, D.C., November 2009.

[17] NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris and Evaluating the Meteoroid and Orbital Debris 

Environments, NPR 8715.6B, February 16, 2017.

[18] Hall, D.T., and Hejduk, M.D., "3-D Probability of Collision for NASA CA Risk Assessment", NASA/CARA User Forum, 

21-Nov-2016.

[19] Ian Roundhill and Richard M. Kelly. "TARDIS: An Automation Framework for JPL Mission Design and Navigation", 

SpaceOps 2014 Conference, SpaceOps Conferences, (AIAA 2014-1726). 

[20] CCSDS Conjunction Data Message, Recommendation for Space Data System Standards (BlueBook), CCSDS 508.0-B-1, 

Washington, D.C., CCSDS, June 2013.

[21] Organization and Processes for the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, Yellow Book, 

Issue 4, CCSDS, Washington, D.C., April 2014.

[22] http://gssr.jpl.nasa.gov/

[23] Brozovic, Marina, et al., "Radar Observations of Spacecraft in Lunar Orbit", 26th International Symposium on Space Flight 

Dynamics, Jun. 2017.

[24] Agle, D.C., "New NASA Radar Technique Finds Lost Lunar Spacecraft", NASA JPL Press Release, March 9, 2017, 

URL:https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6769&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign

=NASAJPL&utm_content=daily20170309-3

Downloaded by NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY on March 29, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2678