[ad_1]
Can you start today to provide territory for space traffic management and space state awareness? How would you rate the way the world does these things today?
Space traffic management is an emerging area. We are in the early stages, where discussions in the international community develop norms and standards of behavior. The key goal of space traffic management is to prevent collisions in space. Collisions are, in themselves, events that generate waste, which can contaminate the domain itself and make it less secure for future actors. So it’s double; it’s not just a collision damaging satellites; the collision causes long-term damage to the environment itself. And we see that very clearly in every evaluation [2009] Iridium-Cosmos talka.
Another thing to be aware of the state of space is to provide data. Different countries and companies around the world detect where these objects are in orbit and share what is there. For 50 years, you didn’t need much other information [the location of debris so it can be avoided]. But as the orbital domain accumulates with garbage, it’s not “How to avoid debris?” Now it’s “How do you interact with others [satellite] operators up there? “When there are two maneuverable satellites that want to be in the same place at the same time, then you get more of a management question than an awareness of the state of space.
In this regard, when there may be a collision between two objects, what is the general process for preventing a disaster from occurring? Is there a quick outline you can provide?
I have worked hard to find an authoritative reference that speaks from the process to the end. I would like to say, “go to this resource, which will show you what happens until a decision is made to decide whether or not to maneuver a satellite.” But it’s a little opaque. Different operators have internal processes that they don’t necessarily want to share.
The U.S. Space Force’s 18th Space Control Command Squadron is constantly watching the sky and re-evaluating the situation every eight hours. If they detect that an approach is possible, they will issue a combination alert to the satellite owner-operator. It is then up to the owner-operator to decide what to do with that information. And then the 18 will continue to control things. The projection of what might be in space varies dramatically depending on the object, how it adapts, how it reacts to the surrounding atmosphere … If the operator intends to move deliberately, this also changes the observations.
You have argued that air traffic control can be a reasonable analogy for space traffic control for obvious reasons — that is, it is about preventing collisions — that it is in fact an inappropriate model, and that maritime law, on the other hand, provides a better one.
All of the world’s international airspace is designated as a single entity state with the goal of providing air traffic control services. For example, the US controls 5 million square kilometers of domestic airspace, but 24 million square kilometers of international airspace. They themselves are the sole authority to provide these air traffic control services in that airspace according to the ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization].
Space has no such thing. But that’s not even in the open sea. What is in the open sea is a collection of agreed rules of conduct and authority over each vessel: the state of the vessel’s flag. There is no offshore authority that says yes or no, you can act here and you can’t here. Everyone has access to this shared resource, and the principles of freedom of the sea include freedom of navigation, freedom of flight, freedom to lay cables underneath, freedom of fishing. Within maritime agreements, there is freedom to engage in commercial activities. This is different from air space because it has historically been a mere area for transportation.
The orbital domain is not just for transport [either]. It is an area where commercial activity takes place: telecommunications, remote sensing, etc.
Of course, maritime law is also intended to prevent collisions in the open sea. Collision rules or colleges promise what will happen if there are two ships [on course for] frontal collision: who has the priority to maneuver, what to do if something happens in a narrow channel … These types of principles are very clearly defined. They have a very clear applicability to the challenges we face in the field of space. There are very clear parallels. If we take the aviation model, we are actually trying to fit a square hole into a round hole.
Is there a backlash or disagreement over the idea of using maritime law as an inspiration for space law? Does the general consensus go to this idea?
I think that’s a trend, by virtue [of the fact] that it is really the only viable path, but it is always debated. Deciding what we can do by someone or a single body is not a realistic result, given the nature of the domain of space. We don’t do space traffic like air traffic because it’s not a safety issue. It’s a diplomatic question and so is the economy.
It would be easy to give a regulatory body control of space traffic, such as the 18th Space Control Squadron, which provides these services free of charge. But there are countries that are suspicious of that [idea]. And then, of course, there is the problem of classified data. So you will enter into these complexities of trust; you know, if there was a trusted global entity, sure, we could do that. [But] not everyone trusts it, and trust is something that changes over time.
So the way forward is to create that information to be shared and trusted. For example, I am working on a project as an enabler to share reliable information about the blockchain. Depending on the nature of the blockchain, you can determine who entered the information and validate it as a legal participant, and this information cannot be changed by a third party.
Space is often described as the Wild West (illegal and unregulated), and it’s anything. How can a space be created to do something that can manage space traffic, even if there is no established way to set initial rules?
I would say that space is not really the Wild West. In the 1967 Outer Space Pact, there is an obligation for states to monitor objects that are allowed to be fired from their countries. So it is not regulated; it is not completely free. It’s just that we haven’t agreed on what that really means to continue overseeing.
It was a call to wake up the Iridium-Cosmos accident. It sparked a lot of activity, like development in-orbit service technology ra throw large objects those that remain in space, as well as those of development commercial sensor networks so that we can have better and better information about the situational awareness of space.
The next big catalyst, in my opinion, are megaconstellations. We are seeing more [potential collision] alerts between two maneuverable satellites, which can be solved if we have a set of rules. This puts a lot of pressure on the system to start reaching these agreements. Capitalism is quite an effective motivator. When people see more and more economic opportunities in popular orbits, then balancing access to those orbits becomes motivating.
[ad_2]
Source link
