removing space debris requires action and caution

In 2009, above the frozen landscape of Siberia, a non-operational Russian satellite named Kosmos-2251 collided with a functioning Iridium 33 communications satellite. The impact occurred at a velocity exceeding 26,000 miles per hour, resulting in the complete destruction of both spacecraft.

This singular event generated roughly 1,800 sizable fragments of space debris. Each of these fragments possesses the potential to inflict catastrophic damage upon any spacecraft that encounters its trajectory, and they continue to orbit Earth, posing a risk for years to come.

Opinions vary regarding the severity of the space debris situation, with some considering it a self-correcting issue and others viewing it as a significant threat to continued space activities. To gain a clearer understanding of the most accurate perspective, and to explore potential solutions, we consulted with numerous specialists from various sectors, including industry, research institutions, and regulatory bodies.

What is space debris?

Space debris isn't a uniform substance; it encompasses all inactive, human-created objects remaining in space. This includes discarded rocket components left in orbit after mission completion, satellites that are no longer operational, pieces resulting from both accidental and deliberate collisions in orbit, and materials released during space operations. These origins have accumulated, resulting in a substantial quantity of space debris circling the Earth.

This debris is distributed throughout the three primary orbital regions surrounding Earth: low-Earth orbit (LEO), medium-Earth orbit (MEO), and geosynchronous equatorial orbit (GEO). LEO, as the name indicates, is the nearest to our planet, reaching up to 2,000 kilometers above the Earth’s surface.

It represents the most congested of these regions and, alongside the International Space Station, is the area where companies like SpaceX and OneWeb are deploying tens of thousands of new satellites to form their constellations. Consequently, LEO contains the highest concentration of debris and frequently serves as the central point of discussion regarding this issue.

Satellites operating in MEO and GEO are also at risk from space debris. This is significant because these orbits support numerous essential satellites, including navigation systems like the American GPS and European Galileo in MEO, and vital communication satellites positioned in GEO. Satellites in GEO can remain fixed over a specific location on Earth due to their orbital speed matching the Earth’s rotation.

Due to the high altitudes of both MEO (2,000 km-36,000 km) and GEO (~36,000 km), bringing these satellites out of orbit isn’t practical. The current practice for retiring satellites involves relocating them to designated, unused orbits known as “graveyard orbits,” which further adds to the increasing amount of space debris.

Why is space debris a significant issue?

The presence of space debris raises substantial concerns, primarily due to the potential for physical impacts. The danger presented by orbital debris is greatly increased by the extremely high velocities at which it moves. NASA estimates that over 30,000 objects exceeding the size of a softball are currently orbiting Earth, traveling at velocities reaching 18,000 miles per hour. An impact from any of these objects could result in the total destruction of a satellite or spacecraft.

Even relatively small pieces of debris, measuring only 1 centimeter in diameter, have the capacity to render a functioning spacecraft inoperable, and even tinier fragments can create considerable difficulties. For instance, a minuscule paint chip caused damage to a window on the International Space Station. The station has been required to perform avoidance maneuvers to prevent collisions with larger, potentially devastating debris on 28 occasions since 1999, including three instances in the year 2020.

Keeping track of all this debris presents a considerable difficulty. Currently, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) only monitors objects larger than 10 centimeters in diameter. However, it is estimated that there are approximately 900,000 objects between 1 cm and 10 cm in size, and potentially tens of millions of smaller fragments, that are not tracked by the existing system, yet still pose a significant threat. The size range between 1 cm and 10 cm is of particular concern and is often referred to as lethal nontrackable debris, or LNT.

Space junk also creates other problems. Astronomers express concern that the brightness of objects in orbit interferes with astronomical observations of the night sky. Observatories, which frequently utilize equipment costing hundreds of millions of dollars, rely on extended exposure times, making debris a particularly troublesome factor. Another area of worry is the concept of “Kessler syndrome,” named after NASA scientist Donald Kessler.

Kessler proposed in 1978 that an increase in space debris would heighten the probability of collisions, leading to the creation of even more debris, and so on, resulting in exponential growth. This could ultimately jeopardize orbital activities. Essentially, the situation could escalate into a self-perpetuating cycle that eventually makes Low Earth Orbit (LEO) unusable and potentially impassable.

Stakeholders

It’s essential to first identify all parties impacted by space debris before determining appropriate responses.

Companies that launch objects into orbit are vitally important stakeholders, as their business success depends on maintaining access to space. However, they also contribute to the problem. Spent rocket stages, remaining in orbit, have accumulated over many years, according to Professor Lorenzo Casalino of the Polytechnic University of Turin.

Professor Casalino asserts that launch providers have been “significant contributors to the space debris issue.” Conversely, some newer launch companies, like Rocket Lab, actively prevent debris creation by bringing all rocket components back to Earth for destruction in the atmosphere.

Satellite operators represent another key group within this ecosystem. While they are largely responsible for the increasing congestion in orbit, they are also the most vulnerable to the dangers of space debris. Mike Safyan of Planet, which operates a fleet of over 150 satellites, emphasizes that reducing space debris is “beneficial for satellite operators,” and many are now integrating maneuvering and de-orbiting capabilities into their satellite designs.

For instance, OneWeb, a major satellite constellation provider, is engineering its satellites to be readily de-orbitable. Darren McKnight, Technical Director at Centauri, a satellite operator, explains that the increasing threat from the growing space debris cloud is causing a “noticeable decrease in system reliability,” motivating operators to take action. Sara Spangelo, CEO and co-founder of Swarm Technologies, notes that numerous private companies are already implementing debris mitigation strategies. Swarm Technologies has demonstrated consistent tracking of its small satellites and recently added active control systems to avoid potential collisions.

These approaches help guarantee that the satellites, measuring 10 cm by 10 cm by 2.8 cm (comparable in size to a grilled cheese sandwich), can provide global connectivity without adding to the space debris problem.

Insurance companies play a noteworthy role in this situation. Chris Quilty, a commercial space analyst, points out that while satellite insurance is not yet widespread—covering fewer than one in ten satellites in LEO—insurers are poised to become more influential as the probability of collisions rises. Chris Kunstadter, global head of space at AXA XL, a leading commercial insurer, adds that insurers are actively advocating for stronger regulations, as insurance is frequently a central element of regulatory proposals.

Often underestimated, the end users of space-based services have the potential to significantly shape the future of sustainable space utilization. This includes everyone from individuals using telecommunications to those utilizing satellite imagery and transportation firms relying on satellites for tracking ships and aircraft. As Ruth Pritchard-Kelly, VP of Regulatory Affairs at OneWeb, explains, if end users prioritize sustainability—as they have in other industries like retail and mining—it would likely compel launch providers and satellite operators to change their practices.

Finally, a new group of stakeholders is emerging, focused on resolving the space debris challenge. Companies like Astroscale and D-Orbit are achieving progress in commercializing the removal, or at least the reduction, of space debris. LeoLabs, a ground-based space mapping service, is another example, utilizing phased-array radars to track debris as small as 2 cm. Dan Ceperley, founder and CEO of LeoLabs, believes his company’s advanced tracking abilities will enable launch providers and satellite operators to take responsibility for the objects they launch. If mapping, mitigating, and removing space debris become profitable ventures, the private sector may already possess the necessary incentives to address the issue.

Regulatory Landscape

Despite the potential of technologies designed to reduce space debris, it’s probable that governmental regulators will need to intervene. The complex nature of the space industry, along with its diverse range of participants, suggests that regulatory organizations could establish stability and provide a consistent set of guidelines for businesses globally. However, the future of space regulation remains unclear due to its traditionally fragmented nature.

The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) works to foster international collaboration in space activities, but its authority to enforce regulations internationally is limited, as it primarily provides administrative support to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Consequently, regulation within the industry has historically been a varied collection of national laws, with some entities seeking out countries with the most accommodating regulatory environments.

Even with this fragmented approach, the United States is positioned as a significant potential source of regulation, owing to its substantial influence in the industry and its International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR controls the manufacturing, sale, distribution, and utilization of defense and space-related items, creating challenges – and sometimes outright preventing – U.S. space companies from seeking more lenient regulations elsewhere or conducting business without complying with U.S. rules. Therefore, any impactful regulations concerning space debris will likely originate in the U.S.

A recurring theme throughout discussions is the observation that U.S. regulations haven’t evolved at the same pace as technological advancements. Existing rules and guidelines were established during a time when space launches were limited to NASA and the Soviet space program, and the prospect of private companies readily and affordably accessing space was considered “unthinkable,” as stated by Alessandro Rossi of the Italian National Research Council.

Launch expenses have decreased tenfold in the past decade, and the introduction of CubeSats and other small satellites has significantly reduced the cost of sending payloads into orbit. The private sector is planning to launch thousands of satellites into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in the coming years. Regulations designed for a small number of large satellites are unlikely to be sufficient for this evolving situation.

Several U.S. agencies currently oversee space activities, and determining which agency will lead future regulation is a matter of debate. A 2018 White House directive proposed assigning the role of “traffic cop” for space to the Commerce Department. Others contend that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which already regulates launches and reentries, is best suited to implement changes. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), responsible for regulating satellite communications, is another important stakeholder.

Laura Montgomery, a space law specialist and former head of the FAA’s space law branch, indicated that the FCC “certainly views its regulatory authority as encompassing space debris.”

The experts consulted generally anticipate that these agencies will not pursue significant new regulations in the immediate future. Professor Montgomery pointed out that regulators “typically proceed cautiously,” and that existing collisions have “not yet prompted Congressional action” on this issue. Professor Zac Manchester of Carnegie Mellon University suggested that regulatory bodies are “often understaffed and lack the necessary technical expertise” to effectively address the space debris problem in the near term.

It’s also worth noting that while the FCC introduced new rules in April to mitigate orbital debris, these changes had limited impact – operators are now required to provide more safety information, but the agency “did not impose more stringent orbital debris standards.” In essence, the implementation of comprehensive new regulations appears unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Alongside the potential for regulatory oversight, there is growing support for incentivizing responsible behavior through positive reinforcement. The World Economic Forum (WEF), in collaboration with MIT’s Space Enabled Research Group, the European Space Agency, the University of Texas at Austin, and Bryce Space and Technology, is developing the Space Sustainability Rating (SSR) to achieve this.

Nikolai Khlystov of the WEF describes the SSR as a voluntary rating system for space operations (similar to energy efficiency ratings for appliances or LEED certification for buildings) designed to encourage positive practices. The expectation is that the SSR, or a comparable system, will gain widespread acceptance within the industry. The WEF envisions insurance companies utilizing the rating to determine premiums, offer discounts, or potentially deny coverage to those with poor performance.

The case for action

The space sector and all those involved now face a critical decision. They can proactively establish a system to manage the increasing issue of space debris, or they can maintain the status quo – characterized by limited global regulation and weak enforcement regarding the long-term viability of space activities.

Considering the historical trends of space debris accumulation, it’s reasonable to expect that the quantity of debris will continue to rise, especially in the frequently used Low Earth Orbit (LEO) region, if no changes are implemented. The absence of a thorough plan for spacecraft decommissioning suggests that further collisions, similar to the Kosmos-Iridium incident, are inevitable and will dramatically escalate the amount of space debris, ultimately rendering LEO extremely difficult to utilize.

A common observation within the aviation industry states: “Regulations are written in blood.” This highlights the fact that regulations frequently arise from painful experiences involving damage or loss of life. Another significant collision event could compel the international space community to implement stringent regulations, potentially impacting private space companies that haven’t already prioritized sustainability as a core business principle.

The case for caution

Alternatively, collaboration between the space industry and governing organizations could establish clear, open standards to address the difficulties presented by space debris, all while allowing the commercial space industry to continue to develop.

A successful strategy for managing space debris requires global cooperation. Regulators can emphasize that the long-term viability of space is beneficial to every stakeholder – space debris represents a significant expense and a possible hazard for both those operating in space and those utilizing its resources. Currently, numerous companies within the private space industry support increased responsibility in this area for this very reason.

Furthermore, it’s reasonable to suggest that private enterprises might be better positioned than governmental agencies to clear debris from the most crowded orbital paths. While the technology for removing space debris is still relatively new – companies like Astroscale and others are still preparing to offer their services – they are demonstrating notable advancements, and it’s difficult to foresee a future where this sector isn’t essential for maintaining a clean space environment.

The path forward

Our preference is that the private sector proactively addresses this challenge. We are confident that those operating in the space industry recognize the sustained significance of maintaining clear orbital pathways, and we view this as a compelling opportunity for new businesses to develop solutions. We also support innovative approaches, such as offering rewards to researchers who devise effective methods for space debris removal.

Nevertheless, it is probable that governmental intervention through regulation will eventually be necessary to manage the problem of space debris. We specifically encourage regulatory bodies, particularly those within the United States, to prioritize this issue, given their capacity to establish and enforce effective rules.

A significant current challenge lies in the fragmented oversight of the satellite industry, with multiple agencies – including the Commerce Department, the FAA, and the FCC – having jurisdiction over different aspects, often leading to overlapping responsibilities. We recommend that Congress work to resolve this ambiguity and designate a single agency to spearhead the development of regulations concerning space debris.

However, we advise against implementing overly broad regulations without careful consideration of their potential long-term effects. As Professor Montgomery observes, “Having experience in writing regulations, I understand they often become inflexible, which could stifle innovation.”

The situation with the Kicksat-2 project exemplifies this concern, according to Professor Manchester. The project aimed to showcase advanced microsatellite technology in a controlled environment, but faced years of delays due to FCC reservations before ultimately receiving approval in 2019 without any alterations to its initial design. Montgomery further explains that, “Premature regulatory action carries the risk of establishing suboptimal rules that are exceedingly difficult to revise.”

Therefore, we suggest that regulators proceed deliberately, thoroughly examining the complexities of the issue and collaborating with all relevant parties to establish a comprehensive framework over time, rather than reaching hasty conclusions.

Ideally, we anticipate that regulators and commercial entities can collaborate to achieve a durable solution in the foreseeable future, rather than postponing action until a major incident occurs.