Evidence: Most Popular
Collision-avoiding displacements have become more common, as the population of space debris mushrooms and as awareness of the threat grows; 75 such maneuvers were conducted in 2012.38 In March 2011, for example, the International Space Station (ISS) was alerted to the near approach of debris from the 2009 Iridium-Cosmos collision, and forced to initiate evasive maneuvers.39 This was the fifth time in thirty months that the ISS had been required to undertake avoidance operations,40 and the frequency of those demands increased in the following year, with four more required “dodge-ball” operations, and two additional instances in which maneuvers would have been initiated, if the conjunction warning had been more timely.41 When the alert comes too late, the protocol calls for the ISS astronauts to board escape modules, for a hasty undocking and return to earth, if the debris fatally impairs the space station’s life support operations.42
The ability to anticipate and dodge these hypervelocity collisions is still under-developed, and shielding can be effective against only the smallest particles.34 The U.S. monitoring capability represents the global state of the art in space "situational awareness," and the United States has begun a practice of providing "conjunction warnings" to some domestic and foreign satellite operators whose assets are projected to come dangerously close to known objects. It now sends these alerts twenty to thirty times per day.35 But this remains a very inexact science: ninety-nine percent of the danger comes from particles too small to track; sometimes the warnings do not come early enough to enable evasive maneuvers; and no one can confidently specify exactly how close the two space objects will come, or even which direction or how far the risk-averse satellite should be moved.36 Moreover, not all satellites have great maneuver capability; in any event, significant course adjustments consume scarce fuel and require the satellite to depart from its preferred trajectory, to adopt a less-than- optimal position for some period of time.37
Much more massive and consequential space crashes have occurred, too. In July 1996, a small French military reconnaissance satellite, Cerise, collided with debris from an Ariane rocket stage. The impact severed a critical stabilizing boom and knocked Cerise off course.30
Even more spectacularly, in February 2009, an operational U.S. Iridium 33 satellite was blind-sided at 800 kilometers altitude by a defunct Russian Cosmos 2251 satellite, fracturing both orbiters into immense clouds of debris.31 No one is immune from this danger: in May 2013, Pegasus (or Pegaso), a miniature Ecuadorian satellite - the country's first space effort - was operational for only one week before it was bashed by debris fragments from a long- defunct Soviet rocket at 650 kilometers altitude, spinning it off kilter and rendering it non-functional.32 In fact, the specter of a "chain reaction" collision -in which one impact generates a spray of wreckage that cascades into other satellites or fragments, in turn spinning additional percussions -is now all too likely.33
Moreover, the exploitation of outer space by an expanding array of countries and private sector companies is likely to continue to grow. The rate of launching new spacecraft was higher in 2011 than at any point in the prior decade, totaling eighty launches, and placing 126 satellites into orbit.9 New countries and new companies have continued to enter the market -- Estonia recently became the 41st country to command its own satellite10 -- and polyglot consortia of public and private operators from multiple states have proliferated. For example, the U.S. military recently leased satellite services from erstwhile rival China, concluding a one-year $10.7 million deal for a Chinese Apstar-7 satellite to provide essential communications services for American troops in Africa, where Chinese telecommunications coverage is expansive.11 Novel applications of simple, low-cost, miniaturized “nanosatellites” are the latest fad in space, as diverse schemes for accelerating exploitation of the regime continue to proliferate.12
If the United States and other powerful governments do not take steps now to avert the potentially devastating effects of space debris, the issue risks becoming stalemated in a manner similar to climate change. Given the past hesitation of international forums in addressing the space debris issue, unilateral action is the most appropriate means of instigating space debris removal within the needed timeframe. The United States is well poised for a leadership role in space debris removal.
Going forward, the U.S. government should work closely with the commercial sector in this endeavor, focusing on removing pieces of U.S. debris with the greatest potential to contribute to future collisions. It should also keep its space debris removal system as open and transparent as possible to allow for future international cooperation in this field.
Although leadership in space debris removal will entail certain risks, investing early in preserving the near-Earth space environment is necessary to protect the satellite technology that is so vital to the U.S. military and day-to-day operations of the global economy. By instituting global space debris removal measures, a critical opportunity exists to mitigate and minimize the potential damage of space debris and ensure the sustainable development of the near-Earth space environment.
International cooperation in space has rarely resulted in cost-effective or expedient solutions, especially in politically-charged areas of uncertain technological feasibility. The International Space Station, because of both political and technical setbacks, has taken over two decades to deploy and cost many billions of dollars—far more time and money than was originally intended. Space debris mitigation has also encountered aversion in international forums. The topic was brought up in COPUOS as early as 1980, yet a policy failed to develop despite a steady flow of documents on the increasing danger of space debris (Perek 1991). In fact, COPUOS did not adopt debris mitigation guidelines until 2007 and, even then, they were legally non-binding.
Space debris removal systems could take decades to develop and deploy through international partnerships due to the many interdisciplinary challenges they face. Given the need to start actively removing space debris sooner rather than later to ensure the continued benefits of satellite services, international cooperation may not be the most appropriate mechanism for instigating the first space debris removal system. Instead, one country should take a leadership role by establishing a national space debris removal program. This would accelerate technology development and demonstration, which would, in turn, build-up trust and hasten international participation in space debris removal.
As early as 1978, scientists postulated that the runaway growth of space debris owing to collisional cascading would eventually prohibit the use of Earth’s orbit (Kessler and Cour-Palais 1978). Recent scientific studies have also predicted uncontrolled debris growth in low-Earth’s orbit over the next century. One NASA study used predictive models to show that even if all launches had been halted in 2004, the population of space objects greater than ten centimeters would remain stable only until 2055 (Liou and Johnson 2006). Beyond that, increasing collisions would create debris faster than debris is removed naturally, resulting in annual increases in the overall space object population. The study concluded that, “only the removal of existing large objects from orbit can prevent future problems for research in and commercialization of space” (Liou and Johnson 2006, 340). The European Space Agency (ESA) has come to similar conclusions using its own predictive models (ESA 2009a).
Consequently, there is growing international consensus in the space debris community that active removal will be necessary to prevent “collisional cascading,” or the increasing number of collisions resulting from debris created from previous collisions, in Earth’s orbit. The 5th European Con- ference on Space Debris concluded that, “active space debris remediation measures will need to be implemented in order to provide this sustain- ability...there is no alternative to protect space” (ESA 2009b). Similarly, Nicholas Johnson from NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office stated in a testimony to Congress that, “in the future, such collisions are likely to be the principal source of new space debris. The most effective means of limiting satellite collisions is to remove non-functional spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages from orbit” (Johnson 2009a, 2).
The man-made objects in orbit have the potential to harm terrestrial environmental systems, particularly when one considers the risks from nuclear waste in space. This danger was made apparent in 1978, when a Soviet satellite malfunctioned and fell to Earth, scattering radioactive debris over northern Canada.44 Only about 0.1 percent of the satellite’s power source was ever recovered.45 There have been international efforts to limit the use of nuclear materials in orbit, the most significant of which is the Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources In Outer Space, established by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (“UNOOSA”).46 These principles call for limitations on the use of nuclear materials in space, only allowing nuclear fuel for “those space missions which cannot be operated by non-nuclear energy sources in a reasonable way.”47 The protocol specifically protects both the terrestrial environment and the space environment.48 However, the regulation is non-binding,49 severely limiting its usefulness.
Visual pollution is one effect of orbital debris which impacts the environment in a way that human beings can see from Earth, and there- fore perhaps better appreciate. Space debris can interfere with satellite observations of outer space and it “can also obscure ground-based astro- nomical observation.”50 This means that debris in orbit is diminishing humanity’s view of the stars in the same way as atmospheric pollution and light pollution.
Aside from the aesthetic loss, the debris also harms scientific research; orbital debris “can either decrease the quality of, or completely negate, many hours of observations.”51 Orbital debris has become a physical and visual barrier between Earth and the rest of the universe. This is pollution on a massive scale, and the problem is only getting worse.
Since 2007, the greatest contributors to orbital debris were two major collisions. The first was an attempt by the Chinese government to destroy one of its old satellites with an anti-satellite missile in 2007.52 The attempt, far from successfully removing the satellite from orbit, massively increased the amount of debris by adding “2,606 [sic.] trackable objects to the U.S. space catalog as of June 2010” and an estimated “35,000–500,000 smaller, untrackable pieces of debris.”53 The methods used by China did not conform with any international agreements on the removal of satellites.54
The second collision event took place in 2009, when “an active Iridium communications satellite” collided with a non-functioning Russian communication satellite, creating 1658 pieces of trackable orbital debris.55 As the number of defunct satellites and the amount of debris in orbit increases, these kinds of collisions will also be on the rise, creating a cycle of increasing orbital debris.56 In discussing orbital debris, environmental issues and the potential problem of debris colliding with active operations in space are one and the same; any danger to satellites from orbital debris means the potential creation of even more orbital debris, and therefore, more pollution.