Happy Nice Mall

Can you start by giving me the groundwork of space traffic management and space situational awareness today? How would you rate how well the world is doing these right now?

Space traffic management is a very developing field. We are in the early stages where discussions in the international community are in the development of norms and standards of behavior. The main purpose of space traffic management is to prevent collisions in space. Collisions are, by their nature, debris-producing events that cause the area itself to become contaminated and less safe for future actors. So it’s two-way—not just a collision damaging satellites; A collision also causes long-term damage to the environment. We see this very clearly in all assessments. [2009] Iridium-Cosmos collision.

Space situational awareness is something different – it’s about providing data. Different countries and companies around the world identify where these objects are in orbit and share what is there. For 50 years, you really didn’t need any other information. [the location of debris so it can be avoided]. But as orbital space becomes more and more clogged with garbage, it’s just “How do you avoid debris?” It’s not a question. Now “How do you interact with others? [satellite] Are the operators there?” When you have two maneuverable satellites wanting to be in the same place at the same time, then you get to that management question rather than space situational awareness.

Accordingly, what is the general process in place to prevent a disaster when there is a possible collision between two objects? Is there a quick sketch you can provide?

I was looking to find an authoritative reference that talks end-to-end about the process. I wish I could say, “Go to this resource and it will show you what’s going on from the moment they look for a close approach to you until the decision is made whether to maneuver a satellite or not.” But a little opaque. Different operators have different internal processes that they don’t necessarily want to share.

The U.S. Space Force’s 18th Space Control Command Squadron constantly monitors the sky and reassesses the situation every eight hours. If they sense that a close approach is possible, they issue a combined alert to the owner-operator of the satellite. It is then up to the owner-operator to decide what to do with this information. And then 18 of them will continue to watch events. The projection of where something might be in space varies wildly depending on the object, how it is shaped, how it responds to the atmosphere around it… If there is a deliberate intention by the operator to move it, that also changes the observations.

You’ve argued that while air traffic control may seem like a logical analogue to space traffic control for obvious reasons – namely, it’s about collision avoidance – it’s actually an inappropriate model, and the law of the sea actually provides a better one.

All of the world’s international airspace is allocated to a single entity state for the purpose of providing air traffic control services. For example, the United States controls 5 million square miles of domestic airspace, but 24 million square miles of international airspace. Thanks to ICAO, they are the sole authority to provide these air traffic control services in this airspace. [International Civil Aviation Organization].

Space has no such thing. But not on the high seas. What the high seas have is the agreed-upon code of conduct and the authority over each ship: the state in which the ship’s flag is flown. There is no offshore official who says yes or no, you can trade here, not here. Everyone has access to this common resource, and the principles of freedom of sea include freedom of navigation, freedom to fly above, freedom to lay cables underneath, freedom to fish. Maritime contracts include freedom to engage in commercial activities. This differs from airspace, which historically was only an area for transportation.

Orbital space isn’t just for transportation [either]. It is the field where business activity takes place: telecommunications, remote sensing, etc.

Of course, the law of the sea is also to prevent collisions on the high seas. Collision rules, or partners, dictate what should happen if two ships collide. [on course for] head-on collision: who has priority to maneuver, what to do if something happens in a narrow channel… Such principles are very clearly laid out. They have very clear applicability to the challenges we face in space. There are very clear parallels. Whereas if we take the aviation model, we are really trying to force a square nail into a round hole.

Is there a backlash or disagreement with the idea of ​​using the law of the sea as inspiration for space law? Is the general consensus moving towards this idea?

I think that’s how it’s trending, with virtue [of the fact] There is always debate, however, that it is really the only viable way forward. Given the nature of the space field, it is not realistic for someone or a single body to decide what we can do. We don’t do space traffic like air traffic because it’s not just a safety question. This is a diplomatic problem and an economic one at the same time.

It would be easy to delegate control of space traffic to a single regulatory agency, such as the 18th Space Control Squadron, which provides these services for free. But there are countries that doubt this. [idea]. And then, of course, there’s the classified data issue. So you get into these complexities of trust – you know, if there was a trusted global entity then of course, we could do that. [But] Not everyone trusts something, and trust is something that changes over time.

So the way forward is to create a way for this information to be shared and trusted. For example, I’m working on a project where we talk about blockchain as an enabler for reliable information sharing. Due to the nature of the blockchain, you can identify who is entering the information and verify it as a legitimate participant, and this information cannot be changed by a third party.

Space is often described as a new type of Wild West – it’s lawless and disorderly and all is well. How can a framework be set up for something like space traffic management if there is no set way to set up rules to get started?

I would argue that space is not really the Wild West. In the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, states have an obligation to control objects they allow to launch from their countries. So it is not irregular; It’s not completely free. We just couldn’t agree on what that means for continuous monitoring.

The Iridium-Cosmos crash was a wake-up call. led to many activities such as the development of orbital service technology with dispose of large objects remaining in space and at the same time its development commercial sensor networks so we can have better and better knowledge of space situational awareness.

I believe the next big catalyst is mega constellations. we see more [potential collision] alerts between two maneuverable satellites, which is a solvable problem if we have a set of rules. This puts a lot of pressure on the system to start reaching these deals. Capitalism is a highly effective motivator. As people see more and more economic opportunities in popular trajectories, balancing access to those trajectories is also a motivator.