Evidence: Recently Added
So why not simply send up the space vacuums and clean up the mess we have made? As with many international crises, the solution to this issue is far more complicated than the circumstances that created it. A host of legal, political, and technical considerations persist in making space debris a topic of frustration. Everyone agrees something must be done; very few agree on just what exactly that something is. Preventing the creation of future debris has been a rallying point for a number of spacefaring nations. However, it is a Band-Aid fix to a still growing problem, albeit a fix that encourages greater utilization of technology and per- sonal responsibility among agencies the world over. Still, as long as trash continues to clutter the skies, the risk to national security and economy will persist. Some observers, like National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration (NASA) physicist Donald Kessler, even suggest an instance of critical mass at which time the abundance of debris material in LEO could cascade into perpetual chain-reaction accidents. This phenome- non has been termed the Kessler syndrome.7 Reports being circulated by NASA’s Johnson Space Center support at least some aspect of Kessler’s theory; even had all launches stopped in 2005, the preexisting cloud of orbital trash was, at the time, large enough to continue creating debris faster than atmospheric drag could remove it.8 Thus, while attempts at debris mitigation are critical to positively impacting long-term sources of debris from ASAT explosions and ejected mission modules, such limited attempts do not offer a solution to the wider problem. The overall clut- ter of catalogued debris would likely continue to increase even if satellite launches stopped tomorrow; something must be done. But what?
For argument’s sake, let us assume states genuinely wanted to fix this problem and agreed to uniformly address every issue raised thus far. Only a handful of nations have the capability to actually remove debris from LEO, MEO, and GEO (mainly the United States and Russia). Imagine, in a joint project, that these states develop a clever mechanism for the remediation of medium- to large-sized nonoperational orbital material. Despite these efforts, according to both the OST and the Registration Convention, there is no such thing as salvage rights in orbit. Anything put into space remains the property of the entity that launched it—even if that property explodes into 5,000 pieces. It is therefore illegal to move or remove any object in space that does not belong to the launching state or state of registry—at least to do so without permission.15 Article VIII of the OST, which embodies this rule, may therefore bar Russian or US efforts to clean up debris in this scenario. This is, of course, assum- ing states can even identify who owns a certain piece of debris, which, as noted, is not a simple task. And lest we forget, what if in the effort to clean up debris, we create more? In that circumstance, we would find ourselves back at the circular discussion on liability.16
One reason for this disinterest in remediation is a result of the types of technology space cleanup would produce. Similar to concerns over satellite maintenance craft, the ability to dock and tamper with another satellite or fragment thereof leads inevitably to issues of dual use in space technology. Dual use is a reference to the civil and military applications of a related hardware. For example, a craft that could patrol and collect small debris could similarly be tasked to deorbit components of satellites belonging to another nation or competitive entity. The DOD and its counterparts in major spacefaring nations such as Russia and China have no interest in promoting the growth of such capabilities. This is not because these agents favor orbital clutter but because space debris is so far favorable to the investment in a civil technology that invariably carries with it national security ramifications. As space trash nears critical mass, such priorities may shift. Until that time, those in favor of invest- ment in space debris technology and legislation will continue to meet strong opposition among governments.
The first step in answering that question involves enhancing situ- ational awareness in space. To date, only USSTRATCOM monitors space debris in anything resembling a comprehensive fashion, opening a host of ethics questions on its own. For example, is the United States obligated to warn a foreign company or country of an impending col- lision? However, this single monitoring task relies on aging technology to track only tens of thousands of the millions of pieces of man-made junk in space. In 2013, the US government scrapped an S-band radar system known as Space Fence, due to sequester constraints. This system was an attempt to upgrade some of the infrastructure the joint force uses to track space debris. In June 2014, government revitalized the program, awarding Lockheed Martin a contract of nearly one billion dollars to resume work on the project. The legacy tracking system can track debris around the size of a basketball in LEO. The proposed Space Fence will be able to track debris down to the size of a baseball or smaller.25 This increased ability could result in the amount of catalogued debris shifting from nearly 20,000 to closer to 200,000.26 Yet, no matter whether Space Fence survives future cuts, any attempt at debris remediation will require that USSTRATCOM be afforded the resources to continue combing software-based predictive models enhanced by a growing ability to spot- check more debris. Such a capability is a prerequisite to any attempts at remediation, as we cannot remove what we cannot find. Likewise, enhanced situational awareness contributes to alleviating a number of the technical issues plaguing the debate on liability.
Yet, eventually, debris remediation will require the physical removal or deorbiting of space debris, and there is no shortage of proposals on how to accomplish this. One popular concept being circulated is the use of a tether, utilizing either electromagnetics or momentum exchange. Such devices usually focus on larger debris, causing such materials to drop out of LEO or flinging them into graveyard orbits above GEO— much in the way an object tied to a rope can be sent flying. The electrodynamic variant has gained prominence recently, with a $1.9 million grant from NASA to Star Technology and Research making news in March 2012.27 The advertised layout of their ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE) used a fleet of twelve crafts launched into LEO, working in unison to grab debris and drag it to short-lived orbits before cascading out of circulation. The company, which has received other government grants in the past, projected that a fleet of this size could conceivably remove all current LEO trash over two kilograms within seven years.28 Consequently, while this is a targeted system carrying with it the benefits of accuracy and control, it is designed to choreograph in such a manner that it produces the long-term benefits of a dragnet ap- proach as well. Whether it can truly keep up with the natural increase of debris, whether deorbited material runs the risk of reaching the sur- face, and whether such a large and mobile fleet further increases the chances of collisions are questions still needing to be answered, leaving this regiment one among a host of uncrowned contenders for the title of panacea. It joins the ranks of lasers and harpoons in the ever-growing club of designs vying for a slice of the inevitable windfall to be made from a likely crisis. While just one example, the EDDE demonstrates the complexities involved at every level of technical development and the associated costs for even nonoperational prototypes.
“Perhaps the most worrying part of the report from a US perspective is the section talking about Chinese counterspace capabilities,” said Brian Weeden, the Secure World Foundation‘s technical advisor. “The tough question is what to do, [and] some of the potential options could make the situation worse instead of better.”
The report discusses three apparent tests of Chinese anti-satellite systems (ASAT), not just the well-known two. Everyone knows about China’s 2007 test when it destroyed its own defunct satellite, scattering debris that continues to orbit the planet and threaten space assets of every country. A fair number of people know that in 2014, China conducted what the Pentagon called a “successful” test of the same system, albeit without actually destroying a target, to everyone’s relief.
But very few people know that in May 2013, China launched something else: a mysterious object that nearly reached geosynchronous orbit, the ultra-high altitude where crucial communications satellites hang out. Based on its trajectory, the system couldn’t have been intended to launch satellites or traditional research missions. Instead, the Pentagon report says and Weeden’s own analysis confirms, it could have been an anti-satellite system able to reach altitudes three times higher than the weapon tested in 2007 and 2014.
To effectively combat the space debris problem, a cap-and-trade system should be set up that will both be effective and withstand scrutiny under the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty.293 As such, an international regulatory agency should be created to serve two functions: first, the agency should impose an international limit to the addition of debris and should then apportion these allowances to nations based on their current use of space. The total allowable debris addition should be recalculated yearly based on the state of the space environment, and individual allowances should also be recalculated annually to account for changes in the abilities and needs of different nations. Second, the agency should allot specific LEO area orbital trajectories, such as the ITU allots GEO orbital slots.294 Though this will be more difficult than allocating GEO slots, since those slots appear stationary while LEO orbital paths are constantly in motion295 it can be done.
First, an international electronic database should be produced which tracks the current location of all space objects registered in the Space Object Registry, which should include all spacecraft launched into space.296 It should also record, to the greatest extent possible, the location and trajectory of any debris. This database should be updated daily to represent the most accurate portrayal of the location and trajectory of space objects by the nations responsible for those space objects. Second, this database should be used to calculate predictions of where spacecraft will be in the future, and LEO orbital slots should be defined both in time and space, as opposed to being defined purely by location. This may seem difficult, but it is actually made quite simple by the use of computers.297 Though these calculations will become less accurate over longer periods of time, the constant updating of the database will allow these predictions to be constantly updated as well, so that they will be accurate for at least the immediate future. When a nation applies for a trajectory slot, the agency should only allocate that slot if it can be entered into and sustained for a certain amount of time without requiring a trajectory modification of any other spacecraft.298
With a workable allocation system in place, the agency should be in conformity with the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty. To ensure this, it is important that, in allocating slots, both the interests of current space-faring nations, as well as those without the capability to get into space, are provided for. To do so, the agency should only allow actual physical entry into trajectory slots to those who comport with the cap-and-trade regime, while allowing claims to such slots to all nations, on bases similar to those of the ITU.299 This will ensure that this agency will not run into some of the problems that the ITU did when it began.300 In doing this, the agency will be comporting to the ideal that space be preserved for all mankind. Furthermore, since the purpose of the agency would be to mitigate the debris problem, its purpose would be ensuring future access to space. This, in connection to the fact that this is an international agency responding proportionately to an international problem301 will allow the agency to withstand scrutiny under the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty.302
The Registration Convention may also seem to have some relevance to the debris problem, since it allows for better tracking of space objects, and thus better advance warning to avoid collisions that could create debris.259 But it has shortfalls. For instance, while requiring that countries launching space objects register these objects in both a national and U.N database, there is no requirement (and arguably, no viable method) for registering or documenting debris that may come from spacecraft either at the end of their lives or during operation.260
Also, though this treaty is a good start, it is not sufficient to accurately catalog the positions of space objects in such a way as to ensure that they do not interact with each other.261 While the Registration Convention permits parties to the treaty to provide more information (than just nodal period, inclination, apogee, and perigee), it does not require it, and it thus lacks the force necessary to ensure proper accounting of space objects.262
The Liability Convention, with its focus on damage caused to spacecraft, may seem like a good place to look for a treaty that deals with the debris problem.252 It is, however, insufficient. First, the only damage covered by the Liability Convention is damage to people or property, "not to the space environment itself."253 This precludes any attempt to use the Liability Convention to hold liable any country that intentionally contributes to the space debris problem, such as a country jettisoning spacecraft parts after they have become unnecessary.
Another barrier to using the Liability Convention as a means to preserve orbital space is its lack of a definition for the word "fault."254 While it is clear that a malevolent actor that intentionally piloted its satellite into that of another country would be at fault,255 other situations are not so apparent. The more likely scenario would instead be one where debris originating from a country's spacecraft unintentionally collides with another country's functional spacecraft. In that instance, it is unclear what sort of actions on the defunct spacecraft's country's part would be required to impose liability.256 This is because there has been no standard of care set up with regard to the space resource, and even if there were, it would be nearly impossible to prove fault in cases of space collision because of the impracticality of collecting physical evidence.257 Because of these problems, and others, the Liability Convention is not sufficient to curb the debris problem.258
Outer space is "the province of all mankind."13 It is the new western frontier, the next chance for humanity to continue its one great prerogative: expansion. Space is no longer just the hypothetical playground of curious minds, but a real and valuable resource. Since Sputnik first went into space in 1957,14 mankind has consistently sent probes out into the depths of this new frontier and has determinedly populated the area surrounding our planet with more and more spacecraft, and rightly so. Through our use of satellites, we created a worldwide communications network, allowed people to use GPS devices, tracked weather systems, monitored enemy combat movements, and gathered more information about the universe we live in. These immediate gains are great and contribute immeasurably to creating the advanced society that we live in today, but they pale in comparison to what outer space offers us in the long run: survival.
The unavoidable truth is this: one day, our planet will no longer be able to support us.15 Maybe we will destroy this planet with nuclear warfare.16 Maybe we will deplete all of our resources, converting our planet into an inhospitable wasteland.17  Maybe a new disease will come about that will obliterate life as we know it.18 Maybe an asteroid will collide with our planet and destroy our ecosystem.19 All of these are possibilities, however slight they may be. But, even if we get lucky and no such catastrophe as the ones listed above befall us, eventually, our sun will start to run out of fuel and will expand, engulfing this planet and wiping out any trace of its existence.20 If we wish to survive as a species, we must realize that it is impossible to do so without eventually leaving this planet.21