NAVIGATING THE STARS: A CALL FOR COMPREHENSIVE SPACE
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

N. MORAITIS

Corresponding Author: General Counsel, SGAC – nicolas.moraitis@spacegeneration.org

 

Introduction

In the vast expanse beyond our terrestrial boundaries, humanity’s foray into space has become both a symbol of progress and a harbinger of challenges. The dawn of the space age brought with it the promise of exploration, scientific advancement, and technological marvels. However, as we propel more satellites into orbit and witness the rise of mega-constellations, the cosmos is becoming an increasingly congested arena. Space debris, an unintended byproduct of our ventures, poses a significant threat to both existing and future missions, jeopardising the very sustainability of outer space activities. This paper delves into the critical need for an effective Space Traffic Management (STM) system, a comprehensive approach designed to mitigate these risks and ensure the long-term viability of space operations.
Space Traffic Management is not a novel concept; its roots can be traced back to the early days of satellite deployment when the need to avoid collisions became evident. Originally, STM referred to the coordination and management of satellite orbits to prevent interference and ensure the safe operation of space assets. Over the years, the scope of STM has expanded, incorporating advanced technologies and international cooperation to address the growing complexities of space activities (1). STM is beneficial for several reasons: it enhances the safety and reliability of space operations, mitigates the risk of collisions, and contributes to the sustainable use of outer space. By ensuring that satellites and other space objects can coexist without catastrophic incidents, STM plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity of the space environment (2).
The legal framework governing space activities, while foundational, is currently inadequate to address the nuanced challenges posed by the modern space era. Treaties such as the Outer Space Treaty, the Liability Convention, and the Registration Convention were seminal in establishing principles for the peaceful use of space and state responsibility (3). However, these instruments do not specifically address the intricacies of STM and space debris management. The OST, for instance, articulates the concept of space as the «province of all mankind» and sets the stage for state liability and responsibility but falls short in providing detailed guidelines on managing space traffic and mitigating debris (4).
Beyond the legal landscape, there are also significant technical challenges to consider. The implementation of an effective STM system requires sophisticated Space Situational Awareness (SSA) capabilities to monitor and track an ever-increasing number of objects in orbit. Additionally, the development of debris mitigation and removal technologies is still in its nascent stages, facing both technical hurdles and substantial costs. These technical difficulties compound the complexity of establishing a global STM framework, necessitating a coordinated international effort to overcome (5, 6).
This paper aims to explore these multifaceted issues comprehensively. It will examine the existing legal instruments and their limitations, discuss the technical and operational challenges in implementing STM, and propose a forward-looking, innovative legal regime. By advocating for a legally binding international framework grounded in the principles of sustainability, safety, and cooperation, the following pages seek to lay the groundwork for a sustainable and accessible outer space environment. The ultimate goal is to foster a global dialogue and cooperation among stakeholders, ensuring that space remains a realm of peaceful exploration and shared benefit for all humanity.

Legal Framework for Space Traffic Management

The cornerstone of international space law is the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, also referred to as the magna carta of space. The OST establishes fundamental principles for space activities, such as the use of space for peaceful purposes, the non-appropriation of outer space, and the responsibility of states for national space activities, whether conducted by governmental or non-governmental entities (7). However, the OST’s provisions are notably general and lack the specificity required to address the contemporary challenges of Space Traffic Management (STM).
One significant shortcoming of the OST is its absence of detailed regulations concerning space debris and collision avoidance. Article VI of the OST, which assigns states the responsibility for national space activities and mandates authorization and continuing supervision, does not specify how states should manage space traffic to prevent collisions and mitigate debris. This vagueness leads to varied interpretations and implementations by different states, resulting in an inconsistent approach to STM (9). Moreover, Article IX of the OST, which requires states to conduct their activities with due regard to the corresponding interests of other states and to avoid harmful contamination of space, is also too broad to provide concrete guidelines for the implementation of STM measures (10).
The Liability Convention 1972 complements the OST by detailing the liability of states for damage caused by their space objects (10). According to the Liability Convention, a launching state is absolutely liable for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight and liable for fault in cases of damage in outer space (11). However, the convention does not address the complexities of liability in scenarios involving space debris and STM. The challenge of attributing fault in the congested and dynamic environment of outer space remains unresolved, as the convention does not provide clear mechanisms for determining responsibility for debris collisions or the failure to follow STM guidelines (12).
The Registration Convention of 1976 requires states to furnish details about their space objects to the United Nations, aiming to enhance transparency and facilitate the identification of space objects. While the Registration Convention supports STM by promoting transparency, it does not impose specific obligations on states to update the registry with orbital adjustments or to share information pertinent to collision avoidance (13). This limitation reduces the effectiveness of the convention in supporting a robust STM framework, as real-time data sharing and situational awareness are crucial for effective space traffic management (14).
The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) has developed guidelines to mitigate space debris, which are crucial for STM. The Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, endorsed by the United Nations in 2007, provide best practices for designing, operating, and disposing of space objects to minimise the generation of space debris (15). However, these guidelines are non-binding and rely on voluntary compliance by states and private entities. The lack of enforcement mechanisms and the variability in national implementations diminish the effectiveness of these guidelines in ensuring comprehensive and consistent STM practices (16).
The Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines recommend measures such as limiting the release of mission-related objects, minimising the potential for on-orbit break-ups, and post-mission disposal of space objects. Despite these recommendations, the guidelines do not specify technical standards or operational procedures, leaving significant discretion to states and operators. This discretion can result in inconsistent adherence to the guidelines, thereby undermining global efforts to manage space traffic and mitigate debris (17).
The existing legal framework for space operations, comprising the OST, the Liability Convention, the Registration Convention, and the UNCOPUOS guidelines, provides a foundational structure but falls short of addressing the specific needs of modern Space Traffic Management. The general and often vague provisions of these treaties and the non-binding nature of the guidelines lead to inconsistent application and enforcement. As space activities continue to grow in scale and complexity, there is an urgent need for a more detailed, binding international framework that specifically addresses STM and debris mitigation. The following sections of this paper will explore the technical and operational challenges of implementing such a framework and propose solutions for a sustainable and coordinated approach to space traffic management.

Technical Difficulties in Implementing an STM Framework

Implementing an effective Space Traffic Management (STM) framework is fraught with numerous technical challenges. While the legal and regulatory landscape provides a crucial foundation, the operationalisation of STM demands a sophisticated understanding of the technical intricacies involved. This section examines these challenges, highlighting the complexities of Space Situational Awareness (SSA), the development of debris mitigation and removal technologies, and the integration of advanced predictive analytics.
Space Situational Awareness (SSA) is fundamental to any STM framework, encompassing the ability to detect, track, and predict the trajectories of space objects. SSA involves the collection and processing of data from various sources, including radar, optical telescopes, and onboard satellite sensors. The challenge lies in the sheer volume and velocity of data required to maintain an accurate and up-to-date picture of the space environment. With tens of thousands of objects orbiting the Earth, including active satellites, defunct satellites, and debris fragments, the task of tracking and predicting their movements is extraordinarily complex (18).
Technologies such as radar and optical tracking systems play pivotal roles in SSA. Ground-based radar, for instance, can detect objects as small as 10 cm in low Earth orbit (LEO). However, the effectiveness of radar diminishes with altitude, and tracking objects in geostationary orbit (GEO) requires more sophisticated optical systems (19). Optical telescopes, while effective at higher altitudes, are limited by weather conditions and daylight. The integration of data from these disparate sources into a cohesive SSA system is a significant technical challenge, requiring advanced algorithms and significant computational resources (20).
Agencies like NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have made considerable strides in SSA. NASA’s Space Surveillance Network (SSN) and ESA’s Space Situational Awareness programme exemplify efforts to enhance global SSA capabilities. Yet, despite these advancements, gaps remain in global coverage and data sharing. International cooperation and data sharing are crucial, but they also raise concerns about data security and sovereignty (21).
Mitigating and removing space debris is another critical technical challenge. Space debris poses a severe threat to operational satellites and human spaceflight. The Kessler Syndrome, a scenario in which collisions between space debris create a cascade effect, generating even more debris, underscores the urgency of addressing this issue (22). Debris mitigation involves designing satellites and missions to minimise the creation of new debris. This includes measures such as passivation, which involves depleting residual energy sources to prevent explosions, and designing satellites to burn up upon re-entry. While these practices are increasingly adopted, they do not address the existing debris already in orbit (23).
Debris removal technologies are still in the experimental phase. Methods such as harpoons, nets, robotic arms, and laser ablation have been proposed and tested to varying degrees of success. For example, the RemoveDEBRIS mission, led by the Surrey Space Centre, successfully demonstrated debris capture using a net and a harpoon in 2018 (24). However, scaling these technologies to operational levels remains a formidable challenge. Each method presents technical hurdles, such as precise targeting, safe capture, and disposal of debris, as well as the high costs associated with these operations (25).
The use of advanced predictive analytics, including artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), holds promise for enhancing STM. Predictive models can analyse vast amounts of data to forecast potential collisions and suggest manoeuvres to avoid them. These technologies can improve the accuracy and timeliness of collision warnings, thereby reducing the risk of accidents (26). AI and ML algorithms can process historical data and detect patterns that human analysts might miss. For instance, AI can optimise satellite manoeuvres to conserve fuel while avoiding collisions, thus extending the operational life of satellites. However, the reliability of these predictive models depends on the quality and quantity of the input data. Incomplete or inaccurate data can lead to false alarms or missed collisions, highlighting the need for comprehensive and precise SSA data (27).
The technical challenges of implementing a Space Traffic Management framework are multifaceted and complex. Effective SSA requires the integration of diverse data sources and advanced computational capabilities. Debris mitigation and removal demand innovative technologies and substantial investment. Predictive analytics, while promising, depend on high-quality data and robust algorithms. Addressing these technical difficulties necessitates international cooperation, significant financial resources, and continuous technological innovation. As we move forward, it is imperative to bridge the gap between legal frameworks and technical capabilities to ensure a sustainable and secure space environment.

Proposing a Comprehensive Space Traffic Management Framework

A robust STM framework requires substantial enhancements to the existing legal structures. The current treaties and guidelines, though foundational, need to be revised and expanded to address the complexities of modern space operations. Several key changes are essential for a comprehensive legal framework for STM:
Revision of the Outer Space Treaty: The OST should be amended to include specific provisions for STM and space debris management. These amendments should detail the responsibilities of states in monitoring and managing their space objects to prevent collisions and minimise debris creation. Clear guidelines on the authorization and supervision of non-governmental entities engaged in space activities are also necessary (28).
Strengthening the Liability Convention: The Liability Convention must be updated to address the intricacies of fault determination in space collisions involving debris. This could involve establishing an international arbitration body to adjudicate disputes and attribute liability more effectively (29). Enhanced liability provisions would incentivise states and private entities to adhere to STM guidelines and invest in debris mitigation technologies.
Enhancing the Registration Convention: To improve the effectiveness of STM, the Registration Convention should mandate real-time updates of satellite positions and orbital adjustments. This could be facilitated through an international database managed by a dedicated STM entity under the auspices of the United Nations. Such a database would ensure transparency and enhance global SSA capabilities (30).
Binding Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines: The Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines developed by UNCOPUOS should be transformed from non-binding recommendations into enforceable international regulations (31). Compliance with these guidelines should be monitored by an international regulatory body, with penalties for non-compliance to ensure adherence.
Establishment of an International STM Authority: A new international entity, possibly under the United Nations, should be established to oversee the implementation and enforcement of STM regulations (32). This authority would coordinate global efforts, facilitate data sharing, and ensure compliance with international standards. It would also be responsible for certifying SSA capabilities and approving debris mitigation technologies.
Alongside legal enhancements, significant technological advancements are essential to support an effective STM framework. These steps involve improving SSA capabilities, advancing debris mitigation and removal technologies, and integrating predictive analytics into STM operations.
Advanced SSA Infrastructure: Investment in global SSA infrastructure is critical. This includes the development and deployment of more sophisticated ground-based and space-based sensors to provide comprehensive coverage and real-time data on space objects. International collaboration is necessary to share SSA data and ensure a cohesive global monitoring system (33).
Innovative Debris Mitigation Technologies: Developing and operationalising advanced debris mitigation and removal technologies is imperative. This includes technologies such as laser ablation, which can alter the trajectory of debris, and satellite servicing missions capable of repairing or deorbiting defunct satellites. Funding and international cooperation are crucial to accelerate the development and deployment of these technologies (34).
Integration of AI and ML in STM: Leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) for predictive analytics can significantly enhance STM. AI and ML can analyse vast amounts of data to predict potential collisions and optimise satellite manoeuvres. Developing robust algorithms and ensuring access to high-quality data are essential for the successful implementation of these technologies (35).
International Data Sharing Protocols: Establishing international protocols for data sharing is essential to enhance global SSA capabilities. These protocols should ensure that data on satellite positions and orbital adjustments is shared in a timely and secure manner. Data sharing agreements between spacefaring nations and private entities will foster a collaborative approach to STM (36).
Research and Development in Debris Removal: Continued research and development in debris removal technologies are necessary to address the growing threat of space debris. This includes testing and refining methods such as robotic arms, nets, and harpoons. International funding and collaborative R&D initiatives can accelerate the development of viable debris removal solutions (37).
The establishment of an effective STM framework requires a dual approach that combines comprehensive legal reforms with advanced technological solutions. Enhancing the existing legal treaties, transforming non-binding guidelines into enforceable regulations, and creating a dedicated international STM authority are crucial steps. Simultaneously, investing in advanced SSA infrastructure, developing innovative debris mitigation technologies, integrating AI and ML for predictive analytics, and establishing international data sharing protocols will ensure the operational success of STM. Through these combined efforts, we can secure a sustainable and safe space environment for future generations.

Conclusion

The establishment of an effective Space Traffic Management framework is paramount for ensuring the sustainable use of outer space. As space activities increase, so do the complexities and risks associated with them. The current legal frameworks, while foundational, are inadequate for the modern era. They must evolve to meet the demands of today’s space environment.
Revising the Outer Space Treaty to include specific STM provisions is crucial. Such amendments should clearly define state responsibilities in monitoring and managing their space objects to prevent collisions and minimise debris. The Liability Convention should also be updated to address the complexities of attributing fault in space collisions involving debris, potentially through an international arbitration body. Similarly, the Registration Convention needs to mandate real-time updates on satellite positions to enhance transparency and situational awareness.
On the technical front, advancements in Space Situational Awareness are essential. This includes developing and integrating sophisticated ground-based and space-based sensors, and leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning for predictive analytics. These technologies can significantly improve collision avoidance measures by accurately forecasting potential collisions and suggesting optimal manoeuvres.
Debris mitigation and removal technologies are also critical. While mitigation involves designing missions to minimise new debris, removal strategies must address existing debris. Innovative methods, such as laser ablation, robotic arms, and nets, require substantial investment and international collaboration to scale effectively. The successful demonstration of missions like RemoveDEBRIS showcases the potential of these technologies, yet operational deployment remains a challenge.
International cooperation is indispensable for effective STM. Establishing protocols for secure and timely data sharing will enhance global SSA capabilities. Data sharing agreements between spacefaring nations and private entities are essential to foster a cohesive and collaborative approach to space traffic management.
An international STM authority under the United Nations would significantly bolster global coordination. This entity could oversee the implementation and enforcement of STM regulations, facilitate data sharing, and certify SSA capabilities and debris mitigation technologies. Such an authority would ensure compliance with international standards and provide a structured mechanism for resolving disputes.
In summary, a robust STM framework requires both legal reforms and technological advancements. Strengthening existing treaties, creating enforceable regulations, and establishing an international oversight mechanism are crucial legal steps. Concurrently, investing in SSA, debris mitigation, and predictive analytics technologies will address the technical challenges. Through these combined efforts, we can secure a sustainable and safe space environment for future generations. Ensuring the sustainable management of space traffic is a collective endeavour that demands immediate and sustained commitment. By fostering international cooperation and investing in innovative solutions, we can maintain outer space as a domain of peaceful exploration and shared benefits for all humanity.

References

  1. Weeden, B., & Samson, V. (2016) ‘Space Traffic Management: Concept and Practices’, Secure World Foundation
  2. Moltz, J. C. (2012) ‘The Politics of Space Security: Strategic Restraint and the Pursuit of National Interests’, Stanford University Press
  3. Jakhu, R., Sgobba, T., & Dempsey, P. (2017) ‘The Need for an Integrated Regulatory Regime for Aviation and Space: ICAO for Space?’, Springer
  4. Lyall, F., & Larsen, P. B. (2018) ‘Space Law: A Treatise’, Ashgate Publishing
  5. Freeland, S. (2015) ‘Regulating Space: The Challenge of Space Governance’, Routledge
  6. Pelton, J. N. (2015) ‘New Solutions for the Space Debris Problem’, Springer
  7. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty, 1967)
  8. Lyall, supra n.4
  9. Jakhu, R., & Pelton, J. N. (2017) ‘Global Space Governance: An International Study’, Springer
  10. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention, 1972)
  11. ibid.
  12. Sundahl, M. J. (2008) ‘The Liability Convention and the Liability of Private Space Launch Companies’, 73 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 545
  13. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space 1976
  14. supra n.1
  15. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) (2007) ‘Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space’, available at https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E.pdf
  16. supra n.2
  17. supra n.6
  18. Kelso, T. S. (2009),’Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precision Ephemerides’, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference
  19. Schildknecht, T. (2007) ‘Optical Surveys for Space Debris’. 14 Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 41
  20. Vallado, D. A., & McClain, W. D. (2013) ‘Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications’ Microcosm Press
  21. ESA Space Debris Office (2024) ‘ESA’s Annual Space Environment Report’, available at https://www.sdo.esoc.esa.int/environment_report/Space_Environment_Report_latest.pdf
  22. Kessler, D. J., & Cour-Palais, B. G. (1978) ‘Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt’, 83(A6) Journal of Geophysical Research 2637
  23. Wiedemann, C., Flegel, S., & Metz, M. (2018) ‘Current and Future Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 16 Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences 21
  24. Forshaw, J., Aglietti, G. S., Navarathinam, N., Phipps, A., & Salmon, T. (2018) ‘RemoveDEBRIS: An In-Orbit Active Debris Removal Demonstration Mission’, 127 Acta Astronautica 448
  25. Shan, M., Guo, J., & Gill, E. (2016) ‘Review and Comparison of Active Space Debris Capturing and Removal Methods’, 80 Progress in Aerospace Sciences 18
  26. Holzinger, M. J., & Chow, C. C. (2019) ‘Optimization of Maneuver Strategies to Mitigate Collision Risk During Satellite Formation Reconfiguration’, 42 Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1016
  27. Zhao, Y., & Zhang, H. (2020) ‘Collision Avoidance for Satellites: A Reinforcement Learning Approach’, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 56(2), 1374
  28. Outer Space Treaty, supra n.7
  29. Sundahl, supra n.12
  30. Registration Convention, supra n.13
  31. UNOOSA, supra n.15
  32. Jakhu et al., supra n.3
  33. Schildknecht, supra n.19
  34. Forshaw, et al., supra n.24
  35. Holzinger & Chow, supra n.26
  36. Vallado, supra n.20
  37. Shan, et al., supra n.25