The Scope of the Space Traffic Management Study

1. International Academy of AstronauticsSpace Traffic Management and the Role of RegistrationPetr LálaCo-Chair of the IAA Study Group*)*) The views expressed are those of the author

2. The Scope of the Space Traffic Management Study • Background: AIAA Workshops in 1999 and 2001; IISL/ECSL Symposium 2002, IAC Bremen 2003, IAC Vancouver 2004. • Working definition: • Space traffic management comprises technical and regulatory provisions for guaranteeing safe interference-free access into outer space, operations in outer space and return from outer space to Earth. • Organization: • The study is being prepared by a group of international experts and coordinated by Kai-Uwe Schrogl (regulatory part) and Petr Lála (scientific and technical part). The Rapporteur of the group is Corinne Contant.

3. Space Traffic: Current Status and Prospects • The real motion of space object is influenced by different forces which can not be accounted for precisely. Prediction of space object motion is mostly influenced by variations of atmospheric density and the error in predicted position in orbit is increasing with the square of elapsed time. • For the above reason, no initial data can describe the motion, and positions of all objects must be monitored regularly. • The large majority of active satellites can not perform any maneuvers. • - There is a slow but steady rise of launch activities, however, disruptions occur from time to time (e.g. 1986, 2003). • - Human space flight might only change dramatically beyond 2020. • - The prospects for the introduction of full/partly RLV are still open. In any case, by 2020 they would still be limited to missions below 1000 km.

4. Space Traffic: Current Status and Prospects • - The number of catalogued objects is still rising (today about 9000 objects larger than 10 cm). The total population is unknown - estimated number of objects larger than 1 cm is about 100,000, • - The number of active satellites remains at 6-7% of total catalogued objects. • - Capabilities for space surveillance rest with the US (and to an unclear extend with Russia as well as with some singular capabilities in Europe); US provides data and processed information on a voluntary basis. • - The capacity and accuracy of current space monitoring systems is not sufficient to cover small objects and provide for orbital avoidance service for all space assets.

5. Catalogued space objects – NASA JSC

6. E. G. Stansbery Orbital Debris Program Office NASA/Johnson Space Center

7. 1975 United Nations Registration Convention As of 1 January 2004, there were 45 ratifications and 4 signatures: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi (Signature only), Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (S), Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua (S), Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Singapore (S), Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Yugoslavia. Voluntary registration information was provided by Algeria, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malaysia and Philippines. Two international organizations have declared their acceptance of rights and obligations:European Space Agency (ESA) and European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT).

8. Statistics of the UN Registration • Article I of the Registration Convention provides that " space object" includes component parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof. Some member States (France and India) provide information also on launched ”non-functional objects”, the United States of America even on objects discovered in orbit later. Other States provide information only on their functional objects. • - In fact, nearly 56% of all objects registered under the Registration Convention are non-functional (6,694 out of 11,937). • At present, 55% (3118) of all functional or formerly functional objects have been registered in compliance with the Registration Convention. • - A further 38% (2125) have been registered in accordance with the previous GA resolution 1721B. • - Roughly 7% launched objects (393) have not been registered with the UN.

9. Statistics of the UN Registration

10. Notification of the Re-entry of Space Objects Article IV, paragraph 3 requires parties to notify the UN Secretary General ... as soon as practicable of space objects ... which have been but no longer are in Earth orbit. - some parties provide actual date of re-entry on specific basis. Other provide information on a monthly basis, i.e. a list of objects ceased to exist by the end of the month; - the lack of information or non-specific dates of decay hamper the ability to identify a space object that has returned to the Earth; - in specific cases, parties informed about predicted dates of decay of their space objects. It was the case of the Mir space station, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, Italian BeppoSAX satellite and some objects carrying nuclear power sources on board.

11. Conditions for Proper Functioning of the UN Register - all States and non-governmental organizations involved in launchings of space objects should ratify or accept the Convention. - submission of data should be obligatory and timely (e.g. within 3 months after the launch). - in case of launch involving several States, the regulation that only one should be the State of registry should be strictly observed. - in case of launch from foreign territory or for non-governmental organization, this should be indicated. - basic orbital parameters should preferably describe the final operational orbit. - the description of the general function of the space object should contain more concrete information, not only the standard phrase.

12. Possible Improvements of the UN Register - consistent policy should be adopted regarding the registration of non- functional objects. - intended or actual position in geostationary orbit should be included in the data. - the presence of nuclear power source on board of space object should be indicated (in line with Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space). - the end of active (functional) life of particular space object should be announced. - the operator of space object should be indicated. - the change of the operator should be announced.

13. Dimensions and Phases of Space Traffic • Two dimensions of space traffic management: • scientific-technical area • regulatory field • Three phases of space traffic: • the launch phase • the in-orbit operation phase • the re-entry phase

14. The Launch Phase • There is a rise in the number of launch vehicles (today 18), as well as • in the number of launch centres (today 11). • - A pre-launch notification is not existing. • Safety certifications should be introduced. • A clarification of the term "space object" is needed. • - The concept of the "launching State" has to be clarified. • - Obligatory information in cases of damage are relevant. • - Question of the delimitation of air space and outer space should be revisited.

15. The In-Orbit Operation Phase • - In-orbit collision avoidance and maneuvers are growing in number and importance. • - Reliable collision probabilities can be estimated only when reliable information exists, which currently is not guaranteed. • - There is no separation or priorisation of certain space activities, nor is any kind of utilization of space ruled out (except it is against the peaceful uses). • - There are no communication rules (advance notification and communication if orbits of other operators are passed). • - The ITU system of nominal orbital positions finds application only to satellites in the GEO, disposal orbits about 300 km over GEO proposed. • - Private/commercial actors have started coordinating against radio-frequency interference.

16. The Re-Entry Phase • - Intentional (RLVs as well as active debris mitigation) and un-intentional de- orbiting (natural debris mitigation through decay) is both rising but care should be taken that large debris structures will be de-orbited in fragments. • - The generally shared wish to reduce space debris raises the question, whether regulation should also set a standard under which conditions a re- entry activity is in general legitimate and under which conditions it is not (the lifetime responsibility of the States for their objects, etc.). • - The question is posed to introduce certain internationally recognized descent corridors and possibly even impact areas which are not frequently used by other traffic and which might be dedicated to space traffic.

17. Preliminary Findings (I) • A model of the comprehensive space traffic management agreement • for 2020 may consist of three parts: • 1. Securing the information needs • - definition of necessary data. • - provision of the data (including financing). • - establishing a database and distribution mechanisms for data. • - proposing new installations for surveillance if needed.

18. Preliminary Findings (II) • 2. Notification system • - pre-launch notification with better parameters than Registration Convention as well as other provisions (e.g. ITU and proposed UNIDROIT Protocol). • - information on the end of active/operational lifetime of space objects. • - pre-notification of orbital manoeuvres and active de-orbiting (communication rules and cooperation provisions).

19. Preliminary Findings (III) • 3. Space Traffic management (I) • provides traffic management rules, including: • for launch phase setting delimitation and clarifying the concept of the "launching State“; • clarification of "space object“ definition; • specific provisions for GSO in harmonization with ITU rules; • specific provisions for LEO satellite constellations; • right of way rules for in-orbit phase; • priorisation with regard to manoeuvres; • possibility of zoning.

20. Preliminary Findings (IV) • 3. Traffic management (II) • gives framework and main features for national licensing regimes, which implement the provisions of the agreement. • clarifies "fault" in case of damage caused in outer space. • provides overarching debris mitigation mechanisms. • sets out an enforcement mechanism (e.g. renouncement of access to information). • clarifies institutionalized interlinks with ICAO and ITU.

21. Possible future developments • - The provisions of the three parts of the agreement are in a first step monitored by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and handled by OOSA. • In a second step (post 2020), the new Agreement may be replaced by a comprehensive Outer Space Convention, integrating also provisions of the existing space treaties; • Space acivities by private actors will develop into the same legal status as in air traffic.

22. Thank you • for your attention