THE SPACE REVIEW August 2021, Vol. 01
06
08
Policy Overview of
US Commercial Space Launches
By: Marjan Naghshbandi
Space
NonNegotiable
Exploration is By: Cindy Chen
03 Accords The Artemis
By: Saanjali Maharaj
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the company’s Crew Dragon spacecraft is launched from Launch Complex 39A on NASA’s SpaceX Demo-2 mission to the International Space Station. Credits: NASA/Bill Ingalls
Director’s Note
Dear Readers, I am one who truly believes technology would not be where it is today without the advancement of policy and law beside it. Oftentimes, the beauty of technology can be clouded by scientific diction. UTAT Aerospace Policy is beyond excited to highlight such key milestones in policy and technology through user-friendly and bite-sized articles for all readers of various backgrounds. These issues will provide a diverse mix of opinion pieces, scientific research, and casual dialog. I am extremely proud of our Editor in Chief, Cindy Chen, and the Space Review team for their success in the Inaugural Journal Issue. Sincerely,
Anne Jing
The Next Step:
01
THE SPACE REVIEW August 2021, Vol. 01 Aerospace Policy Director Anne Jing Faculty Advisor Dr. Chris Damaren UTIAS
Space Review Lead Cindy Chen
The commercialization of space has and will face backlash for the “pillaging” and “contaminating” of extraterrestrial spaces.
By: Hargun Kaur
03 Accords 04 The Artemis
By: Saanjali Maharaj
By: Saanjali Maharaj
Policy Overview of
US Commercial Space Launches
This article explores SpaceX’s commercial collaborations with the U.S government, starting off an overview of commercial launch regulations.
UTAT Aerospace Policy Director
Graphic Design Lead Margaret Guo
Debris
Even the smallest fragments of space debris, such as paint flecks, can cause damage to functional spacecraft.
06
Table of Contents
Space
The main objectives of the Artemis Accords focus on safety and transparency among nations.
Editors Cindy Chen Pantea Jamshidi Nouri Hargun Kaur Saanjali Maharaj Marjan Naghshbandi
Columnists Cindy Chen Hargun Kaur Saanjali Maharaj Marjan Naghshbandi Abhay Verma
Resources & Rights
By: Marjan Naghshbandi
08
Space
NonNegotiatable
Exploration is
10
Robotics for
Space Exploration
Canada must continue seizing every opportunity to progress forward via the cosmos—for the interest of both national development and humankind.
There is still a lot about the universe left for us to study, and advances in robotics will only open new doors in space exploration.
By: Cindy Chen
By: Abhay Verma THE SPACE REVIEW i
The Next Step: Resources & Rights
By: Hargun Kaur
IN ECONOMICS AND BEHAVIOURAL THEORY, incentives drive decision-making for rational individuals. Space ventures, therefore, are put in motion to obtain these incentives: the space race, for example, was powered by the promise of scientific advancement and backed by the element of competition. Rationality, however, requires an assessment of opportunity cost— which, by and large, is that the return on investment in the space sector outweighs the costs. This assessment is the basis of episode seven of NASA’s The Invisible Network Podcast, titled “Hunter-Gatherer” [1], and the preface of Rand Simberg’s essay on “Property Rights in Space” [2]. Simberg identifies the incentive of exploration and colonization explicitly, to be scarcity; the extraction of elements and minerals rarely found on Earth and implicitly, commercialisation, technology, and discoveries that will follow. As appealing as it is to gift someone a lunar land deed, these deeds, blatant cash grabs to sell one acre of land with silver packaging, are undervalued (offensively so to the goddess of the moon) and legally illegitimate. So the need for more concrete legislation in corpus juris spatialis, or space law, concerning the buying and selling of land in space is becoming an increasingly important conversation. Expectedly, the commercialization of space has and will face backlash for the “pillaging” and “contaminating” of extraterrestrial spaces [2]. And understandably so, the word
“colonization” carries a distasteful connotation in sociopolitical discussions. This is why having legally defined and clear rights is a shared sentiment in the legal community, despite there being differences in the interpretation of the U.N. treaties [2] - [5]. It is crucial in preventing resources from going undeveloped commercially as they did in Antarctica—a result of the Antarctic Treaty (1959) [2].
Overview of the International Framework Under the United Nations’ Office for Outer Space Affairs, work on international space law is examined by The Committee on the Peaceful uses of Outer Space. In overview, five international treaties and principles have been developed on “…the notion that outer space, the activities carried out in outer space and whatever benefits might be accrued from outer space should be devoted to enhancing the well-being of all countries and humankind, with an emphasis on promoting international cooperation” [6]. In this development, the legal principles, or declarations, include the Declaration of Legal Principles, Broadcasting Principles, Remote Sensing Principles, Nuclear Power Sources and the Benefits Declaration [6]. Amongst the five treaties, the Outer Space Treaty (OST, 1967) [7] is most relevant to the discussion on extraterrestrial property. In sum, the Treaty permits free access and use of outer space, allows scientific investigation, and notes that the exploration of celestial bodies must benefit all States and be performed in compliance with international law. It discusses the claim-free nature of outer space, the duty to abide by the Charter of the U.N., and the forbiddance of activities involving nuclear weapons and militia. Additional discussion points include the States Parties to the Treaty bearing the responsibility to assist astronauts and inform other States of phenomena that could potentially
endanger astronauts, the duty of governmental and non-governmental activities falling on their respective States, comments on international liabilities for damages, and the prevention of harmful contamination to extraterrestrial land in the pursuit of exploration. The remaining treaties elaborate on articles from the OST and additional logistics negotiated by the Legal Subcommittee. The Rescue Agreement (1968) adds to articles V and VIII of the OST, in which States must provide the necessary assistance to astronauts in their rescue, distress, or safe return and the recovering of any launched objects to the launching State [8]. The Liability Convention (1972) adds to article VII the legal procedures to settle damage claims and addresses the launching State’s liability in compensating for damages to the aircraft or Earth [9]. The adoption of the Registration Convention (1975) builds on the U.N. Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space to have a means of identification for launched objects [10]. Finally, the Moon Agreement (1979) lays the groundwork that presides over the exploitation of natural resources found on the lunar surface, emphasising that they are the “common heritage of mankind” [11]. Canada has ratified all of the above treaties, except the Moon Agreement [12].
Space: A Legal Maximum The OST confirmed outer space to be res communis in nature [5]. Following this establishment is the discussion about what is considered “national appropriation”, and what this implies for the interest of private entities in a time where corporations and business powerhouses are expressing their ambition for space travel. The non-appropriation principle of space and its resources is directly related to the rise of international conflict, so it’s central to the topic of staking property claims. The process of claiming land historically (colonization), would, obviously, fail
Figure. 1. Definition of legal maximums [13].
to meet the criteria of free and equal access of space to all nations. In their paper on the privateering and profiteering of space, P. M. Sterns and L. I. Tennen argue that private entities need not be explicitly mentioned to be included in the appropriation debate because that “…would negate every bilateral or multilateral agreement ever made, since the states party thereto could engage in every activity they agreed to restrict or limit by the convenient subterfuge of conducting the activity through the guise of the private rather than the public sector” [5]. The implication is that private entities are limited in their conduct of space activities but can still participate in them. Circling back to Simberg’s essay, another point of concern in the Treaty is the supervision of non-governmental entities, where “supervision” can take on a meaning at extremes (observation vs. physical control). He then explains The Space Settlement Prize Act, which, if passed, “…[requires] the U.S. government to recognize and legally support land ownership claims…” for private interest on the condition that the claim is a permanent settlement that can be publicly accessed for those who can afford it [2]. These private settlements would not be under the jurisdiction of a terrestrial nation, but individuals will still be subject to the laws of their country. The Act has guidelines for claims to ensure indiscriminate and fair access for serious claimants. It does not have provisions for costs that will arise in defending property claims, but Simberg provides more insight on the Act, and what large claims imply for the various costs that are exTHE SPACE REVIEW 01
pected to arise in this undertaking. For NASA, it would require an increase in funding to develop and improve space technologies to be more efficient. The consensus stands that the OST should be amended or scratched entirely to avoid interpretations of the Treaty obstructing commercial goals. For example, a permanent settlement base would require a collaborative effort from current space-faring nations, and one of the regulatory matters that would need to be addressed is the claim of ownership in a multinational mission [3]. Addressing the difference in the use and meaning of words and how this impacts the interpretation of a treaty is also important. Papers and studies call to expand on and recognize legislation [3] - [5], even suggest an international space code [3] or an agency that focuses on licensing rights specific to space [4]. But according to Sterns and Tennen, the majority of the concerns for private use of space and claims can be addressed with a combination of the treaties with domestic laws.
Private Actors In Space For some, the focus on property rights is misplaced and should be directed to the exploitation of resources and how to regulate them fairly, similar to how a private entity on Earth can use and exploit resources from a land not claimed by them [4] [5]. The primary incentive is profit at the end of day. Sterns and Tennen argued that a national government would still be violating non-appropriation by recognizing the claims of its citizens on celestial property, even if they themselves did not claim said property. Simberg’s solution to this is a State recognizing the claims of a private entity from another State; a “…youscratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours arrangement” as he calls it [2]. Would countries with developed space agencies and economies have an unfair advantage? Could this lead to alliances that
then cause political tension? Perhaps the process of approving projects is the recognition of the claim by a certain number of national governments, excluding the State from which the claim originates.
would not be made for the purpose of exploiting the resource on the land, but symbolically owning it.
Where costs and equity are concerned, Sterns and Tennen say that private actors are protected in that they do not have to plan for a defence budget for their project as extraterrestrial spaces cannot be easily accessed. So, if the State which the private entity is under the jurisdiction of does find an issue, they cannot seize the mission by tangible means in space and would subject remedies to national law. This is in the circumstance a license that causes interference internationally is approved, which is not a likely occurrence [5]. Issues with claims also include dealing with infringement, intellectual property rights, and claims for unfair competition [4] - [5] . As long as the claim is authorized, does not interfere with the claims of other states, and the entity is accountable if an interference occurs, it should be possible to make such claims as they relate to the use of the property instead of the ownership of it. Private appropriation, if it occurs, can be resolved on Earth.
As technology evolves and improves, so must space law. The legal framework needs to account for unregulated issues such as commercial flights (as they are becoming increasingly feasible with SpaceX launches), space debris (regulating and initiating a clean up plan before it starts interrupting transportation and access), how exports to and from space will be controlled, and how all inhabitants of the Earth will be secured from the risk of nuclear arms [3]. The sociopolitical impact of space activity pertaining to threats to security and communications potentially arising from the goal of a global internet must be discussed. Economic considerations should include more detail on liability, insurance, informed consent of passengers, licensing and safety regulations for crew in space [3]. Evidently there are many specifics the law must develop, and it should do so soon to prevent any future complications. And so, we shall take this next step prepared, in good faith and with respect to the collective interest of humankind.
Ilie Marin’s study of the status of property rights in space agrees with private actors requiring regulation of materials as opposed to ownership in space, because the State ruling the respective jurisdiction takes on the burden of any liabilities per the OST [4]. The study suggests the allocation of territory in space for fairness, and it similarly comments on intellectual property rights for inventions in outer space, which should be dealt with by domestic laws. An interesting point in this study is that a recognized and valid space settlement can make a profit by selling land titles to those who want it as a keepsake of human achievement. Would it not be fair to grant people the ability to buy ‘less desirable’ lunar property (one that is not rich in resources)? This claim
Concluding Ideas
References [1] D. Baird and M. Peters, “’The Invisible Network’ Podcast - Episode 07: Hunter-Gatherer”, NASA, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/mediacast/goddard/2019/the-invisible-network-podcast-episode-07-hunter-gatherer. [2] R. Simberg, “Property Rights in Space”, The New Atlantis, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/property-rights-in-space. [3] Andrey Ivanishchuk and Maria Markina, “Space Activity Regulatory Matters of Space Law,” Advanced
[4] I. Marian, “The status of property rights in international space law,” Contemporary readings in law and social justice, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 306–, 2012. [5] P. . Sterns and L. . Tennen, “Privateering and profiteering on the moon and other celestial bodies: Debunking the myth of property rights in space,” Advances in space research, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 2433–2440, 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00567-2. [6] “Space Law Treaties and Principles”, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. [Online]. Available: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/ treaties.html. [7] “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 1967. [Online]. Available: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/ treaties/outerspacetreaty.html. [8] “Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space “, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 1968. [Online]. Available: https://www.unoosa. org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introrescueagreement.html. [9] “Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects”, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 1972. [Online]. Available: https:// www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/ liability-convention.html. [10] “Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space”, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 1975. [Online]. Available: https:// www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/ registration-convention.html [11] “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 1979. [Online]. Available: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/ treaties/moon-agreement.html [12] “Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2020”, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 2020, pp. 1-5, 10. [Online]. Available:https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/status/index.html [13] “Oxford Reference”, Oxford Reference- Answers with Authority. [Online]. Available: https://www.oxfordreference.com/.
THE SPACE REVIEW 02
IN OCTOBER 2020, eight countries signed a series of non-binding bilateral agreements called the Artemis Accords [1]. These agreements outline practices to facilitate a peaceful, safe, cooperative environment for exploration, research, and utilisation of the Moon, Mars, comets, and other relevant celestial bodies. The principles of the Accords are grounded in the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty, which lays the framework of international space law. As of June 2021, the Accords have been signed by 12 countries: the United States of America, Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, South Korea, Ukraine, and Brazil. The main objectives of the Artemis Accords focus on safety and transparency among nations. This comes in time for the new age of space exploration being ushered in by the upcoming lunar missions [2]. In fact, agreeing to the Accords is a prerequisite to participate in the Artemis Program - the US-led program to return humans to the Moon. In line with the goals of the Program, there are guidelines on the registration of space objects and the open dissemination of scientific data1. To promote safety and security, there are directives for deconfliction that explicitly reference the Outer Space Treaty. There should be designated mutable ‘Safety Zones’ to avoid harmful interference of the Signatories’ activities. Safety Zones are to be authorized by the Secretary-General of the UN and all other Signatories must be notified of their establishment, alteration, and end. Furthermore, the Accords specify that participating nations should commit to peaceful and legal activities, and should provide reasonable assistance to those in distress. This does not apply to private sector operations.
1
The
Artemis Accords
By: Saanjali Maharaj
Figure 1: Render of Lunar Activities
In terms of sustainability, the Accords outline mitigation strategies for orbital debris, common infrastructure and standards to promote interoperability of systems, and the fair and efficient extraction and utilisation of space resources. There is also a guideline on the preservation of space heritage to protect historically significant sites and artifacts. While several countries have been eager to sign, others criticize the Accords for being too US-centric. Lunar exploration is seen by many as the successor to the ISS in terms of outer space research and development, thus it can be argued that any document guiding the program should go through the United Nations treaty procedure. Some even claim that the section on space heritage site preservation, which would include the Apollo landing site, should be a matter of courtesy rather than a guideline imposed by the United States in a requisite document for Arte-
mis Program participation [3]. However, others may counter that the legally non-binding nature of the Accords means it is not unreasonable for the US to include this provision. The list of Signatories of the Accords has the noticeable omission of Russia, a key player in the space industry. Dmitry Rogozin, the chief of Russia’s space corporation, Roscosmos, has been openly critical of the Artemis Accords [4]. In particular, the contention is with the Accord’s enablement of the private sector and consequent commercialization of space. While the Outer Space Treaty forms a solid foundation for the Accords, it should be noted that the Treaty was drafted at a time when commercial space resource utilization was not an immediate possibility. The US private sector, comprising corporations such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, provides fierce competition for other countries [5]. To this end, Roscosmos has instead signed a Memoran-
dum of Understanding (MoU) with the China National Space Administration (CSNA) for a joint lunar research base [6]. With the world on the cusp of furthering lunar exploration and resource utilisation, the need for a set of guidelines is evident. The Artemis Accords aim to fulfil this purpose, promoting the core values of peace, safety, and transparency. The 12 Signatories have committed to this series of non-binding agreements. However, other nations, most notably China and Russia, have not agreed to the Artemis Accords on the basis of criticisms that the Accords are too US-centric and favour commercial interests. The resource potential of the Moon is becoming more accessible as our technology advances. In this 21st century edition of the ‘space race’, geopolitical considerations must be taken into account to ensure the safe, sustainable, and equitable utilization of outer space resources. THE SPACE REVIEW 03
Space
Debris
By: Saanjali Maharaj
Figure 2: In March 2021, the CSNA and Roscosmos signed an MoU regarding construction of the International Lunar Research Station
References [1] “The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in
the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids”, NASA, 2020. [Online]. Available: https:// www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/img/Artemis-Accords-signed-13Oct2020.pdf. [Accessed: 16- Jun- 2021]. [2] “NASA: Artemis Accords”, NASA, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html. [Accessed: 16- Jun- 2021]. [3] F. von der Dunk, “The Artemis Accords and the law: Is the Moon ‘back in business’?”, The Big Q, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.thebigq.org/2020/06/02/the-artemis-accords-and-the-law-is-the-moon-back-in-business/. [Accessed: 16- Jun- 2021]. [4] E. Berger, “Russia turns away from NASA, says it will work with China on a Moon base”, Ars Technica, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/china-and-russia-say-they-will-work-together-to-build-a-lunar-station/. [Accessed: 16- Jun- 2021]. [5] N. Goswami, “The Strategic Implications of the China-Russia Lunar Base Cooperation Agreement”, The Diplomat, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://thediplomat. com/2021/03/the-strategic-implications-of-the-chi-
na-russia-lunar-base-cooperation-agreement/. [Accessed: 16- Jun- 2021]. [6] “China and Russia sign a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Cooperation for the Construction of the International Lunar Research Station”, CSNA, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/english/ n6465652/n6465653/c6811380/content.html. [Accessed: 16- Jun- 2021].
SPACE DEBRIS IS DEFINED AS any non-functional human-made object, or any part thereof, in the Earth’s orbit or re-entering its atmosphere [1]. While leaving a small defunct satellite in orbit in the vastness of space might not seem harmful at first glance, the consequences can indeed be detrimental. The speed at which these non-functional objects travel reaches approximately 15,700 mph in low Earth orbit (LEO)2. Due to this high velocity, even the smallest fragments of space debris, such as paint flecks, can cause damage to functional spacecraft. Moreover, as it re-enters the atmosphere, the debris can also pose a potential threat to people and property on the ground. According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Space Surveillance Network (SSN) sensors, approximately 27,000 pieces of debris as small as 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter, are currently in space [1]. As the Space Age progresses, mitigation strategies become an increasingly important concern following the escalating probability of damage caused by the debris. Firstly, a discussion of the sources of space debris is warranted. Debris may be released in the regular operation of spacecraft, for example during the abandonment of launch vehicle stages. Another cause of debris generation is breakup, whether intentional or accidental. A break-up is defined as an event that generates fragments3,
Figure 1: Debris Velocity Analysis for 2009 Satellite Collision (Iridium 33 in blue, Kosmos-2251 in orange)
including ruptures due to internal pressure, explosions caused by chemical or thermal energy from propellants, or collisions with other objects. Derelict satellites and dead spacecraft also account for a major source of debris. Many satellites are boosted into medium altitude ‘graveyard’ orbits at the end of their functional lives, but this does not eliminate the risk of debris generation. Alternative decommissioning activities may involve intentional destruction of the space object thereby generating debris. Furthermore, derelict satellites left in orbit may also lead to collisions. For instance, in 2009, a deactivated Russian satellite, Kosmos-2251, was involved in a hypervelocity4 collision with an active US communications satellite, Iridium 33. This event resulted in 2300 cataloged pieces of debris, at least half of which are expected to remain in orbit for over a hundred years [2]. The testing of anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) has similarly contributed to space debris. In 2007, China’s ASAT test created over 3500 pieces of debris when a ballistic missile with a kinetic kill vehicle payload destroyed its target, Fengyun-1C (FY-1C), a defunct weather satellite. It is estimated that 79% of this debris, or almost 2800 pieces, will still be in orbit a century after the ASAT test [3].
LEO altitude: 160 - 2000km above the Earth’s surface. Not included in this definition is fragments generated as a result of the aging and degradation of a spacecraft.
THE SPACE REVIEW 04
It is clear from the longevity analyses discussed above that space debris poses a long-term threat. In fact, each collision that produces space debris contributes to an increased likelihood of future collisions and debris generation. This collisional cascading effect is known as Kessler syndrome, put forward in 1978 by Donald J. Kessler, a NASA astrophysicist [4]. Space debris mitigation strategies can be categorized as those limiting debris generation in the short-term and in the long-term. In 2022, the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) published Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines [5], which were most recently revised in March 2020. The guidelines are further enforced by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) in its 2010 publication, Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space [6]. Member States are strongly encouraged to adhere to these mitigation strategies in the planning and operation of future missions and, if feasible, in existing missions. However, it should be noted that these guidelines are not legally binding under international law. Preventative space debris mitigation procedures include limiting mission-related debris during normal operations and avoiding the planning and implementation of intentional break-ups. Precautions should also be taken to reduce the likelihood of accidental break-ups. This can be achieved by passivation: the elimination of all stored energy on spacecraft or orbital stages. Examples of passivation measures include venting or burning excess propellant, deactivating battery charging lines, relieving pressure vessels, and terminating power to flywheels and momentum wheels. Collision avoidance procedures are another recommended strategy to mitigate space debris. NASA uses SSN to track debris and identify
collision courses that require debris avoidance maneuvers. For the ISS, the surrounding 4 x 50 x 50 km region is closely monitored [1]. If a tracked object poses a significant threat, Mission Control centres in Houston and Moscow collaborate to determine the best course of action. If the probability of collision is sufficiently high and the risk it poses to mission objectives is significantly detrimental, the debris avoidance maneuver is conducted once it does not cause additional risk to the crew. If there is significant uncertainty in the tracking data, or if there is not enough time to safely implement the avoidance maneuver, the crew must isolate in a spacecraft used to transport humans to and from the ISS, which acts as a ‘lifeboat’ in case of emergency. In 2007, NASA extended its collision tracking to all NASA maneuverable satellites within LEO, and within 200 km of geostationary orbit (GEO)5. The U.S. Space Force performs these collision risk assessments every 8 hours for human spaceflight and daily Monday through Friday for robotic spacecraft and satellites. If a debris avoidance maneuver is warranted, the updated trajectory is sent to the Space Force for iteration until the final trajectory does not pose a risk of collision with either the same or another space object. The IADC and UNOOSA have established protocols for spacecraft and satellite end-of-life that mitigate the harmful impact of space debris. One option involves increasing the orbit altitude out of the GEO-protected region for disposal. If the termination of the operational phase occurs in the LEO region, the space object should be deorbited or maneuvered into an orbit with an expected residual orbit lifetime of at most 25 years and with a probability of disposal success of at least 90%. If the spacecraft or orbital stage is being disposed of by direct re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere, the debris should be limited and ideally confined to uninhabited regions, and the relevant air and marine traffic authorities should
Figure 2: Debris Cloud Evolution from 2007 ASAT test
Figure 3: NASA’s Debris Avoidance Maneuver Protocol
Hypervelocity refers to speeds in excess of 3000m/s. The Kosmos-2251/Iridium 33 collision occurred at a speed of 11,700m/s. A geostationary orbit is one within the equatorial plane such that the satellite’s orbital period is equal to Earth’s rotation period of ~24 hours. Satellites in GEO appear fixed to an observer on Earth. 4 5
THE SPACE REVIEW 05
be well-informed about the trajectory and time of re-entry. Furthermore, there should be considerations of the environmental impact of any remaining debris, in particular, its radioactivity, toxicity, or other pollutive characteristics. In conclusion, space debris can cause significant damage to human life (both for crew members in space and civilians on Earth), active spacecraft and satellites, and other property on the ground. This threat has the potential to cascade according to Kessler syndrome, by which each collision further exacerbates the risk of subsequent collisions. It is evident that there is a dire need for mitigation strategies. To this end, NASA, in conjunction with the U.S. Space Force, has implemented debris avoidance procedures for all NASA maneuverable satellites. Additionally, the IADC and UNOOSA have established several key guidelines for preventative measures in mission planning, collision avoidance, and space object end-of-life protocols. This year alone, debris from a SpaceX rocket landed on a farm in Washington state [7] and the trajectory of the Long March 5B rocket was observed with bated breath, but thankfully, it landed in the ocean [8]. Yet, as of 2021, there are no international laws in place to enforce the aforementioned measures. For the sake of safety and security, international laws which regulate the generation and disposal of space debris should be passed, ensuring that the legal framework progresses in tandem with space technology.
References
Figure 2: Atlas V Rocket [8]
of
[2] T. Kelso, “Analysis of the Iridium 33-Cosmos 2251 Collision”, Celestrak.com, 2009. [Online]. Available: https:// celestrak.com/publications/AMOS/2009/AMOS-2009. pdf. [Accessed: 07- Jun- 2021]. [3] T. Kelso, “Analysis of the Iridium 33-Cosmos 2251 Collision”, Celestrak.com, 2007. [Online]. Available: https:// celestrak.com/publications/AMOS/2007/AMOS-2007. pdf. [Accessed: 07- Jun- 2021]. [4] S. Olson, “The Danger of Space Junk”, The Atlantic, 1998. [Online]. Available: https://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/1998/07/the-danger-of-spacejunk/306691/. [Accessed: 07- Jun- 2021].
By: Marjan Naghshbandi
[5] “IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines”, Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ library/iadc-space-debris-guidelines-revision-2.pdf. [Accessed: 07- Jun- 2021]. [6] “Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space”, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E. pdf. [Accessed: 07- Jun- 2021]. [7] H. Waitering, “Debris from SpaceX rocket launch falls on farm in central Washington”, Space.com, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.space.com/spacex-rocket-debris-found-washington-farm. [Accessed: 07- Jun- 2021]. [8] S. Myers and K. Chang, “China Says Debris From Its Rocket Landed Near Maldives”, Nytimes.com, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/ science/china-rocket-reentry-falling-long-march-5b.html. [Accessed: 07- Jun- 2021].
Policy Overview
US Commercial Space Launches
[1] “Space Debris and Human Spacecraft”, NASA, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ station/news/orbital_debris.html. [Accessed: 07- Jun2021].
Introduction to Commercial Space Launch and SpaceX AS DEFINED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA), a commercial launch has one or more of the following traits: it is licensed by the FAA, it was financed by private companies rather than government support, and/or the launch contract of the primary payload was open to international competition [1]. Private aerospace companies include Blue Origin, Boeing, Paragon Space Development Corporation, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance [2]. Founded by Elon Musk in 2002, SpaceX became the first commercial entity to do what government agencies had managed to accomplish de-
cades earlier: send a vehicle into orbit and return it unimpaired [3]. Currently working on a rocket system that could support humans on a Mars mission, SpaceX is an irrefutable leader in the aerospace industry [4]. This article explores SpaceX’s commercial collaborations with the U.S government, starting off an overview of commercial launch regulations.
Establishment of Regulatory Parties Since the 1980s, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has been the lead agency responsible for the regulation of activities by commercial launch vehicles [5]. The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), established in 1984 by the DOT, performs all regulatory activities such as upholding both domestic and foreign THE SPACE REVIEW 06
obligations for public health and safety, organizing the private sector’s commercial space launches, and suggesting amendments to Federal regulations and legal procedures [6]. The AST was soon confirmed by the United States Congress, who then established the Commercial Space Launch Act: an act that notably declares that “no person shall launch a launch vehicle or operate a launch site within the United States, unless authorized by a license issued or transferred under this Act.”
The majority of operations by the Commercial Crew Program are based in Florida, at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center [10]. At the Kennedy Space Center is Launch Complex 39A — the launch site that delivered Apollo 11 on the first moon landing mission [13]. SpaceX began leasing Launch Complex 39A from NASA in 2014 [14] [13]. The property agreement grants SpaceX the right to use Launch Complex 39A for commercial launches, ranging from trips to the ISS to a Mars mission in the 2030s [13]. The handover of the launch site from NASA to SpaceX is estimated to be saving taxpayers $100,000 a month [14]. The SpaceX and NASA collaborations described above barely skim the surface of the nuanced relationships between the public and private sector. As the commercial aerospace sector continues to grow, so will the realm of possibility for space exploration and discovery.
AST Regulation of Commercial Launches There are two types of licenses that may be issued by the AST to authorize commercial launches: a specific license or an operator license [5]. The former authorizes one or more launches that all use one site and vehicle. Figure 1 shows an image of the Falcon 9 rocket — a vehicle whose launches are authorized via a specific license. Specific license LLS 17-096 (rev. 1) permits Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) to launch eight flights of the Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California [5][7]. Meanwhile, an operator license permits an indefinite number of launches of similar but potentially identical vehicles [5]. Figure 2 shows the Atlas V rocket, which falls under the class of vehicles authorized under an operator license. With operator license LLO 18-113, United Launch Alliance may launch any of the six versions of the Atlas V rocket any number of times from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida within a five year window [5][8]. For suborbital vehicles, the AST may grant permits rather than licenses. There are often fewer requirements in the permit approval process, so permits can be granted more quickly [5].
Figure 1: Falcon 9 Rocket [7]
NASA’s Commercial Collaborations with SpaceX Thanks to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Commercial Crew Program, collaborations between the public and private sectors are becoming increasingly common. Traditionally, such collaborations involved NASA contracting a private company, and then supervising them as they built their own spacecraft while providing the company with financial support [9]. Under the Commercial Crew Program, NASA’s support is more hands-off; NASA engineers and specialists merely assist private companies that plan to send astronauts to lowEarth orbit with the safety and financial aspects of their crew transportation systems [10]. Companies have free reign over the design of their vehicles and manufacturing practices and maintain ownership of their infrastructure, but must meet
NASA’s established set of requirements. According to NASA, such partnerships encourage “industry to provide human transportation services to and from low-Earth orbit” and enable NASA to “focus on building spacecraft and rockets for deep space missions.” [11] History was made in May 2020 after a collaboration between NASA and SpaceX sent humans into Earth’s orbit, marking the first crewed launch by a commercial aerospace company [12]. Such collaborations involve two categories of legislation: Space Act Agreements and contracts [10]. Below are the agreements and contracts with SpaceX. SpaceX has been awarded a total of $3.144 billion across all commitments shown. 1. (Space Act Agreement) Commercial Crew Development Round 2 CCDev2 2. (Space Act Agreement) Commercial Crew Integrated Capability CCiCap 3. (Contract) Certification Products Contract CPC 4. (Contract) Commercial Crew Transportation Capability CCtCap
References [1] Federal Aviation Administration, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 30-Jun-2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.faa.gov/space/additional_information/ faq/#cl1. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [2] A. Heiney, “Commercial Crew Program - Essentials,” NASA, 14-Aug-2019. [Online]. Available: https://www. nasa.gov/content/commercial-crew-program-the-essentials#.VjOJ3berRaT. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [3] Time, “SpaceX: 10 Facts to Know,” Time. [Online]. Available: https://time.com/space-x-ten-things-to-know/. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [4] The Planetary Society, “Why do we need NASA when we have SpaceX?,” The Planetary Society, 12-Nov-2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.planetary.org/articles/ nasa-versus-spacex. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [5] D. Morgan, “Commercial Space: Federal Regulation, Oversight, and Utilization,” Congressional Research Service, United States, 2018.
THE SPACE REVIEW 07
[6] Federal Aviation Administration, About the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, 04-Jun-2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [7] J. Wattles, “2020 is when private spaceflight just got started. In 2021 it will shoot for the stars,” CNN, 21-Dec-2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnn. com/2020/12/21/tech/space-year-ahead-scn/index.html. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [8] J. O’Callaghan, “‘We Are Go For Launch’ – NASA Is About To Send A New Rover And Helicopter To Mars,” Forbes, 29-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available: https://www. forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2020/07/29/ we-are-go-for-launch--nasa-is-about-to-send-a-new-roverand-helicopter-to-mars/?sh=c44e8ee68839. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [9] The Planetary Society, “Why NASA pays SpaceX and Boeing to fly astronauts to the...,” The Planetary Society. [Online]. Available: https://www.planetary.org/articles/ why-nasa-pays-spacex-and-boeing. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [10] A. Heiney, “Commercial Crew Program - Essentials,” NASA, 14-Aug-2019. [Online]. Available: https://www. nasa.gov/content/commercial-crew-program-the-essentials#.VjOJ3berRaT. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [11] S. Siceloff, “Commercial Crew Overview,” NASA, 30Oct-2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/content/commercial-crew-overview. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [12] J. Wattles, “NASA, SpaceX launch astronauts from US soil for the first time in a decade,” CNN, 30-May-2020. [Online]. Available: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/30/ tech/spacex-nasa-launch-astronauts-scn/index.html. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [13] B. Granath, “NASA, SpaceX Sign Property Agreement for Historic Launch Pad,” NASA, 24-Mar-2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-spacexsign-property-agreement-for-historic-launch-pad. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021]. [14] A. Boyle and S. Editor, “SpaceX wins NASA’s nod to take over historic Launch Pad 39A,” NBCNews.com, 13Dec-2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.nbcnews.com/ science/spacex-wins-nasas-nod-take-over-historic-launchpad-39a-2D11741834. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2021].
Space Exploration is a
Non-Negotiable Investment By: Cindy Chen AT A TOWN HALL ON MAY 26TH, 2021, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, committed $3 million of investments in lunar exploration initiatives. This pledge comes two years after Prime Minister Trudeau announced that Canada would be building Canadarm3 for the Lunar Gateway for two crewed missions to the Moon [1]. Together, these announcements signal a renewed interest in the space sector after a decade of leaving it on the back burner: a 2016 University of British Columbia-led study found that Canada had spent the least on space exploration in the G8 and funding for the CSA had been stagnant since 1999 [2]. Canadians must remain hopeful, however, as efforts are underway to reverse this trend—space technology is a promising field that generates massive return on investment. Consider what climate change mitigation, navigation, precision agriculture, national security, and telecommunications have in common. As one might deduce from the title, space is the driving force behind these activities. While skeptics of space exploration may contend that space missions divert funding to tackle societal issues on Earth, the reality is that the two endeavours go hand in hand. Launched in 2019, the RADARSAT Constellation Mission can scan 90% of the world’s surface and visit the Arctic up to four times a day, providing ample data for maritime surveillance, ecosystem monitoring, and natural disaster response [3]. In fact, satellites are the only means of tracking 26 of the 50 Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) identified by the World Meteorological Organization, making them a valuable resource in guiding decision-making sur-
rounding climate change [4]. Space infrastructure also has transformative potential in strengthening the agricultural supply chain. With access to satellite images showing maps of soil moisture and crop productivity, farmers can manage their resources more sustainably while maximizing yields and preventing the spread of pest infestations.
Figure 1: RADARSAT Constellation (Credit: Canadian Space Agency)
The benefits of space assets extend beyond those derived from their intended operations, as space exploration is a powerful vehicle for technology transfer. Many technologies designed for use in space lend themselves to terrestrial applications in entirely different disciplines, thereby spurring innovation in ways specific, targeted research cannot. The need for impact-absorbing seats for human spaceflight led to the creation of memory foam. The voltage constraints of on-board computers spawned the invention of CMOS sensors,
which allowed mobile photography to take the world by storm [5][6]. Closer to home, Canadian robots on the ISS set precedence for surgical and diagnostic tools. In collaboration with MDA engineers who worked on Canadarm2, Synaptive Medical developed a robotic digital microscope to facilitate minimally invasive surgery in hard to reach parts of the body [7]. Furthermore, the same devices used to track astronauts’ health on the ISS can serve patients in remote regions, thus improving health care delivery [4]. Economically, Canada’s space industry contributed $2.5 billion to the GDP and supported over 20,000 jobs in 2018. A ripple effect of contribution, for every dollar invested, space generates $1.90 in revenue and for every job, the industry creates 2.18 jobs in adjacent high-tech industries [8]. With declining launch costs, the value of space can only increase. Morgan Stanley predicts that the space economy will nearly triple in size from $350 billion in 2020 to 1.1 trillion USD by 2040. Up to 70% of the growth will stem from broadband Internet satellites [9]. Not only will they level the playing field for developing nations in terms of access to data, but they will also enable Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, and other bandwidth-intensive technologies to become more feasible. Despite its tangible economic impact, the ultimate reward of space exploration is knowledge, an invaluable and intangible asset. Humans have always had an insatiable curiosity about the unknown, which manifests as a desire to explore. By potentially holding answers to age-old questions about the origins of the human species, the formation of a small habitable planet within THE SPACE REVIEW 08
Figure 2: Modus V, the robotic telescope spun out of Canadarm2, in the operating room. (Credit: Synaptive Medical)
[5] “Memory Foam Supports and Shapes in Women’s Apparel,” NASA Spinoff, 2019. [Online]. Available: https:// spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2019/cg_4.html. [Accessed: 07Jul-2021]. [6] “CMOS Sensors Enable Phone Cameras, HD Video,” NASA Spinoff, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://spinoff. nasa.gov/Spinoff2017/cg_1.html. [Accessed: 07-Jul-2021]. [7] “Canadarm2 spinoff technology transforming surgery on Earth,” Canadian Space Agency, 22-Feb-2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/iss/canadarm2/canadarm2-spinoff-technology-transforming-surgery-on-earth.asp. [Accessed: 07-Jul-2021]. [8] “State of the Canadian Space Sector Report 2019,” Canadian Space Agency, 28-Apr-2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/publications/2019-state-canadian-space-sector.asp#economic-gdp. [Accessed: 07-Jul2021]. [9] “Space: Investing in the Final Frontier,” Morgan Stanley, 24-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available: https://www. morganstanley.com/ideas/investing-in-space. [Accessed: 07-Jul-2021].
an uninhabitable universe, and the existence of extraterrestrial life, the final frontier has infinite appeal for all generations. Funding for ambitious space projects legitimizes this appeal and inspires youth to pursue careers in STEM. Drawn by the prospect of making novel discoveries, tackling complex problems, or becoming astronauts themselves, these youth will form an educated workforce that will sustain economic growth. The overarching conclusion of this analysis is that space plays a ubiquitous role in modern infrastructure. As a tool to address socioeconomic challenges, a source of technological spinoffs, and a sector with a growing job outlook, investing in space is investing in a bright future. Sixty years after launching the satellite Alouette 1 and cementing its place as the third country to enter the space age, Canada must continue seizing every opportunity to progress forward via the cosmos—for the interest of both national devel-
opment and humankind.
References [1] “Canada moves forward with plans to explore the Moon,” Government of Canada, 04-Jun-2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/space-agency/ news/2021/05/canada-moves-forward-with-plans-to-explore-the-moon.html. [Accessed: 07-Jul-2021]. [2] I. Caiazzo, S. Gallagher, and J. Heyl, University of British Columbia, rep., Aug. 2017. [3] “What is the RCM?,” Canadian Space Agency, 19-Dec2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/ satellites/radarsat/what-is-rcm.asp. [Accessed: 07-Jul2021]. [4] Canadian Space Agency and N. Bains, Government of Canada, 2019.
THE SPACE REVIEW 09
SPACE CONSISTS OF many fascinating objects that undergo various phenomena not yet fully understood. One of the biggest challenges in observing these celestial objects is their great distance from Earth and the unforgiving environment of space. According to NASA [1], sending robots to space is much cheaper than sending a human. Without the concern of food and other essential supplies, robots can be left in space for extremely long periods of time.
the humanoid robot was first able to move inside the ISS in October 2011. Afterwards, researchers worked to validate the technology that would allow it to perform tasks like cleaning filters and vacuuming [4]. Further upgrades would make the robot capable of servicing the ISS from the outside and conducting scientific experiments. It is interesting to note previous accomplishments in robotics and to speculate on what may be possible to achieve in the future.
Robotics has been utilized to aid space explo-
Another important issue for human civilization is
Earth. This strategy is not currently feasible given the limitations of existing technology, but it showcases the potential in our designs and the new limits that humans can reach with robotics in space exploration. Overall, there is still a lot about the universe left for us to study, and advances in robotics will only open new doors in space exploration. Our knowledge of the upper atmosphere and outer space has increased at an exponential rate since the launch of Sputnik. Continuing with
Industrial Robot, vol. 39, (4), pp. 323-328, 2012. Available: http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest. com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Frobots-space-exploration%2Fdocview%2F1020672356%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D14771. DOI: http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library. utoronto.ca/10.1108/01439911211227872. [4] NASA. 2021. Robonaut2. [online] Available at: <https://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/R2/> [Accessed 1 August 2021]. [5] Armstrong, S. and Sandberg, A., 2012. Eternity in six hours: intergalactic spreading of intelligent life and sharpening the Fermi paradox. [online]
Robotics for Space Exploration. By: Abhay Verma
ration for decades. Before the first human was sent to space, the USSR launched satellites called “Sputnik” - Russian for “companion” - in 1957. The purpose of these satellites was to collect data regarding the upper layers of the atmosphere and to get a better analysis of the ionosphere through radio propagation. As time progressed, more spacecraft were sent into space for longer distances. In 1977, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 were launched to provide data on the gas giants of our solar system and their moons. These two probes are the farthest from us and are expected to function until 2025 based on their declining power [2]. Currently, there are multiple probes and rovers on the Moon and Mars as well as satellites orbiting asteroids. The humanoid robot “Robonaut 2”, or R2 for short, was deployed on the International Space Station on February 24, 2011 [3]. It was the first dexterous humanoid robot to have been launched in space. With regular maintenance and upgrades to its design,
the energy crisis. The transition from non-renewable to renewable sources is essential to tackle climate change, but even this process is limited by the amount of material and financial resources necessary to construct our plants for renewable energy. As Earth’s resources are being exhausted, the need for alternative energy and materials becomes more pressing. According to a paper by Stuart Armstrong and Anders Sandberg from the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, there are viable energy and material resources to fulfill this need, but they are not on Earth [5]. They are instead referring to the Sun as the energy resource and Mercury as the material provider. In short, their suggested plan is to send robotic systems to Mercury that could survive the hostile environment and build components of a structure called a “Dyson Sphere”. A Dyson Sphere is a technological marvel that will allow humans to utilize all the energy radiated by the Sun, not just the amount of energy that reaches
this trend, we will be able to uncover answers to many other mysteries.
Available at: <http://aleph.se/papers/Spamming%20 the%20universe.pdf> [Accessed 1 August 2021].
References [1] NASA 2021. Why Do We Send Robots To Space? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids. [online] Available at: <https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/space-robots/ en/> [Accessed 1 August 2021]. [2] NASA. 2021. Voyager - Frequently Asked Questions. [online] Available at: <https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/ frequently-asked-questions/#:~:text=How%20long%20 can%20Voyager%201,science%20instruments%20on%20 through%202020> [Accessed 1 August 2021]. [3] R. Bogue, “Robots for space exploration,” The
THE SPACE REVIEW 10
