Final Presentation WP2 - CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENT, MITIGATION, GUIDELINES - REDSHIFT-H2020
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
March 13, 2019, Florence Final Presentation WP2 – CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENT, MITIGATION, GUIDELINES Volker Schaus, Technische Universität Braunschweig Rada Popova, University of Cologne
Outline Analysis of the current Space Debris Environment ReDSHIFT in the prospect of recent events Long-term simulation results Improved Scenarios Exploiting Perturbation for High-LEO de-orbit Legal Framework of Space Debris
Timeline
GEO fragmentations
17 June 2017 and August 25, 2017
Sentinal 1A Hit
August 24, 2016
ReDSHIFT starts
Effect of Appendices – Motivation
Sentinel-1A: Space Debris Hit on Aug 2016
Impactor
AMC-9 fragmentation
Telkom 1 Debris Incident
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FXX1kSNljU
Timeline
GEO fragmentations
17 June 2017 and August 25, 2017
Sentinal 1A Hit
August 24, 2016
ReDSHIFT starts 104 satellites in one launch
15 February 2017
104 satellites in one go
Source: VidCap from Scinews at youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0BpjPUT5FE
Spacecrafts launched, 1957-2017
More and more private companies
Significant increase of smaller satellites and
CubeSats with limited orbit maneuvering
capabilities
Source: http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/
Timeline
GEO fragmentations
17 June 2017 and August 25, 2017
NetCapturing
16 September 2018
Sentinal 1A Hit
August 24, 2016
ReDSHIFT starts 104 satellites in one launch
15 February 2017Net capturing: RemoveDEBRIS
Source SciNews at youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfRPTIgXuwTimeline
GEO fragmentations
17 June 2017 and August 25, 2017
NetCapturing
16 September 2018
Sentinal 1A Hit
August 24, 2016
Columbus Scanning
ReDSHIFT starts 104 satellites in one launch Jan 2019
15 February 2017Hundreds of craters on Columbus The robotic arm of the ISS scanning the European Columbus module Source: https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Hundreds_of_impacts_crater_ESA_s_Columbus_science_laboratory
Detection / Observation
Majority of objects
cataloged by radar
Observations (SSN)
Additional campaigns for
special cases like optical
telescope observations
in the GEO ring
Space Fence or EISCAT observations
Columbus Module
Image by: By Tpheiska - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1997913Motivation: ReDSHIFT Timeline
OneWeb-1 launch
GEO fragmentations Feb 2019
17 June 2017 and August 25, 2017
NetCapturing
16 September 2018
Sentinal 1A Hit
August 24, 2016
Columbus Scanning
ReDSHIFT starts 104 satellites in one launch Jan 2019
15 February 2017Large Constellations
Starlink
2 demonstration missions in orbit
Announcements keep changing
OneWeb Filings at FCC for 12k satellites
Announcements keep changing Target orbit at first 1100 km
No.sats: 720 900+ ~600 Now reduced to 550 km or even lower
First 6 satellites were launched 150 kg mass per satellite
in 1200 km orbit
Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p-PToD2URA
150 kg mass per satellite https://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/PPtr4Eec4HgReference Scenario comparison
One large
constellation with
1080 satellitesSpatial density chart
Earth‘s residual
atmosphere
SpaceX Starlink
clears debris FCC filings for 12k sats
OneWeb
600 sats
ISS ReDSHIFT
de-orbit highway investigation
in High-LEO
Spatial Density plot of 2016 with the new ESA-MASTER v8De-orbit highways
with population overlay
Assuming area augmentation:
A/m = 1m2/kg
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117719300407Spatial Density evolution with 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.Simulations setup:
Preliminary considerations (2)
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.Simulations setup:
Preliminary considerations (3)
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
Eccentricity ratio e/e_max
o original launches
o displaced launchesSimulations setup:
towards re-entry corridors
Eccentricity ratio e/e_max
o original launches
o displaced launchesSimulations setup
Takeaway messages
(From the previous slides it can be seen that)
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)Simulations setup: up 300 km
Eccentricity ratio e/e_max
o original launches
o displaced launchesSimulations setup: up 300 km
Eccentricity ratio e/e_max
o original launches
o displaced launchesSimulations setup: up 500 km and towards corridors o original launches o displaced launches
Simulations setup: up 500 km and
towards corridors
Eccentricity ratio e/e_max
o original launches
o displaced launchesSimulations Results
Launches up by 300
km
Only Hohmann
maneuver (no sail)
Number of Objects
DeltaV = 100 and
200 m/s
Launches at
standard inclination
or pre-moved
towards corridors
YearsSimulations Results
Launches up by 300
km
Sail + small maneuver
towards the closest
corridor
Number of Objects
DeltaV = 10 and 20
m/s
Launches at standard
inclination
or pre-moved towards
corridors
YearsSimulations Results
Launches pre-moved
towards corridors
Number of Objects
Launches up by 300
km
Sail + small maneuver
towards the closest
corridor vs. Hohmann
DeltaV with sail + Corridors
is one order of magnitude
less to reach the same
Years level of populationSimulations Results
Launches up by 500
km
Only Hohmann
maneuver (no sail)
Number of Objects
DeltaV = 100 and
200 m/s
Launches at
standard inclination
or pre-moved
towards corridors
YearsSimulations Results
Launches up by 500
km
Sail + small maneuver
towards the closest
Number of Objects
corridor
DeltaV = 10 and 20
m/s
Launches at standard
inclination
or pre-moved towards
corridors either by 5
or 50 degrees at max.
YearsSimulations Results
Launches up by 500 km
Sail + small maneuver
towards
Number of Objects
the closest corridor vs.
Hohmann
Launches at standard
inclination
YearsSimulations Results
Launches up by 500 km
Sail + small maneuver
towards
Number of Objects
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
YearsConclusions 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 CologneThe 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 3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 45
I. The legal framework applicable to the
protection of the space environment
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 46The 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
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 47The legal framework applicable to the protection
of the space environment
3. National space legislation and other normative documents related to space
debris
o Australia – incorporation of SDM guidelines o Germany – DLR standards; adherence
envisaged to ESA’s CoC for SDM
o Austria – accordance with the international o Italy - adherence for ASI projects to
SDM guidelines ESA’s CoC for SDM
o Belgium – compliance required for licensing o Japan – JAXA standards consistent with
o Canada – requirements for remote sensing IADC/ISO SDM guidelines
systems o Russia – ROSCOSMOS standard
o China - SDM as national industry standard consistent with IADC/ISO SDM guidelines
o Finland – national SDM requirements o United Kingdom – SDM requirements for
o France – national SDM standards; adherence licensing
to ESA’s CoC for SDM o USA
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 48The legal framework applicable to the protection
of the space environment
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).
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 49The legal framework applicable to the protection
of the space environment
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
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 50The legal framework applicable to the protection
of the space environment
5. Deficiences on various normative levels
International Non-binding National laws Regional
law regulations normative
documents
Binding on Specific, but non- Enforceable; Specific;
an legally binding; specific; binding on a
international no enforcement binding on a regional level
level, mechanisms national level
however not
specific
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 51II. Definitions and the legal status of
space debris
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 52Definitions 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)
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 53Definitions and the legal status of space debris
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?
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 54Definitions and the legal status of 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 Not all space debris can be
is a space object considered to be component
parts of a a space object
Consequence The legal norms appying to space The legal norms applying to
objects (jurisdiction, control, space objects apply to space
registration, liability) apply equally to debris only insofar as (only
all classes and sizes of space debris some) space debris are space
objects
Advantage Def. is applicable to all types of non- Liability only for objects that
functional space objects can be identified
Disadvantage „Functionality“ is a subjective Contradicts the victim-
criterion orientated logic of the corpus
iuris spatialis
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 55Definitions and the legal status of space debris
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
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 56Definitions and the legal status of space debris 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.” 3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 57
Definitions and the legal status of space debris 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.” 3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 58
III. Major concerns with regard to the legal
framework for space debris mitigation
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 59Major 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.
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 60Major concerns with regard to the legal framework 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)
.
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 61Major concerns with regard to the legal framework for
space debris mitigation
•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.
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 62ReDSHIFT 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
3/22/2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 63Revolutionary Design of Spacecraft through
Holistic Integration of Future Technologies
HTTP://REDSHIFT-H2020.EU/
22 March 2019 UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE 64You can also read
