\documentclass[../Main.tex]{subfiles}
\graphicspath{{\subfix{Assets/img/}}}

\begin{document}
In this model there are two types of entities subject to laws of motion; 
i.e. constellation-level satellite stocks and debris.
These laws are the foundations to the results found in \cref{SEC:Kessler,SEC:Survival}, and 
are crucial elements of the models presented in sections \cref{SEC:Operator,SEC:Planner}.

\subsubsection{Satellite Stocks}
Each constellation consists of a number of satellites in orbit, controlled by the same operator and
operated for the same purpose.
Satellites can be destroyed by collisions with other satellites or debris.
Of course, satellite stocks can be increased by launching more satellites.
Assuming satellites live indefinitely, these facts give us the following law of motion for each 
constellation $i$.
\begin{align}
    S^i_{t+1} = \left( 1 - l^i(\{s^j_t\}, D_t)\right)s^i_t + x^i_t
    %Couple of Notes:
    %  This does not allow for natural decay of satellites.
    %  Nor does it include a deorbit decision.
    %  
    %  
\end{align}
Where $l^i(\cdot)$ represents the rate at which satellites are destroyed by collisions.
Note that it is reasonable to assume that the loss of satellites to collisions should be
increasing in the level of debris: $\parder{l^i}{D_t}{} >0$.

\paragraph{Collision Efficiencies}
%TODO: Explain bit about constellation collision efficiencies.
As demonstrated by \cite{reiland2020}, there are constellation designs by which an operator can
minimize the risk of intra-constellation collisions.
I assume that when designing a constellation, the operator chooses to minimize collision risks,
and as a result, there is a greater relative risk of inter-constellation collision.

It is reasonable to ask why operators would not use the same techniques to reduce 
inter-constellation collision risks?
While some of the steps could be taken, a fundamental issue arises in that constellations
are operated for different purposes and require different orbital properties.
%Maybe 2 operators can place themselves in low risk orbits, but adding a 3rd increases the risk to all of them.
%This could be explained as Coordination across time (time travel doesn't exist yet)
This coordination is also complicated by the fact that constellations are not
designed nor launched at the same time.

Consequent to these reasons, I believe the loss function $l^i$ should have the following properties related
to satellite stocks.
\begin{align}
    \parder{l^i}{s^k_t}{} > 0 ~~\forall k \in \{1,\dots,N)\\
    \parder{l^i}{s^j_t}{} > \parder{l^i}{s^i_t}{}  ~~\forall j\neq i
\end{align}


\subsection{Debris}
Debris is generated by various processes, including:
\begin{itemize}
    \item Naturally occuring debris
    \item Satellite launches, operations, failures, or intentional destruction.
    \item Collisions between two satellites
    \item Collisions between a satellite and debris
    \item Collisions between pieces of debris
\end{itemize}
Debris leaves orbit when atmospheric drag slows it down enough to reenter the atmosphere.

These effects can be represented by the following general law of motion.
\begin{align}
    D_{t+1} = (1-\delta)D_t + g(D_t) + \gamma(\{s^j_t\},D_t) + \Gamma(\{x^j_t\})
\end{align}
For simplicity, I formulate this more specifically as:
\begin{align}
    D_{t+1} = (1-\delta)D_t + g(D_t) 
                + \sum^N_{i=1} \gamma l^i(\{s^j_t\},D_t)
                + \Gamma \sum^n_{j=1} \{x^j_t\}
\end{align}
where $\Gamma,\gamma$ represent the debris generated by each launch and collision respectively,
while $\delta,g(\cdot)$ represent the decay rate of debris and the 
autocatalysis\footnote{
    Using terminology from \cite(RaoRondina2020).
} of debris generation.

\end{document}