Read Space Debris and Other Threats From Outer Space Online

Authors: Joseph N. Pelton

Tags: #Technology & Engineering, #Aeronautics & Astronautics, #Science, #Physics, #Astrophysics, #Environmental Science, #Nature, #Environmental Conservation & Protection, #Space Science

Space Debris and Other Threats From Outer Space (4 page)

BOOK: Space Debris and Other Threats From Outer Space
11.96Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
Space Traffic Management
The space launch environment has clearly become more complex, with growing space launching capabilities and different sorts of commercial space activities. One thought that has arisen with the growth of interest in commercial spaceflight is that of Space Traffic Management. Today commercial spaceflight includes so-called space tourism, commercial cargo and human flight to orbit, commercial space stations and possibly hypersonic transportation systems. This diversity of activity and the increasing “mixture” of aviation, aerospace and space transportation systems suggest that public safety on the ground, in aviation space, in stratospheric operations and in outer space may only be systematically achieved through Space Traffic Management. The relevance here is that if an international body such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is charged with this responsibility, then they might also be able to help oversee this emerging complex aviation/aerospace/outer space environment and also administer processes to control space debris.
In this new role the newly designated international mechanism for Space Traffic Management might set safety and operational standards for many space and stratospheric missions and activities. This agency might coordinate international standards for spaceports, for hypersonic transportation systems and for commercial sub-orbital flights associated with “space tourism,” for maximum altitudes for “cubesats,” nanosats and microsatellites, for active de-orbit of satellites and upper stage rockets, etc. Even prior to the agreement on this new regulatory regime, which might take many years to achieve, there might be an international code of conduct for space that might suggest better practices, safety standards and debris mitigation standards than exist today.
The Next Steps Forward
The following chapters will address actions that might be taken to mitigate the further increase of orbital debris and processes that might be employed to remove debris from orbit. These mitigation efforts may involve legal, technical, operational or financial steps that can either help to stop the creation of new debris or carry out active removal of debris from orbit.
Joseph N. Pelton
SpringerBriefs in Space Development
Space Debris and Other Threats from Outer Space
2013
10.1007/978-1-4614-6714-4_3
© Joseph N. Pelton 2013
3. Different Approaches to the Space Debris Problem
Joseph N. Pelton

 
(1)
40th St. North 4025, Arlington, 22207, USA
 
 
Joseph N. Pelton
Abstract
The many challenges that orbital debris presents are daunting. Conventional rocket launches can easily contribute to the debris problem and often do. There are many things that can go wrong in carrying out the active de-orbit of satellites and/or upper rocket stages. Removal of debris through known techniques today is expensive, difficult, and complicated by legal liability provisions of the “Liability Treaty.” The debris that is in orbit begets additional debris by the cascade effect of debris collisions.
It is immoral to design a product or system for mankind without recognition and evaluation of the hazards associated with that product or system.
Anonymous Space Safety Engineer
Institutional Arrangements to Address Space Debris
The many challenges that orbital debris presents are daunting. Conventional rocket launches can easily contribute to the debris problem and often do. There are many things that can go wrong in carrying out the active de-orbit of satellites and/or upper rocket stages. Removal of debris through known techniques today is expensive, difficult, and complicated by legal liability provisions of the “Liability Treaty”. The debris that is in orbit begets additional debris by the cascade effect of debris collisions. (This process has now created a swarm of millions of micro-debris elements, especially in LEO.) Collision of large debris elements (or even active satellites) generates a very large number of new debris. Using armor on active satellites against debris or micro-meteorites works only up to objects that are 1 cm or less in size. In short there is no magic elixir or wand to wave to make this increasingly serious problem to go away.
Yet new institutional and regulatory approaches to space debris are being actively explored. In light of the fact there are only ten spacefaring nations and most debris can be directly linked to the United States, Russia and China, one would have thought more progress would have been achieved on this front than is the case today. Certainly space debris issues are being actively addressed in a number of ways, such as:
  • Prelaunch due diligence.
  • Improved operational procedures, including controlled de-orbiting of spacecraft, venting of toxic gases prior to de-orbit, and avoiding the use of nuclear-powered systems for satellites that are to eventually de-orbit back to Earth.
  • Development of new technologies that might be able to achieve space debris removal or to actively avert major space debris elements from colliding, or to provide more shielding.
  • New legal procedures and agreements to address among other things space debris matters. (There is a growing need to address the troublesome problem of national liability with regard to launched “space objects” that is actually serving to retard efforts to undertake active debris removal.)
  • New processes and mechanisms such as a fund for debris removal or a new institutional mechanism to address space debris removal.
Yet much more needs to be done. There are now no significant or specific penalties that apply to creating new space debris except a general liability provision that says that if your “space object” injures someone else in another country then you are at fault and subject to a liability claim. In short one of the big problems is that there are no truly effective incentives or penalties that would “encourage” countries to stop creating new debris or remove debris from orbit other than a good public image and not being seen as a “bad guy”.
Most articles written about space debris tend to focus on either the orbital mechanics, the space technology needed to remove debris from orbit, or relevant regulatory issues. Technical papers usually seek to address such aspects as: (i) the growing extent of the problem and space situational awareness; (ii) the factors that are contributing to the rate of buildup of debris; or (iii) technical approaches related to debris removal and remediation. Regulatory papers on the other hand tend to address: (i) various ways to undertake due diligence to prevent the creation of new debris; (ii) the actions needed to be taken by governmental or intergovernmental bodies relating to orbital debris and its mitigation; (iii) questions of liability and legal responsibility; or (iv) the creation of agencies or mechanisms to undertake space situational awareness, to control debris and/or to remove debris from orbit.
A Global Fund for Debris Removal?
The missing element in many of these discussions is how to create the economic wherewithal to address the debris problem and how to create financial incentives to correct the problem. In this section the analysis is directed toward the merits of establishing national, regional and in time perhaps universal agreements to establish economic funds—as well as incentives or penalties—to mitigate the problem. The purpose of such funds would be several fold: (i) to create a rebate system to reward “clean and debris free” launches; (ii) to award a further rebate to reward clean disposal of satellites at the end-of life. Under this approach there would now be clear incentives to get rid of space debris as opposed to the current disincentives and potential liabilities associated with bringing debris and satellites down or into graveyard orbits. The creation of a fund—or perhaps several funds that could grow into a global fund—would create incentives to develop the best technology rather than a single approach that might ultimately prove to be suboptimal. The 20-year sunset for the fund(s) would create a specific goal to complete the mission, and if success is achieved there would not be the additional issue of having to disband an international agency.
The fund (or collection of national/regional funds) could be established over time in an “organic manner” with countries forming such a fund on a national basis, or perhaps Europe could form such a fund on a regional basis. This type of national, regional, and in time ultimately universal fund would be formed by space actors for the specific purpose of addressing the space debris issue. This approach would thus become a pro-active “forward looking” approach to financing a solution to the problem rather than seeking a “backwards-looking” approach to addressing space debris with no financing mechanism in place and nations being “coerced” into doing the “right thing”.
The money to capitalize this type of space debris fund would be collected prior to all launches and would equivalent to perhaps 3–5 % of the total cost of various space-related missions. Under this approach LEO/polar orbit missions might be required to pay in 5 % of mission costs. MEO and GEO orbit and deep space missions might be asked to pay in a lower amount. This fund would be collected for a period of perhaps 20 years but would have a sunset provision on the premise that migitation of orbital debris could be successfully accomplished over this length of time. Thus there would need to be an active agreement to extend the fund or it would otherwise elapse.
Such a fund (or network of funds) would be formed by means of a specific assessment paid into a designated bank account (or space insurance company) prior to launch. This fund would apply to all those deploying spacecraft into Earth orbit, or, if on a national or regional basis, would apply to all launches from that country or region. Organizations launching satellites beyond Earth orbit would also pay into the fund but a lower amount. After each launch there would be a partial rebate, assuming it was a certified as a clean “debris-free” launch as independently verified. When a spacecraft was de-orbited at end of life or successfully placed in a graveyard orbit there would be a further rebate. The size of the “clean launch” and “successful disposal” rebates would be specified at the time the fund(s) were established. Approximately half of the payments into the fund, however, would always be retained to compensate those entities involved in removing “officially designated” debris from orbit or moving defunct space objects to a graveyard orbit.
The prime purpose of the national, regional or hopefully, global space debris fund would be to compensate those entities “licensed under an appropriate regulatory framework” to remove debris from Earth orbit or those that develop and operate systems to avoid collisions. This licensing process for entities designated to undertake orbit debris removal or collision avoidance activities might, for example, be formally assigned to the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs or in time spelled out in a new international space convention.
Other entities might also be “licensed” by the U. N. Office of Outer Space Affairs to undertake activities associated with the prevention of space debris or space debris mediation or collision avoidance activities separate from the active removal of space debris from orbit. Such activities, however, would be limited to no more than a set percentage of the available funds.
Payment into this fund would “seem and feel” to satellite operators and governmental space agencies conducting space operations very much like buying launch insurance for a spacecraft mission. Indeed the fund could possibly be administered by launch insurance companies. These payments would be different in that it would only represent about a third of the cost associated with purchasing launch insurance, and rebates would eventually return half of the money paid into the fund. Further, the projected end date for the fund would establish a very real goal for accomplishing “a largely space debris-free world”. The creation of this fund and the rebate payments would reverse the current incentives that actually “encourage” the increase of orbital debris. Under current space law the owners and operators of space objects not only lack an incentive to remove their space debris from orbit; they actually face substantial financial penalties if the removal process somehow adversely affects another space object and creates liabilities which they are compelled to pay.
The payments into the fund are actually modest when compared to the damages that will ensue once we reach the Kessler syndrome stage and debris continues to cascade out of control on an exponentially increasing basis. Indeed payments for launch insurance operations over the last three decades have varied from a low of about 6 % of total mission costs to as much as 20 % of total costs. Today typically 15 % of mission costs is for launch insurance. If one considers this wide range of payments for launch insurance and the importance of the long term sustainability of space and safe space access one should consider a 5 % orbital debris fund as not being at all excessive or unreasonable, especially if half of the money is ultimately rebated in the advent of a “clean” launch with upper stage rocket motors and launcher fairings being removed from orbit and the satellite eventually disposed of as well.
There would appear to be merit to a flexible “economic fund” approach as opposed to seeking to create a single international agency charged with space debris remediation that would likely focus on a preferred technology and a single approach to debris removal. Licensed international entities, under the fund approach, would not be restricted to a single country. Each country or region that acted first to create orbital debris funds could also give research grants to entities embarked on developing new technology to remove debris from orbit with the latest technology.
In short it is believed that there would be “economic and political efficiency” in having a number of licensed commercial entities capable of developing a diversity of innovative technologies to carry out space debris removal. Overall it is believed that the “economic fund” mechanism could help to create all the right incentives: (a) to reward entities for a clean launch of the satellite and removal of upper stage rockets and protective fairing covers from orbit; (b) to reward operators for removing debris properly at end of life; (c) using the “sunset provision” to establish a specific goal to get the job done; (d) using the “fund approach” (or alternatively even a prize approach) that would allow the competitive development of the best and most cost efficient technology and (e) there would be no need to “dismantle” an international agency at the end of the process.
The Economic, Social, and Strategic Importance of Space
Space applications have become a very diverse and increasingly important aspect of our global society. Over time space applications have expanded in scope, divided into many submarkets, and have evolved into a series of many different “space actors”. These include civil governmental space agencies, defense-related space agencies, commercial launch operators, operators of various commercial spacecraft organization, and even public service space operators that are operated by both commercial and non-profit organizations.
The various governmental, defense and commercial space markets are today quite large, with all related annual space applications expenditures and revenues and expenditures totally perhaps $300 billion (U.S.), that would be more or less evenly divided between commercial and military/strategic/governmental programs. The true impact of space activities is not simply a function of their economic size, however, but rather their overall impact on society. Space-related activities today relate to national security, the monitoring of possible attacks via nuclear-armed missiles, the use of space navigation to control transportation (including the takeoff and landing of aircraft), the deployment of satellites for voice, data and television communications, and the use of satellites to forecast weather and avert the impact of hurricanes, typhoons, and other violent weather.
There are many remote sensing operations that observe Earth to detect natural resources, conduct fishing operations, to monitor oil spills, and chart the impacts of climate change. These remote sensing activities have a variety of public service and commercial goals, as is the case with telecommunications satellites, navigation satellites, and other types of application satellites. If humans were to suddenly lose all of its civilian and military communications satellite systems, remote sensing, weather and space navigation systems, the modern “Western world” as well as many other countries would find itself paralyzed. In many ways the result would be like a massive global electrical power failure.
If one thus views the almost overriding importance of sustainable access to space for many centuries to come, the idea of a global fund for active debris removal (ADR) and mitigation almost seems to be a quite modest proposal. Commercial organizations willingly spend 15 % of their net investment on a new satellite network and its positioning in space for launch insurance, if not more. To have the ten governments of space-launching nations agree on a “space debris removal mitigation fund” that would require a much lesser amount of money than that spent on launch insurance does not seem unreasonable.
Further if there were rebates for “clean launches” and additional refunds after satellites were de-orbited this would serve several additional positive purposes. It would make the system more equitable by providing partial refunds to those whose actions minimized the future formation of debris. It would reward responsible action and in effect also serve as a fine against those who did not act responsibly. It would help finance future mitigation actions to achieve future “debris free” launches and also assist in funding future efforts to remove space debris. And finally the existence of the fund would allow flexibility to back alternative removal technologies and also the shut down of the fund once near Earth space was indeed cleaned up [14].
BOOK: Space Debris and Other Threats From Outer Space
11.96Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

Clutch of the Demon by A. P. Jensen
The Crown by Nancy Bilyeau
Sabotage At Willow Woods by Carolyn Keene
Dirty Secret by Jessie Sholl
Midnight in Austenland by Shannon Hale
Terri Brisbin by Taming the Highland Rogue
Once Upon a Beanstalk by Kate Avery Ellison
This I Promise You by Smith, Maureen
Big Machine by Victor Lavalle
Intangible by J. Meyers