march 13, 2019, florence final...

Final PresentationWP2 – CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENT, MITIGATION, GUIDELINES

Volker Schaus, Technische Universität Braunschweig

Rada Popova, University of Cologne

March 13, 2019, Florence

Outline

Analysis of the current Space Debris EnvironmentReDSHIFT in the prospect of recent events

Long-term simulation results

Improved ScenariosExploiting Perturbation for High-LEO de-orbit

Legal Framework of Space Debris

Timeline

ReDSHIFT starts

GEO fragmentations17 June 2017 and August 25, 2017

Sentinal 1A HitAugust 24, 2016

D=40cm

Impactor

AMC-9 fragmentation

Telkom 1 Debris Incident

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FXX1kSNljU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FXX1kSNljU

Timeline

ReDSHIFT starts 104 satellites in one launch15 February 2017



104 satellites in one go

Source: VidCap from Scinews at youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0BpjPUT5FE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0BpjPUT5FE

Spacecrafts launched, 1957-2017

Source: http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/

More and more private companies

Significant increase of smaller satellites andCubeSats with limited orbit maneuveringcapabilities

http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/

Timeline


NetCapturing16 September 2018



Net capturing: RemoveDEBRIS

Source SciNews at youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfRPTIgXuw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfRPTIgXuw

Timeline


Columbus ScanningJan 2019




Hundreds of craters on Columbus

Source: https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Hundreds_of_impacts_crater_ESA_s_Columbus_science_laboratory

The robotic arm of the ISS scanning the European Columbus module

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Hundreds_of_impacts_crater_ESA_s_Columbus_science_laboratory

Detection / Observation

Majority of objectscataloged by radarObservations (SSN)

Additional campaigns forspecial cases like opticaltelescope observationsin the GEO ringor EISCAT observations

Image by: By Tpheiska - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1997913

Columbus Module

Space Fence

Motivation: ReDSHIFT Timeline


Columbus ScanningJan 2019

OneWeb-1 launchFeb 2019




Large Constellations

OneWebAnnouncements keep changingNo.sats: 720 900+ ~600First 6 satellites were launched in 1200 km orbit150 kg mass per satellite

Starlink2 demonstration missions in orbitAnnouncements keep changingFilings at FCC for 12k satellitesTarget orbit at first 1100 kmNow reduced to 550 km or even lower150 kg mass per satellite

Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p-PToD2URAhttps://www.universetoday.com/140539/spacex-gives-more-details-on-how-their-starlink-internet-service-will-work-less-satellites-lower-orbit-shorter-transmission-times-shorter-lifespans/https://youtu.be/PPtr4Eec4Hg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p-PToD2URAhttps://www.universetoday.com/140539/spacex-gives-more-details-on-how-their-starlink-internet-service-will-work-less-satellites-lower-orbit-shorter-transmission-times-shorter-lifespans/https://youtu.be/PPtr4Eec4Hg

Reference Scenario comparison

One large constellation with1080 satellites

Spatial density chart

Spatial Density plot of 2016 with the new ESA-MASTER v8

Earth‘s residual atmosphereclears debris

OneWeb600 sats

SpaceX StarlinkFCC filings for 12k sats

ReDSHIFTde-orbit highway investigationin High-LEO

ISS

De-orbit highwayswith population overlay

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117719300407

Assuming area augmentation:A/m = 1m2/kg

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117719300407

Spatial Density evolutionwith long-term simulations

Main findings of the reference simulations

LEO population increasing despite all mitigation efforts

End-of-life disposal above LEO protected region (2000km altitude) should be „handled with care“

Significant impact of large constellations

Modeling of Appendices has positive effect – should be further detailed

Linear increase in GEO; rare collisions (mean at 1 per 100 years)

De-orbit highways should be investigated in improved scenarios

Improved Scenarios

Simulations setup:Preliminary considerations (1)

Most of the satellites with perigee below about 700 Km are more or less naturally' compliant with the 25-year rule. I.e., they can reenter within the desired time span just exploiting the air drag.

For higher orbits a significant Delta V might be required to comply with the existing guidelines. We note, in passing, that these upper LEO regions, above 1000 km of altitude, might become the home of the forthcoming large constellations, in view of the relatively low spatial density of objects.

For these upper LEO satellites the possibility to exploit the ``deorbiting highways'', i.e., the natural reentry corridors represented by the resonances, offer a mean to significantly decrease the required Delta V, thus saving propellant and pushing towards a better compliance to the 25-year rule.

The present study aims at showing how the resonant corridors can help in efficiently remove the large objects injected in space through the launches.

In this study we concentrate our analysis of the efficiency of the corridors in the LEO region where the space debris issues are more severe.

As it is well known, for the MEO and GEO zones the disposal options are more limited. In particular:

For the GNSS in the MEO region it will be shown how stable graveyard orbits can be found a few hundred kilometers above the GNSS operational orbits. Moreover, exploiting the resonances, it is even possible to deorbit the satellites towards the atmospheric reentry. It was shown that, whereas the total disposal time is usually in excess of 25 years, the actual interaction between the disposed MEO satellites and the LEO region is well below the 25 years limit.

In previous works by Rossi et al. and Radtke et al. it was also shown how both these disposal strategies (graveyard orbits vs. eccentric disposal) are currently able to minimize the production of debris on the long term in the MEO region.


As it is well known, for the MEO and GEO zones the disposal options are more limited. In particular: For the GEO region, in the D3.x the mapping confirmed the possibility to

permanently store the spacecraft in the super-GEO zone, according to the IADC formula. Moreover, in the case of the inclined GEO orbits which are starting to be exploited, the possibility to deorbit the satellite at the end-of-life thanks to the lunisolar perturbation and the related resonances was shown.

Our simulations within ReDSHIFT confirmed that a proper handling of the GEO region with a correct disposal in stable graveyard orbits is able to minimize the collision risk in the area, thus keeping the growth of the population within a linear pace driven by the launch activity.


Simulations setup

We concentrate on the long-term evolution only of the launch traffic.

No in-orbit fragmentations are modelled (neither collisions nor explosions)

As a baseline, the standard 8-year launch traffic scenario is repeated for 200 years. The traffic includes satellites, upper stages and MRO.

Three possible de-orbiting options: apply an impulsive DeltaV to lower the perigee traditional elliptic

deorbiting Apply an impulsive DeltaV to move the object towards the closest

resonance corridor Apply an impulsive DeltaV to move the object towards the closest

resonance corridor + open a sail of increasing the area-to-mass ratio to A/m = 1 m2/kg

Simulations setup

Apply an impulsive DeltaV to move the object towards the closest resonance corridor

Apply an impulsive DeltaV to move the object towards the closest resonance corridor + open a sail of leading to A/m = 1 m2/kg

This implies in many cases a significant change in inclination large DeltaV required

New launch traffic “artificially” displaced towards the resonant corridors to highlight the possible benefits of the use of the de-orbiting highways

Simulations setup:towards re-entry corridors

o original launcheso displaced launches

Eccentricity ratio e/e_max


Simulations setup:towards re-entry corridors


Simulations setupTakeaway messages

The most effective resonances are at high semi-major axis

Most of the launches are towards lower LEOs where, as noted before, drag alone is usually capable of de-orbiting a spacecraft equipped with a sail.

two more scenarios where the semimajor axis of all the launches are moved “up” by 300 or 500 km (if they remain less than 2000 km in apogee)

(From the previous slides it can be seen that)

Simulations setup: up 300 km



Simulations setup: up 500 km andtowards corridors


Simulations Results

Launches up by 300 km

Only Hohmann maneuver (no sail)

DeltaV = 100 and 200 m/s

Launches at standard inclination

or pre-moved towards corridors

Years

Nu

mb

ero

fO

bje

cts

Simulations Results


Sail + small maneuver towards the closest corridor




Years

Nu

mb

ero

fO

bje

cts

Simulations Results

Launches pre-moved towards corridors


Sail + small maneuver towards the closest corridor vs. Hohmann

DeltaV with sail + Corridors is one order of magnitude less to reach the same level of populationYears

Nu

mb

ero

fO

bje

cts

Simulations Results


Only Hohmann maneuver (no sail)




Years

Nu

mb

ero

fO

bje

cts

Simulations Results


Sail + small maneuver towards the closest corridor



or pre-moved towards corridors either by 5 or 50 degrees at max.

Years

Nu

mb

ero

fO

bje

cts

Simulations Results


Sail + small maneuver towards

the closest corridor vs. Hohmann


Years

Nu

mb

ero

fO

bje

cts

Simulations Results


Sail + small maneuver towards

the closest corridor vs. Hohmann

Launches pre-moved towards corridors either by 5 or 50 degrees at max.

DeltaV with sail + Corridors is one order of magnitude less

Years

Nu

mb

ero

fO

bje

cts

Conclusions

The resonance corridors, coupled with a sail, are effective in removing the majority of objects within 25 years.

To reach the same level of compliance with a simple impulsive maneuver an increase in DeltaV of about 1 order of magnitude is required.

An accurate choice of the original mission parameters (i.e., inclination closer to resonance corridor) could enable a better compliance with the deorbiting guidelines.

The dynamic disposal by means of the deorbiting highways is more effective for higher LEO orbits (which might become more populated in the near future).

Final Conference

March 13, 2019, Florence

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO

SPACE DEBRIS

Rada Popova / Youngkyu Kim

Institute of Air Law, Space Law and Cyber Law

University of Cologne

The legal framework applicable to space debris

Outline

I. The legal framework applicable to the protection of the space

environment

1. The five treaties on space law

2. Non-binding international instruments

3. National space laws

4. Regional normative documents

II. Definitions and the legal status of space debris

III. Major concerns with regard to the legal framework for space debris

mitigation

UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 453/22/2019

I. The legal framework applicable to the

protection of the space environment


The legal framework applicable to the protection

of the space environment

1. The five treaties on space law

o Outer Space Treaty (1967)

o Rescue Agreement (1968)

o Liability Convention (1972)

o Registration Convention (1975)

o Moon Agreement (1979)

o plus general international law (Art. III OST)

2. Non-binding international instruments

o 2002/2007 IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines

o 2010 UNCOPUOS Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines

o 2011 ITU Recommendation ITU-R S 1003.2 for the GSO environmental protection

o 2011 Standard on Space Debris Mitigation Requirements of the ISO




3. National space legislation and other normative documents related to space

debris


o Germany – DLR standards; adherence

to ESA’s CoC for SDM

o Italy - adherence for ASI projects to

ESA’s CoC for SDM

o Japan – JAXA standards consistent with

IADC/ISO SDM guidelines

o Russia – ROSCOSMOS standard

consistent with IADC/ISO SDM guidelines

o United Kingdom – SDM requirements for

licensing

o USA

o Australia – incorporation of SDM guidelines

envisaged

o Austria – accordance with the international

SDM guidelines

o Belgium – compliance required for licensing

o Canada – requirements for remote sensing

systems

o China - SDM as national industry standard

o Finland – national SDM requirements

o France – national SDM standards; adherence

to ESA’s CoC for SDM

3. National space legislation and other normative documents related to space

debris

• Most states which have space legislation have not yet adopted specific rules on space debris mitigation.

• Nevertheless, most of them (e.g. Argentina, Chile, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland) confirm their adherence to the UNCOPUOS Guidelines and their support to the other instruments.

•There are also states which have adopted national legislation on space debris mitigation, such as Austria and France. Other States have national standards or requirements, such Australia, Japan, Russia, Germany, UK, US, etc.

• In these cases, space debris mitigation instruments are incorporated in the authorization requirements.

•Two major problems can be identified: no uniformity of national standards (e.g. different definitions of protected regions in LEO, MEO and GEO; waivers with justification, for example for small satellites).






4. Regional normative documents

o 2004 ESA Code of Conduct for Space Debris Mitigation

Applicable to projects of European space agencies, projects conducted in Europe as

well as by European entities outside Europe and to all space systems and launch

vehicles orbiting or intended for orbiting the Earth.

o 2014 ESA Space Debris Mitigation Policy for Agency Projects

Applicable to the procurement of all ESA space systems and all operation under the

responsibility of ESA


The legal framework applicable to the protectionof the space environment

5. Deficiences on various normative levels


International

law

Non-binding

regulations

National laws Regional

normative

documents

Binding on

an

international

level,

however not

specific

Specific, but non-

legally binding;

no enforcement

mechanisms

Enforceable;

specific;

binding on a

national level

Specific;

binding on a

regional level

II. Definitions and the legal status of

space debris


Definitions and the legal status of space debris

1. The universal non-binding definition

◦ The notion ‚space debris‘ is not legally defined

◦ IADC/UNCOPUOS Guidelines on Space Debris Mitigation (non-binding, but widely

accepted):

„all man-made objects, including fragments and elements thereof, in Earth orbit or

re-entering the atmosphere, that are non-functional“

◦ Main elements of the definition:

- man-made

- including fragments and elements

- non-functional (permanent cessation of the function)



2. The binding circular definition

o The term ‚space object‘ is only partially defined in Art. I (d) Liability Convention /

Art. I (b) Registration Convention

„The term ‘space object’ includes component parts of a space object as well as its

launch vehicle and parts thereof“

◦ ‘Space object‘ vs. ‚space debris‘: no legal consensus

- both are man-made

- the IADC/UNCOPUOS def. includes „fragments and elements“, not only

„component parts“

- are all non-functional space objects space debris?



3. Are all non-functional space objects space debris?


Opinion 1: YES (prevailing) Opinion 2: NO

Argument Any man-made object in outer space

is a space object

Not all space debris can be

considered to be component

parts of a a space object

Consequence The legal norms appying to space

objects (jurisdiction, control,

registration, liability) apply equally to

all classes and sizes of space debris

The legal norms applying to

space objects apply to space

debris only insofar as (only

some) space debris are space

objects

Advantage Def. is applicable to all types of non-

functional space objects

Liability only for objects that

can be identified

Disadvantage „Functionality“ is a subjective

criterion

Contradicts the victim-

orientated logic of the corpus

iuris spatialis


4. The legal status of space debris as space objects

o Jurisdiction and control as well as ownership over space debris are permanent and stay

with the State of Registry

➢ only the State of Registry can decide upon the legal and factual fate of the object

➢ any non-consensual activity is infringement of jurisdiction

➢ ADR? Trade-off in cases of collision threats?

o Liability for damages caused by space objects remain with the launching State

➢ attributability of space debris might not be possible

o Registration of space objects

➢ the existing requirements do not reflect changes in the control, functionality or

location of the object



5. Art. IX OST: Space debris as harmful contamination and harmful interference

S.1 “In the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, States Parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle of co- operation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.”

S.2 “States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.”

S.3 “If a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment.”

S. 4 “A State Party to the Treaty which has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by another State Party in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, may request consultation concerning the activity or experiment.”



6. Articles IV and VII Moon Agreement

Art. IV para. 1

“The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. Due regard shall be paid to the interests of present and future generations as well as to the need to promote higher standards of living and conditions of economic and social progress and development in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”

Art. VII para. 1

“In exploring and using the moon, States Parties shall take measures to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment, whether by introducing adverse changes in that environment, by its harmful contamination through the introduction of extra- environmental matter or otherwise. States Parties shall also take measures to avoid harmfully affecting the environment of the earth through the introduction of extraterrestrial matter or otherwise.”


III. Major concerns with regard to the legal

framework for space debris mitigation


Major concerns with regard to the legal framework for

space debris mitigation

1. Interim results (1)

• The issue of space debris is not explicitly addressed in the five international Treaties on space law.

• So far, binding law does not provide for effective measures for space debris mitigation.

• It is not fully clear whether space debris can be qualified as ‘space objects’ as per the 1972 Liability Convention and the 1975 Registration Convention.

• Even if space debris are considered to be space objects, there is a lack of specific provisions for protection of the outer space environment and of specific mechanisms

•International (environmental) law is applicable to outer space activities; however, environmental law only provides with general guidelines (prevention principle, precautionary principle, principle of sustainability) which, although relevant for the protection of outer space environment, are not effective for space debris mitigation.




2. Interim results (2)

• The regulation of space debris on the international level currently consists of specific guidelines that are, however, dependent on voluntary adherence.

• There are specific and binding requirements for space debris mitigation – on the national and the regional (ESA) level level.

• For international binding norms to evolve, two options are available:

1) the adoption of international rules (problem: consensus)

2) the creation of international custom through opinio iuris coupled with

state practice = national legislation (problem: lack of uniformity, fragmentation)

• Thus, SDM guidelines may acquire binding character provided that

1) they are adopted in national laws (nationally binding)

2) there is enough uniform practice which evolves to customary law

(internationally binding)

. UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 613/22/2019

•The development of technology is advancing much faster than the law.

•The dependence of law-making process in UNCOPUOS on consensus makes it difficult to

enact binding international rules.

•The national laws do not provide very concrete guidance for national space actors but at

least they are an expression of state practice and can contribute to „hardening“ the

guidelines to legal obligations for States.

•Non-binding international instruments for space debris are prevailing.

•!! Even if adhered to, mitigation guidelines can not stabilize the existing debris population

•As the legal framework is not fully effective for space debris mitigation, other measures,

e.g. collision prevention through space debris remediation (e.g. ADR for high-mass objects

in LEO) have become a part of the space debris agenda. Here, major legal issues such as

right/duty to removal of non-identifiable debris have to be discussed.

•Furthermore, apart from legal measures, economic incentives such as tax measures, or

requirements for all space actors to pay a certain sum in a fund, following the strict liability

for risky activities pricniple, may support the overall legal-political framework.




ReDSHIFT Legal Results

Method: analysis of the deficiencies on the existing legal framework, combined with understanding of the technical findings, resulting in proposals for amending and extending existing guidelines


Critical survey and analysis of

existing space debris mitigation

guidelines and practices in the

legal field

Analysis of the possibilities for

enforcement and applicability of

mitigation measures

Re-definition of the existing

mitigation guidelines

Revolutionary Design of Spacecraft through

Holistic Integration of Future Technologies

HTTP://REDSHIFT-H2020.EU/

UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 6422 March 2019

march 13, 2019, florence final...

Documents