The collision of a pair of satellites on February 10 has the potential to be a
game-changing event. Even before the Russian Cosmos and US Iridium satellites
slammed into each other, the increasing pollution of outer space in general was
already a major concern. One organization in particular, the
Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), has been calling
attention to the scope of the problem for years.
"No space-faring nation benefits, and all suffer, from the pollution of a very
useful place in space," said Dr Gregory Kulacki, senior analyst and China
Project Manager at UCS. "[This collision] may
affect other missions planned to operate in or pass through the debris belt
created by the collision."
A few of the satellites that might be most affected were named in Part 1. Among
other things, the International Space Station (ISS) will not be immediately
impacted by the increased debris which has now been created in a higher orbit,
nor will it affect China's manned Shenzhou missions.
It is not too early to discuss any potential liability stemming from this
collision, according to Rosanna Sattler, a partner with Boston-based Posternak
Blankstein and Lund LLP (PBL) and 2008 Chair of the Space Enterprise Council of
the US Chamber of Commerce.
"The Convention on International Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects
addresses liability for such collisions. I would expect the matter to be
handled under this treaty. Also, Iridium will probably seek coverage from its
insurer," said Sattler.
"So far it seems pretty straightforward. However, what is not clear is the
future potential impact of the debris, and whether it can be traced back to
either party with precision in the event of future damage to the ISS or another
space object."
Sattler sees plenty of signs that the collision is already impacting the
broader discussion of global cooperation in space.
"Orbital debris [is] a problem that the world can no longer afford to ignore.
There is no global air traffic control system that tracks the position of all
satellites. That issue should be addressed immediately. Simply tracking debris
does not get at the root of the problem," said Sattler.
At the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on February 19, Charge d’Affaires
Garold Larson of the US Delegation to the Conference issued the following
statement: "We are in communication with the Russian Federation regarding the
collision, and those discussions began promptly after the collision - this in
itself is a valuable transparency and confidence building measure. The US
Department of Defense is currently assessing the events leading up to the
collision, but will need additional time to arrive at definitive conclusions -
perhaps weeks."
"[This] collision underscores the increasingly congested space environment.
Collisions, and other similar events, can have the effect of denying valuable
areas of space for productive uses. This collision emphasizes the vital
importance of international cooperation between governments and industry, which
is critical in the future to improve space safety." [1]
The subject of space debris mitigation was already high on the United Nations
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) agenda as space experts
and government officials gathered in Vienna for the 46th session of the COPUOS
Scientific and Technical Subcommittee. The session was already in progress when
news came that the two satellites had collided over Siberia. It ended on
February 20.
Brian Weeden, a technical consultant with the Colorado-based Secure World
Foundation (SWF), was in Vienna to give a presentation on SWF's proposed
international civil space situational awareness (SSA) system.
"The collision had a positive impact, in a way. This represents a massive
opportunity for the Obama administration to start legitimate discussions of new
space governance and transparency and cooperation mechanisms," said Weeden.
"For the past 8 years, it has been the US position not to even discuss any
binding agreements that could curtail US freedom of action in outer space. This
includes agenda items in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva where military
space matters are discussed and COPUOS in Vienna where peaceful space matters
are discussed."
In the 2006 US National Space Policy, it states that, "the United States will
oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to
prohibit or limit US access to or use of space".
Dr Laurence Nardon, head of the Space Policy Program at the Institut Francais
des Relations Internationales (Ifri) in France, addressed this state of affairs
in his January 2009 Ifri report, "Space Security: Europe Takes the Lead" where
he pointed out, "even though the US administration seems to have changed
attitude on military space issues, this opinion may live on. During his
campaign, President Obama said a treaty may be too difficult to negotiate."
Nardon believes that now the Europeans may have created the right solution by
promoting a Code of Conduct rather than a treaty.
"This collision highlights the risks attached to space traffic. Since the
'European Draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities' appeals to better
information sharing, better space traffic management and the setting up of a
global space situational awareness architecture, I would say that the collision
will impact the Code negotiation process very positively," said Nardon.
Specifically, Section 4.2 of the Code states that, "the Subscribing States
will, in conducting outer space activities: refrain from any intentional action
which will or might bring about, directly or indirectly, the damage or
destruction of outer space objects unless such action is conducted to reduce
the creation of outer space debris and/or justified by imperative safety
considerations … ".
"China has been very open in primary contacts with the European Union (EU)
about the Code, but I don't know if the Chinese officials who spoke to EU
negotiators were those who will make the final decision. The US is very open to
the idea, while the Russians were much more cautious," Nardon said.
Nardon is aware that several think-tanks in the US including SWF are actively
promoting new SSA proposals and proposing negotiations of an additional text -
namely a treaty banning kinetic anti-satellite (ASAT) programs - while the new
Obama administration is indicating a willingness to move in the same direction.
While these proposals could delay adoption of the Code, they could also be
complementary.
Weeden is unsure that Russia and China will even support this proposed Code if
they see it as competition to their draft treaty banning space weapons that
emerged last year.
"Even though both are essentially aimed at the same thing - increasing space
security and decreasing the likelihood of armed conflict - if they perceive the
Code as being introduced only to undermine their proposal, then it is possible
that they could end up not supporting it," says Weeden. "Any code of conduct
including the European one is absolutely compatible with our civil SSA
proposal. Our proposal simply provides states with the information upon which
to make decisions. That information could be used to verify that states were
complying with a code of conduct."
According to one Japanese space expert who requested not to be identified by
name, both countries - especially Russia - do not support the code, claiming
that universal adoption of it will reinforce the status quo and help ensure
that an arms race in space and the weaponization of outer space happens in the
near future.
"Japan is now carefully studying the draft code, which does not add any
additional restrictions on any nation's activities in space, at least in the
form of legally-binding rules," said the expert. "If China decides that it is
in its interest to abide by or even take a leadership role in international
rule-making in outer space, there is a strong possibility that China will
become a signatory."
However, while the Code strongly suggests that it was OK for the US to shoot
down a satellite in 2008, it will definitely not be OK for the Chinese to
conduct any further ASAT tests. For this reason, and because China is not a
signatory to the "Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile
Proliferation", this expert doubts that China will endorse the European Code.
"The collision may benefit Chinese arms control advocates and space
professionals who were opposed to the January, 2007 ASAT test, advised against
it, and have been urging their government to make a commitment to ban any
future tests of kinetic ASAT weapons," said Kulacki.
According to Weeden, China did issue a statement on February 17 during the
session in which they said that, "they place great importance on the issue of
space debris and are in the process of implementing the COPUOS debris
mitigation guidelines at the national level. In particular, they mentioned they
are developing a broad technical and management plan of with 18 different
measures to be implemented by 2010."
China has made it clear that this collision will not affect Chinese plans for
future space operations.
"This has only proved that such collisions can happen. The debris will cause an
increase in the probability of collisions in certain orbits, but it is not
expected to be significant," said Weeden.
"Some have indicated that
Russia could be liable since they left a non-functioning payload in a crowded
area. However, the US could also have some liability. They had all the
information necessary to detect and warn about this collision, but do not
release that data and do not have the resources to screen all payloads.
Refusing to share that information and a recent refusal to help commercial
operators in similar situations could imply some level of responsibility, or at
least political pressure to change the policy."
Dr Joan
Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at
the US Naval War College, sees this collision as boosting the case for greater
data-sharing and more SSA capacity, especially after a French and a British
submarine collided earlier this month.
"While the oceans are vast, as is space, it seems both are getting crowded and
the need for 'rules' is becoming more and more imperative," said
Johnson-Freese. "I think this one accident [in space] will likely be viewed as
an aberration, rather than the inevitable beginning of problems regarding
overcrowding of valuable orbits."
"Some of the technical data [surrounding the collision] likely will be held
close because of sources used for collection - but for the most part the
analyses seems to all be consistent," Johnson-Freese added. "The legal issues
that arise will be very interesting to watch - and could result in either
technical changes regarding what to do with defunct satellites left in parking
orbits, or a chilling effect on actions of both countries and companies down
the road, or both."
In his recent report, Nardon makes a strong case for adoption of the Code
instead of some formal treaty in the future.
"The world community needs a reference as to what is allowed and what is
dangerous in space. There is currently no provision in international law that
forbids [ASAT] testing or the production of space debris. The 1967 Space
Treaty, forbidding the deployment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction in orbit, is not longer sufficient. A Code would provide a legal
basis on which to blame the nations that pursue dangerous activities," Nardon
writes.
"The attention now being given to the topic may help create a 'teachable
moment' on the importance of improved space situational awareness and more
transparency and confidence building measures among space-faring states," said
Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington
University in Washington, DC.
Whether this Draft Code is formally adopted or not, the February 2009 collision
has opened everyone's eyes to the threat at hand, and has underscored the
fragile nature of the space environment as a whole. Under COPUOS, while a lot
has been accomplished, there is still much more work to be done.
Notes
1. Statement
by Garold N Larson, Charg้ d’Affaires of the United States delegation to
the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, Switzerland February 19, 2009.
Peter J Brown is a satellite journalist from Maine USA.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
