The United Nations may eventually create new rules for space

Samson argues that there is a greater international consensus to create non-binding rules of behavior in space than more stringent policies aimed at specific technologies. He says he is “cautiously excited” because he is escaping the UN’s impasse over space diplomacy.

Dozens of countries they have already published the answers to the UN proposal, mostly in favor of it. Non-governmental groups, including Samson’s Secure World Foundation, arms control groups and the International Committee of the Red Cross have done the same. The latter noted that “the use of weapons in outer space can have a significant impact on Earth’s civilians.” Suppose that if a satellite that is dependent on weather information, communications, or navigation is disabled in an international conflict, it can have major consequences.

Samson is a unique problem with “dual-use” technologies, referring to spacecraft that can be used for military and civilian purposes. For example, although some military communications have dedicated military satellites, 80 percent of those communications use a variety of commercial satellites, and yet they can be considered military targets. (The space industry was not invited to comment directly, as individual firms regulate their national policies, not international ones. Representatives of the U.S. space industry often participate in the U.S. delegation).

The risks of space debris that could be caused by an orbital collision or attack continue to draw attention, especially given the amount of debris generated by anti-satellite missile tests. China in 2007 and India 2019. Small parts of untraceable space can also be harmful because they move at high speeds. Bruce McClintock, head of the Space Corporation Initiative at Rand Corporation, a federally funded and military-focused research center in Santa Monica, California, said the Earth’s tornado wind could insert pieces of straw into telephone poles. “Now imagine that you are in orbital speed, and that you have something the size of a paint chip that moves thousands of miles per hour. These are things that can cause serious damage to satellites, ”he says.

That’s the main reason for Aaron Boley, a British scientist at the Vancouver Institute for Outer Space in British Columbia, to ban weapons testing that could destroy satellites. “I think there could be a broad consensus that banning testing that generates anti-satellite waste,” he says. His institute published one open letter on September 2 in support of the ban, with signatories from several countries. Prohibitions of tests that create “long-lasting debris” —instead of a piece of shrapnel that has been in orbit over the years instead of falling and burning in the lower atmosphere — may be more realistic, McClintock says, though sympathetic to the argument. Letter from the Outer Space Institute.

To prevent collisions or attacks between satellites, they would probably also generate debris, experts often mention. Sea incidents The agreement between the United States and the former Soviet Union was signed in 1972. The agreement promised more communication between the two countries and required ships, including those engaged in surveillance work, to stay away from each other to avoid collisions. “It didn’t change the size and structure of the naval forces, but it did bring rules for exercise notifications,” says Jessica West, a senior researcher at the Project Plowshares research institute based in Waterloon, Ontario. Giving to satellite owners seek prior notice and permission to approach it would go a long way, “don’t be scared, and don’t worry, and they won’t respond to what you’re doing because it’s just your intention to do an exercise in a gradual way”. he says.