When Is Satellite Testing Necessary?

It’s required to test every satellite before it goes into orbit. Testing must begin at the initial phase of
construction with each component. As these parts get assembled into larger pieces, they must undergo
additional tests. Finally, once the final phases of satellite construction conclude, the entire unit needs
to undergo rigorous testing.

Companies like NTS maintain a network of facilities across the United States to conduct the
necessary tests, including building gigantic climate chambers to analyze how a satellite responds to
the vacuum of space or to extreme changes in temperature. Other centers may conduct tests for
vibration, solar radiation, dealing with the dust of space or with pyroshock, which might occur during
the booster separation stage or the satellite separation stage from explosive bolts. The explosive shock
of booster seperation can damage circuits, dislodge contaminants in the satellite or short-circuit
electrical components.

Other elements of the satellite that need testing, depending upon its construction, design and payload,
include:

 Solar panels
 Antennas
 Batteries
 Electrical checks
 Center of gravity and mass measurements
 The transmitting of information from the satellite to the ground station
 Fuel cells

Currently, NASA and some other private companies are exploring the idea of building smaller
vehicles that could be capable of repairing satellites. Other ideas include assembling satellites in
space. However, for now, once satellites are in orbit, they’re normally beyond the reach of repair.
That is why companies that design and test satellites must consider every contingency, and examine
everything that can possibly go wrong multiple times. Even if part of the satellite fails after launch,
that does not mean the entire unit will get abandoned. If other components that are providing critical
information are still operational, the satellite will remain in use until it has reached the end of its
lifecycle.

Sometimes, however, no matter how much we test, there can still be problems. For example, the
Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite was supposed to help scientists measure how carbon dioxide
was affecting climate change. But when the case containing the satellite failed to separate from the
rocket during launch in 2009, both the case and the satellite crashed into the ocean 17 minutes later,
leading to the loss of not only millions of dollars, but also crucial information on a subject that is vital
to all life on earth.

That example illustrates why there is no room for error when testing a satellite.

How Do Satellite Tests Work?

Satellite testing presents unique challenges. Unlike testing in the automobile industry or the appliance
industry, you don’t get to test a prototype before constructing the final version. When you test a
satellite, you are often testing the one that will eventually go into orbit. Therefore, while the tests need
to be meticulous, the testing itself cannot damage the satellite in any way.

The satellite’s assembly team is the first group to test it. Next, a quality control team must conduct a
separate series of tests before declaring the satellite ready for flight. The teams often repeat many of
these tests to gather enough data to decide whether or not the satellite is ready to go into orbit.

When the satellite arrives at the testing facility after its construction, it must get unpacked in a clean
room. Indeed, many of the satellite tests must also take place in a clean-room environment. While it
may be amusing to see scientists and engineers walking around in white “bunny suits,” they play an
essential role in the testing process. That’s because it only takes one tiny outside contaminant to have
a drastic effect on a satellite.

Here is a real-life example of a satellite test: The National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration
tested its Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-S (GOES-S) in March 2017, ahead of its
launch a year later under the new name of GOES-17. As part of that testing, the team placed GOES-S
in a thermal vacuum chamber to determine its ability to operate in the extreme cold of space.

The vacuum chamber tested the satellite across four different cycles that ranged from intense cold to
intense heat. Severe temperature fluctuations in the airless vacuum chamber gave scientists a chance
to check how the satellite’s sensitive instruments performed in these harsh conditions.

Satellites also need to get tested for shielding against external radio signals. The testing team must
ensure the satellite’s antennas unfold properly and are compatible with the satellite’s other systems, as
well.
Additional tests will include measurements to learn each satellite’s exact center of gravity and mass,
which will ensure the satellite is compatible with its launch vehicle. It also helps control the
orientation when the satellites are in orbit, which can lengthen how long they will operate in space.
Scientists will need to test satellite thrusters, too, which will help orient its orbit after its launch
vehicle releases it.

In other facilities, such as the NTS satellite testing facility in Santa Clarita, Calif., satellites get tested
in a 5,000-cubic-foot acoustic chamber to learn about how the satellite reacts to heavy vibration, as
well as the deafening noise of a launch. Because these tests are so rigorous — and costly to carry out
— they are among the most crucial checks to conduct.

The facilities needed to test satellites adequately can be enormous. For instance, the Santa Clarita
facilities cover more than 150 acres.

A crucial part of all this testing is the recording of data that will later get analyzed to find and repair
any problems with the satellite before launch. After all, as mentioned earlier, it’s usually impossible to
fix the satellite once it is in orbit.

NASA AND ESA’s Shock and Design Testing

Documentation Control (secureservercdn.net)

3. REQUIREMENTS

3.1 General

All parts, components, assemblies, systems or related equipment for use in space vehicles and

related Ground Support Equipment (GSE) and test facility equipment shall be cleaned, inspected,

and packaged in accordance with this specification. Assembled parts which may be damaged

during the cleaning operation shall be disassembled to a level to permit cleaning. Designs for

systems and system components should, where practical, include the capability to remove all

valves and components from the system for precision cleaning.

SAFETY PRECAUTION – It is the responsibility of all users of this specification to review

pertinent Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS’s) and materials specifications to assure safety of

personnel and protection of the environment and facilities in fulfilling the requirements of this
document.

After a mission is adopted it moves into the implementation phase, during which detailed designs are
prepared and engineering and qualification models (EM and QM) are built and tested before
manufacturing the final flight model (FM) and its spares (FS).

Mission lifetime cycle

Phase 0 Mission analysis and identification
Phase A Feasibility
Phase B Preliminary Definition
Phase C Detailed Definition
Phase D Qualification and Production
Phase E Utilisation
Phase F Disposal

During Phase C, two versions of the spacecraft are built: the Structural and Thermal Model (STM)
and the Engineering Model (EM). These units are subjected to tough test conditions to replicate the
conditions expected during launch, to verify that the satellite’s subsystems all work properly together
and to ensure their compatibility with the launcher and its ground systems.

A Qualification Model may also be built in this phase to verify system performance with a good
margin. It undergoes environmental testing, that includes thermal vacuum tests, where the satellite is
placed inside a vacuum chamber with a sun simulator to reproduce the extreme variations in
temperature experienced in space.

Vibration tests and acoustic tests replicate the conditions during launch. During vibration tests the
spacecraft is progressively shaken at different strengths on a vibrating table, or 'the shaker'. The
conditions created are up to 25% more severe than those expected at lift-off.

During acoustic tests, the spacecraft is placed in a reverberating chamber and subjected to very
intense noise similar to that it would encounter during launch.
 RESPONSIBILITY IN SPACE LAW

The laws of state responsibility are the principles governing when and how a state (in international
law, a sovereign state, sovereign country, or simply state, is a nonphysical juridical entity that is
represented by one centralised government that has sovereignty over a geographic area) is held
responsible for a breach of an international obligation (a course of action that someone is required to
take, whether legal or moral). Responsibility is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “The
state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone”.

According to Paul Reuter, “responsibility is at the heart of international law, it constitutes an essential
part of what may be considered the Constitution of the international community”. Responsibility
interacts with the notion of sovereignty, and affects its definition, while, reciprocally, the
omnipresence of sovereignty in international relations inevitably influences the conception of
international responsibility. At the same time, responsibility has profoundly evolved together with
international law itself: responsibility is the corollary of international law, the best proof of its
existence and the most credible measure of its effectiveness. Responsibility has become diversified
and more complex as a result of the developments which have affected international society.

Article VI of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (entered into force on October 10, 1967)
enounces that “States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities
in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by
governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are
carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-
governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require
authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities
are carried on in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international
organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international
organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization”.

This founding article explains the fact that Outer Space States must bear international responsibility
for their national activities in outer space; national space activities are framed and depend on states.
Whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies (like CNES in France, or ASI in
Italy) or by non-governmental entities (like SpaceX in the United States of America or i-Space in
China), States bear international responsibility for their national activities in outer space. States are,
according to Article VI of the 1967 OST, held responsible for any launching activity taking place
from the geographical territory over which they have jurisdiction.

When looking at the Travaux Préparatoires, it is clear that the founding Outer Space States wished to
have states as major actors in outer space; and this is maybe because outer space is only possible with
international cooperation. Indeed, due to the possible damages implied by that type of activity,
negotiating states have understood that they should assume direct responsibility. States, as long as
they have jurisdiction over an activity, are the only entity which can bear international responsibility.
Jurisdiction refers to the power of a state to affect persons, property, and circumstances within its
territory. It may be exercised through legislative, executive, or judicial actions. International law
particularly addresses questions of criminal law and essentially leaves civil jurisdiction to national
control.

The question we may ask ourselves is the following: how to choose the responsible state in a situation
where more than one state has jurisdiction? This is called concurrent jurisdiction and is of particular
importance in Space Law. Usually, concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more courts from
different systems simultaneously have jurisdiction over a specific case. This situation leads to forum
shopping, as parties will try to have their civil or criminal case heard in the court that they perceive
will be most favourable to them. One of the best example of concurrent jurisdiction in Space Law is
the case of Sea Launch, a multinational spacecraft launch service that used a mobile maritime launch
platform for equatorial launches of commercial payloads.

What about when the competence is transferred to a supranational organisation, like the United
Nations, or the European Union? There is a gap in international space law relating to responsibility of
supranational entities. Let’s mention that International Space Law is the only regime of responsibility
which explicitly imposes an absolute obligation to reparation in absence of any wrongful conduct.
That is why “States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities
in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by
governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities”.

International state responsibility, in space law as much as elsewhere, therefore arises in case of
activities being in violation of relevant legal obligations, those being primary obligations of (space)
law. It is thus dependent, to begin with, on the first criterion, that of an internationally wrongful act.
Damage (as much as subjective fault) is not a criterion, although here as much as elsewhere damage is
not excluded either.

LIABILITY IN SPACE LAW

Liability is, in regard of Space Law (and in contrast to general international law), the most elaborated
of the two Responsibility and Liability principles, as a special Liability Convention was devoted to
develop the provisions of Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty. Article VII, of course, itself provides
the basis. As to the necessary ingredients for space liability, this leads us to the same conclusion as in
respect of international liability: damage is the only, indispensable criterion, nor breach of an
international obligation (objective fault), nor subjective fault in the sense of intent or negligence are
necessary to invoke liability (in respect of damage on the Earth or to an aircraft to begin with).

Article VII of the Magna Carta of Space Law (the 1967 OST) states that “Each State Party to the
Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the Moon and
other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is
internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical
persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including
the Moon and other celestial bodies”. This article, which later gave birth to the 1972 Liability
Convention, talks about liability and differentiates it from the notion of responsibility.

Liability is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “The state of being legally responsible for
something”. Whereas responsibility concerns states having jurisdiction over a space activity, liability
is binding on the Launching State. Liability concerns the launches whereas responsibility is larger, it
concerns any activity taking place in an outer space environment. The term “launching State” means,
according to Article I of the 1972 Liability Convention, “A State which launches or procures the
launching of a space object” + “A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched”.

The term liability, just as the term responsibility, is an age-old term; in contrast however to (state)
responsibility, liability is derived for a large part from domestic legal orders. Consequently,
international liability is closely related to damage. Damage however, is not an indispensable criterion
for responsibility. An internationally wrongful act namely can lead to damage or consist itself of the
causing of damage; damage is most often an important element in defining existence of an
internationally wrongful act.
 STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW

It is interesting to study the both aspects of what is traditionally called liability under the prism of
International Law; those are State Responsibility and International Liability for Injurious
Consequences Arising out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law. Both topics deal with the
obligations and duties incumbent upon States under international law. Differentiating between State
responsibility and international liability of a State is conceptually difficult. Even though an act of a
State may not be wrongful by virtue of consent, force majeure or fortuitous event, distress, or
necessity, the absence of a wrongful act does not prejudge the question of compensation for damage
caused by that act. The State may engage its international liability and compensate for damage caused
by its act, regardless of the existence of a wrongful act. In more ways than one, a State’s international
liability constitutes proof of injurious consequences independent of a wrongful act attributable to that
State.

Two precepts may be drawn from the examination of the origins and historical developments of State
responsibility and international liability. First, State responsibility constitutes a comprehensive part of
international law. It embraces all aspects of obligations incumbent upon States vis-à-vis’ other States,
whether voluntarily contracted or imposed by custom, including the general principle that an
internationally wrongful act engaging State responsibility has international legal consequences.
Second, international liability is predicated on a set of primary rules concerning the primary
obligations of States. Thus, the breach of a primary obligation under international liability inevitably
sets in motion the secondary rules prescribed under State responsibility. The obligation not to cause
harm to others, or its broader version, the obligation to prevent harmful effects to others, would be a
primary rule of international liability, a breach of which engages State responsibility.

Linguistic deficiency in non-English languages to differentiate between responsibility and liability

further compounds the difficulty in distinguishing between State responsibility and States’
international liability. Civil law vocabularies express the notion of liability in terms of responsibility
or civil responsibility. Thus, State responsibility refers to a State’s responsibility under international
law in general, whereas international liability denotes a State’s civil responsibility, or obligation to
pay compensation or make reparations for injuries that non-nationals suffer outside its national
boundaries as a result of activities within its territory or under its control. A State’s international
liability is engaged not only under international law, but also within the national dimension of
municipal legal systems in circumstances involving transnational relations. It is important to
understand the relation between State responsibility under international law and international liability
of States for injurious consequences that arise out of activities within their jurisdiction or control and
that affect other States or nationals of other States.

Under international liability, international conventions and multilateral treaties have created
specialized regimes of implementation of secondary rights and obligations in several areas. Despite
the presupposition of primary rules and primary obligations in State responsibility, the rules and
obligations elaborated under international liability constitute the same precise primary rules and
obligations. Under State responsibility, the breach of primary rules and obligations results in the
application of secondary rules in State responsibility. On the other hand, under international liability,
a breach will generate secondary obligations that must be fulfilled under the law of State
responsibility.

SPACE OBJECTS

The term Object in reference to outer space was first used in 1961 in General Assembly Resolution
1721 (XVI) titled International cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space to describe any object
launched by States into outer space. Professor Bin Cheng, a world authority on International Air and
Space Law, has noted that members of the COPUOS during negotiations over the space treaties
treated spacecraft and space vehicles as synonymous terms. The Space Object can be considered as
the conventional launcher, the reusable launcher, the satellite, the orbital station, the probe, the
impactor, the space telescope… The five UN treaties talk about Space Objects. Article X of the Treaty
on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including
the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967) states that “In order to promote international cooperation
in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, in conformity
with the purposes of this Treaty, the States Parties to the Treaty shall consider on a basis of equality
any requests by other States Parties to the Treaty to be afforded an opportunity to observe the flight of
space objects launched by those States”. Also, under the Outer Space Treaty, Space Object implicates
liability, registration, and a prohibition on the placement of weapons of mass destruction into outer
space.

The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects
Launched into Outer Space (1968), especially its Article 5, talks about Objects Launched into Outer
Space. Under the Rescue and Return Agreement, we should also note that the term defines whether a
State can request or send back a Space Object found in its territory, as well as the extent to which a
State may be compensated for the effort. The Convention on International Liability for Damage
Caused by Space Objects (1972) talks about Space Objects and so is the Convention on Registration
of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1972) which specifies in its Article I (b) that “The term space
object includes component parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof”.
Under the Liability Convention, we notice that Space Object defines the extent to which a State can
apply a theory of liability in seeking compensation or restitution for damage caused to other objects in
outer space, on the surface of the Earth, or aircraft in flight. Under the Registration Convention, a
State party must register its Space Objects in order to assign nationality to a Space Object. Finally,
Article 3 2. of the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies (1984) states that “Any threat or use of force or any other hostile act or threat of hostile act on
the Moon is prohibited. It is likewise prohibited to use the Moon in order to commit any such act or to
engage in any such threat in relation to the Earth, the Moon, spacecraft, the personnel of spacecraft or
man-made space objects”.

Hence the fact that a Space Object causing damage triggers international liability under the 1972
Liability Convention, that a Space Object requires registration by the 1975 Registration Convention,
and that a Space Object effectively triggers application of much of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty & the
1968 Rescue Agreement, none of the Five Space Law Conventions define precisely what a Space
Object is (and Space Object represent specific meanings under different treaties).

According to the COPUOS (Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Legal Subcommittee,
Fifty-seventh session, Vienna, April 2018, on The definition and delimitation of outer space,
Suborbital flights and the delimitation of air space vis-à-vis outer space: functionalism, spatialism and
state sovereignty, A Submission by the Space Safety Law & Regulation Committee of the
International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety), a spacecraft should be capable of
moving in outer space (either orbital or suborbital) without any support from the air, and should have
a power source not dependent upon external oxygen. Professor Bin Cheng describes a Space Object as
a man-made object that is launched or is intended to be launched into outer space. Several States have
redefined Space Object in their national law using terms of art and/or through licensing and
registration regimes under national law (Austria, Belgium, China, Spain, etc.). What is called “the
functionalist approach” – concerning the definition of a Space Object – takes as reference point the
functions or activities of the vehicles. In order to answer the question “Is it a space craft or an
aircraft?” one would ask: “Do the vehicle’s functions resemble to those of an aircraft or of a
spacecraft?” Functionalists believe that a suborbital vehicle should be classified as an aircraft when
the purpose that it fulfils is inherent to aviation activities, while it is deemed to be a spacecraft when it
serves space-related purposes.
The functionalist theory shares common grounds with what is called “the spatialist approach” (based
on the environment where the activity is taking place); it examines whether the collision risks of the
vehicles are higher among aircraft or space craft according to the location within which the vehicle
operates. Another theory, which is closely linked to the spatialist approach, is “the aerodynamic-lift
theory”. It proposes the demarcation between air space and outer space at eighty-three kilometres
above the surface of the Earth (or in general between eighty and ninety kilometres), as this is the point
after which the aircraft functions cannot be maintained, for the density of the atmosphere is not
sufficient to support vehicles that have not achieved circular velocity (the air lift is virtually nil at that
altitude). We can say that what can’t be considered an aircraft is a spacecraft. Space object can be
described as any object launched into orbit from Earth, the Moon or other celestial bodies to travel to,
in or through outer space, all artificial objects likely to find or evolve in outer space without the
bearing strength of the air. A notional innovation came along with the Aerospace Object.

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SPACE OBJECTS

When damage is caused by a space object in outer space, typically through a collision with another
space object, international space law’s Liability Convention provides a mechanism for compensation
for the injured state. Among other requirements, the Convention requires proof of state fault in order
for liability to arise, but it does not define this notoriously ambiguous term, nor does it establish a
standard of care for those conducting outer space activities. The Convention on International Liability
for Damage Caused by Space Objects (entered into force on September 1, 1972) is unique in
international law being the only fault-based liability regime.

In the space field, given the very specific nature of the activities, the question of responsibility
necessarily takes on a singular aspect compared to the classic rules, either by a reinforcement of the
responsibility, or by the erasure of the responsibility. When space activities came into being, they
were subject to the general responsibility of Public International Law without any special procedure.
Since 1962, COPUOS had been discussing to elaborate a special convention. It was adopted and
opened for signature on March 29, 1972 and has entered into force the same year. Thus the
Convention does not define what a space object is, neither does it establish a liability regime for all
space activities, which are then subject to the general international law of liability.

I. WHERE IT APPLIES

Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty (1967) states that “States Parties to the Treaty shall bear
international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other
celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-
governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the
provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space,
including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision
by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including
the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance
with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the
Treaty participating in such organization”.

Article VII of the same Treaty affirms that “Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures
the launching of an object into outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and each
State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage
to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its
component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial
bodies”.

The terms liability and responsibility have distinct meanings legal English. To be liable for something
means to be legally responsible for something; liability is a legal obligation. Responsibility refers to
the care and consideration a person has for the outcome of their actions. It can also refer to a person’s
accountability for an outcome to which their actions have contributed, together with any legal
obligation they may have to repair any damage caused.

Article II of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects enounce
that “A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space
object on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight”. The following article relates that “In the
event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the Earth to a space object of one
launching State or to persons or property on board such a space object by a space object of another
launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons
for whom it is responsible”.

II. SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES

It’s the classical principle of diplomatic protection: international responsibility is discussed only
between States. Only one State can claim compensation, either for itself or on behalf of physical or
legal persons who possess its nationality. The principle has been broadened since, in the event of
failure to do so: a State in whose territory damage has been suffered may also present the claim to the
launching State the request has to be sent within one year). Article XII of the Convention states that
“The compensation which the launching State shall be liable to pay for damage under this Convention
shall be determined in accordance with international law and the principles of justice and equity, in
order to provide such reparation in respect of the damage as will restore the person, natural or
juridical, State or international organization on whose behalf the claim is presented to the condition
which would have existed if the damage had not occurred”.

Article XVIII and XIX of the same Convention enounce that “The Claims Commission shall decide
the merits of the claim for compensation and determine the amount of compensation payable, if any”
and that “The Commission shall give its decision or award as promptly as possible and no later than
one year from the date of its establishment, unless an extension of this period is found necessary by
the Commission”.

In the Convention, references to States also concern international intergovernmental organizations

that engage in space activities and have accepted the convention: the States parties to the organization
of the latter are jointly and severally liable. The arbitral procedure has never really worked: very little
damage were caused by space objects (except in 1969, several sailors of a Japanese freighter were
injured by the debris of a Soviet spacecraft, we can also mention Kosmos 954 or Kosmos 2251), and
States want to remain discreet and avoid creating any precedent on the basis of the different space
treaties.

From the beginning of the Space Age, speaking about the international liability for damage caused by
space objects, the different participants have renounced to make recourse against each other. States
have agreed on cross-waiver of liability: a cross-waiver is a set of promises made by parties to an
agreement in which each of the parties pledges not to sue the other for damages caused by the other,
except under specific circumstances. The use of these clauses have the consequence that in case of a
damage, everyone will bear the consequences. Parties that participate in a system may even include a
clause in which they reject any liability to third parties and claim to cooperate to protect against
claims for compensation. That is what we can say about the international liability for damage caused
by space objects.