• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Legal and Economics Implications of OrbitalDebris Removal:Comments of the Space Frontier Foundation
In Response to:
 
DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) Request for Informationfor Tactical Technology Office (TTO),Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
 
Solicitation Number:
DARPA-SN-09-68
October 30, 2009
 Co-authors:
James E. Dunstan
 
Bob Werb
 6105 Tobey Ct. 16 First Ave.Springfield, VA 22150 Nyack, NY 10960703-851-2843 845-358-5790 jdunstan@gsblaw.com bobwerb@spacefrontier.org 
 
Executive Summary
1
 The Space Frontier Foundation (“Foundation”) is dedicated to opening the Space Frontierto human settlement as rapidly as possible. Our goals include protecting the Earth's fragilebiosphere and creating a freer and more prosperous life for each generation by using theunlimited energy and material resources of space. Our purpose is to unleash the power of freeenterprise and lead a united humanity permanently into the Solar System.Although the present RFI focuses on technological approaches to Orbital Debris Removal(ODR), it recognizes that any successful approach must consider economic viability (focus area5, “An estimate of an economic metric (e.g. $/kg removed or $/particle removed”). Thesecomments will focus on the legal and economic aspects of ODR. Indeed, the best technologyavailable for choosing among various approaches to ODR is a free competitive marketplace.Any “program” of ODR should focus on establishing the proper legal and economic regime suchthat private industry can provide this vital “trash removal” service. The goal of Government’sODR should be to establish, at the earliest possible date, an environment where private industryis incentivized to economically remove space debris.An ODR program needs to take into account the complex realities of the orbital debrisproblem. Some objects pose a much greater danger than others and some orbits are much more“polluted” than others.Current interpretations of international law have led both public and private spaceoperators to ignore the orbital debris problem and act as a serious barrier to any program of ODR. Maritime and admiralty law seem to offer a path out of the conundrum. In addition,without adopting one of several possible mechanisms for liability mitigation, it is improbablethat anyone will be willing to engage in an ODR program. Indeed, the legal and diplomaticissues may well prove to be the “long pole” in the ODR “tent” that must be solved before a set of technical solutions can be developed.A number of different economic techniques exist that could be applied to both sides of the orbital debris equation. On one side a means of making it costly to those generating debrismust be chosen. Possibilities include: requiring payments into a fund, requiring the purchase of insurance with the fund as beneficiary and/or having government fund the costs. On the otherside of the equation, a means of incentivizing ODR operators must be chosen. Possibilitiesinclude: payments based on published criteria, setting a removal price for each object or set of objects and/or performance-based contracts. Another alternative to consider would be similar tocurrent carbon trading proposals. Significant work involving expertise in the law, economics,diplomacy and politics is required to choose among the workable legal and economic techniquesthat are available to government.
1
About the Authors:
 Bob Werb
is Chairman of the Board and co-founder the Space Frontier Foundation and has long been an activeadvocate for unleashing the power of free enterprise to open the space frontier to human settlement.
 James E. Dunstan
is an acknowledged expert in Space Law, having been in practice for over 25 years representingaerospace companies before federal regulatory agencies. Jim drafted and negotiated the lease of the Mir spacestation in 1999 on behalf of his client MirCorp, the only time control of a manned space asset has changed hands.
 
Technical ResponseCharacterizing The Orbital Debris Problem
The RFI acknowledges that the orbital debris problem is actually several problems.Different orbital altitudes and inclinations present different problems and provide differentopportunities for ODR. What the RFI does
 not
do, however, is recognize that the sources of thedebris differ significantly between orbits. The source of the debris (i.e. the State of Registry) iscritical, because both the responsibility and rights to remove the debris must be established
 before
a technical approach to ODR can be undertaken.NORAD currently tracks some 17,000 pieces of orbital debris of 10 centimeters or larger.It is estimated that there are some 300,000 objects between 1 and 10 cm. The U.S. governmenthas cataloged 13,000 objects. Only 6 or 7 percent of the 13,000 objects are operational satellites;some 40 percent of the objects catalogued are from breakups, fragmentation or collisions.Another 25 percent are the result of “mission related” debris (e.g. upper stages, fairings,explosive bolts). Over 90 percent of the non-operational objects are uncontrolled and capable of colliding with other derelict objects, or operational satellites if the latter do not take evasivemaneuvers. Traditionally, however, countries have operated under a “big skies” mentality –orbital space is so large that the probability that any two object’s orbits would intersect was quitesmall. This “big skies” approach has been encouraged, in part, by an international legal regime,as discussed below, that makes it easier to “fire and forget,” than to manage assets in a way thatencourages the mitigation of orbital debris and removal of space objects at end of life (“EOL”).The orbits occupied by this space junk are surprisingly concentrated. While the highestvalue “targets” (other than the International Space Station) reside in the geostationary (Clarke)orbit, that orbit is relatively “clean,” mainly because the communications satellite industry has aneconomic incentive to remove satellites at the EOL and place them into “safe” orbits 200-300kilometers above the Clarke arc. These industry practices have been codified by the UnitedStates in 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(d)(14) (adopted in 2004, amended in 2006).Instead, the most “polluted” orbits are polar or near sun-synchronous orbits. These orbitsare both vital to remote sensing because of the ability to view the totality of the Earth’s surface,but also present particular problems because the spacing of the orbits decrease, even converge,over the poles. The Chart below shows the most densely packed polar orbits:Chart One
i
 
 
Inclination No. of Objects Total Mass (Tons) Country of Origin
81-83 degree 739 817 >97% Russian (or USSR)69.9-74.1 deg. 644 480 >95% Russian (or USSR)96-103 deg. 316 322 US = 155 objects, 85 tonsUS Allies = 80 objects, 85 tonsRussia = 42 objects, 93 tonsChina = 39 objects, 59 tonsTwo recent events have also highlighted that the largest risk to the health of orbits is thebreakup of large objects and especially the collision of two large objects because of the increase
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...