5. YouTube: (see below)
Thus far this week (see here , here, and here), I have surveyed the newly-published space polices of Department of Defense and the U.S. Space Force, as well as a third report from the RAND Corporation, all of which call for the U.S. military to procure some of the services and systems they need for their outer space operations from private commercial providers. In addition, I also identified a blind spot in all three reports: they omit any discussion of the problem of space debris resulting from greater satellite congestion in outer space, especially in Low Earth Orbit. Lastly, I suggested a different approach (an approach that I am further developing with my colleague and friend Justin Evans) to this “tragedy of the outer space commons”: markets and property rights, i.e. space auctions. Simply put, domestic agencies like the FCC and international ones like the ITU should assign property rights in orbits and allow those rights to be freely traded.
Before taking a deeper dive into our market-based solution to this new tragedy of the commons, however, I should mention that many other solutions to the problem of space debris have been proposed. Broadly speaking, these proposals fall into one of two categories: regulation or innovation, i.e. one group of proposed solutions is purely legalistic or regulatory in nature, while the other is technical or technological.
For an example of the technical approach, see this 2009 article in Space Review proposing the use of lasers and other “energy systems” to eliminate space debris from outer space (Taylor Dinerman, “Unilateral orbital cleanup“, Space Review, May 4, 2009), or this 2011 thesis calling for the development of a “satellite recycling system” that could be used to repair inoperable satellites and even retrieve particles of space junk (Major Patrick V. Long, “Space Junk Norms: US Advantages in Creating a Debris-Reducing Outer Space Norm“, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Thesis, May 2011).
By contrast, for some examples of the regulatory or legalistic approach, check out this 2014 paper by Nodir Adilov, Peter J. Alexander, and Brendan M. Cunningham calling for a new Pigovian tax on space launches as well as this 2003 law review article by Robert Bird and this 2013 law review article by Gabrielle Hollingsworth calling for a new international agreement or a modification of existing outer space treaties.
Starting on Monday of next week (29 April), I will survey both of these competing groups of proposed solutions to the problem of space junk (i.e. regulatory solutions versus technical ones) and explain where both fall short.
Previously (see here and here), I surveyed two new official public policy reports — one by the Department of Defense; the other by the Space Force — calling for U.S. military to procure some of the services and systems they need for their outer space operations from private commercial providers. As it happens, the RAND Corporation has also published a detailed report (the cover of which is pictured below) describing the risks and benefits of the U.S. military’s “partnership activities” with the commercial space industry. (As I mentioned in a previous post, this third report, which is dated 6 September 2023, is titled “Leveraging Commercial Space Services: Opportunities and Risks for the Department of the Air Force” and is available here.)
Alas, like the DoD’s April 2 report and the Space Force’s April 8 report, the 2023 RAND report does not discuss the elephant in the outer space room: how our growing demand for commercial satellite space services will most likely continue to produce a proliferation of satellite constellations and other spacecraft in an already congested Low Earth Orbit or LEO. Rand’s report merely mentions in passing how the number of commercial satellite communication systems in LEO “is increasing at an astonishing rate” (p. 27). By way of example, “SpaceX is currently providing Ku-band global coverage using nearly 3,000 satellites and has plans to exceed 30,000 satellites over the next few years ….” (Ibid., citing Jeff Foust, “GEO Operators Say They Can Compete Against LEO Systems on Cost,” SpaceNews, March 22, 2022, available here; see also Jamie Morin and Robert S. Wilson, Leveraging Commercial Space for National Security, Center for Space Policy and Strategy, Aerospace Corporation, November 2020, available here.)
In an appendix, the RAND report further describes the increased demand for commercial satellite communication or “SATCOM” services and systems and also identifies several legal challenges confronting the commercial space industry (Appendix C, p. 52, emphasis added):
Today’s demand landscape is different [from that of the the 1990s when high costs and limited demand kept the LEO market small], as the state of technology has generally advanced and demand for bandwidth has soared across every sector. This increased demand generally creates an opportunity for growth in the SATCOM market, and the need for more internet communications is well beyond current supply. But growth in demand is not sufficient to ensure a firm’s viability. In the process of pursuing a place in the pLEO [proliferated Low Earth Orbit] market, firms need to secure spectrum access, orbital deployment authority, and the authority to operate while in space and then ensure financial sustainability thereafter ….
The appendix then points out “two major regulatory factors” in the proliferated Low Earth Orbit market (pp. 52-23, footnotes omitted, emphasis added):
The first, securing access to the spectrum and orbital resources, is considered by many to be the biggest challenge to pursuing pLEO. Spectra and orbits are finite, so once a regulatory agency—such as the FCC, the International Telecommunication Union, or an FCC-equivalent agency in another country—allocates those resources, they are locked until the winning firm fails to meet the criteria to operate in the market or reallocates its spectral and orbital rights. For example, in the V-band spectrum, more than 94,000 satellites have been proposed to the FCC in a rush to secure access to the spectrum and orbits.
When incumbent firms with existing licenses or an ability to navigate the regulatory space are favored in the allocation of the spectrum regardless of whether they can deliver services, it is more difficult for new firms to enter the market. To ensure that licenses are used, the FCC does have a caveat in its allocations that a firm must launch at least half of its proposed satellites by the sixth year of a license and all of its proposed satellites by the ninth year. However, the FCC does not necessarily consider the soundness or feasibility of a business plan in its rulemaking. If a firm occupies a part of the spectrum or orbits and fails to deliver, this could lead to an inefficient use of resources. At the same time, a firm’s ability to innovate can be stymied by the potentially time-consuming process of obtaining a license from the FCC
The second regulatory factor … is the impact of the FCC’s and similar regulatory organizations’ decisionmaking timelines on schedules for delivery of services. Furthermore, when the spectrum has been allocated, the decision has not always been final. For example, the FCC reallocated a portion of the C-band spectrum to the 5G industry in 2020. These uncertainties add to the financial risks that firms face as they navigate the process of obtaining access to the spectrum.
The RAND report thus identifies two significant challenges facing the commercial space industry (i.e., the finite nature of low Earth orbits and the lack of stable property rights in those orbits), but it does not propose a solution to either problem. To this end, my colleague Justin Evans and I would like to make a modest proposal: why doesn’t the FCC (or better yet the ITU) start creating well-defined property rights in orbits and allow for those rights to be traded? Building on my previous work, we will further discuss our novel “space auctions” proposal in a future post.
According to Wikipedia (footnotes and links omitted), a low Earth orbit (LEO) is an orbit around Earth with a period of 128 minutes or less (making at least 11.25 orbits per day) and an eccentricity less than 0.25. Most of the artificial objects in outer space are in LEO, with an altitude never more than about one-third of the radius of Earth (or about 20000 kilometers). See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit
See also: https://archive.ph/9CzdJ
As I mentioned previously (see here and here), both the Department of Defense and the Space Force recently published new policies spelling out their current commercial outer space strategies. In summary, both of these jargon-laden reports identify a wide variety of critical “priority missions” or “mission areas” that the U.S. military must meet in outer space and envision a greater partnership between the U.S. military and the commercial space sector, calling for our national security agencies to buy the services and systems they need for their outer space operations from private commercial providers instead of building these systems themselves. But there is something missing from these new policies. Like the dog in the Sherlock Holmes story that did not bark, both reports share a big blind spot: they don’t discuss the “tragedy of the outer space commons”, i.e. the problem of space congestion and space junk.
Let’s begin with the Pentagon’s new space report “Commercial Integration Space Strategy” (released on April 2, 2024), which begins by describing the need for “a safe, secure, stable, and sustainable space domain” (p. 1, para. 1). Despite this promising introduction, the DoD’s “Commercial Integration Space Strategy” fails to mention how our growing demand for commercial space services will most likely continue to produce a proliferation of satellite constellations and other spacecraft in an already congested Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Likewise, although the Space Force’s 2024 “Commercial Space Strategy” (dated April 8 2024) refers to outer space as an “increasingly congested and contested domain” (p. 1), it too contains absolutely no discussion of how to achieve “sustainability” in outer space, or of the risks of greater spacecraft congestion and space junk — zero, nada, zilch!
Both reports, however, do take a step in the right direction by carving out a larger role for markets — and for the free enterprise system more generally — in U.S. outer space policy, i.e. the decision whether to buy or build. In addition, both reports explicitly identify “responsible conduct” as one the four foundational principles of U.S. outer space policy. At a minimum, doesn’t this general reference to “responsible conduct” include some regard for the problems of space congestion and space debris? As it happens, building on my previous work (see here), my colleague and friend Justin Evans and I have decided to research the possibility of defining property rights in outer space, a proposal that we will be writing up as a joint addendum to the DoD’s “Commercial Integration Space Strategy” and the Space Force’s “Commercial Space Strategy”. Simply put, we propose solving the tragedy of the outer space commons by expanding the use of markets to include well-defined property rights in orbits and the ability for those rights to be traded. I will further discuss our proposal in the next day or two …
Today, 22 April is Earth Day, an annual event (since 1970) commemorating our love of nature and the environment and our commitment to such public goods as clean air and clean water, but what about outer space, especially Low Earth Orbit or LEO? (See, for instance, this 2023 report by Shelli Brunswick titled “This Earth Day, Don’t Forget About Space”.) Among other things, LEO is becoming congested with space debris; according to Wikipedia (links and footnotes omitted),
This [congestion] has caused growing concern in recent years, since collisions at orbital velocities can be dangerous or deadly. Collisions can produce additional space debris, creating a domino effect known as Kessler syndrome. NASA’s Orbital Debris Program tracks over 25,000 objects larger than 10 cm diameter in LEO, while the estimated number between 1 and 10 cm is 500,000, and the number of particles bigger than 1 mm exceeds 100 million. The particles travel at speeds up to 7.8 km/s (28,000 km/h; 17,500 mph), so even a small impact can severely damage a spacecraft.
As it happens, recent technological advances in small satellites, lower launch costs, and innovative satellite applications will most likely increase the levels of space congestion and space debris in the years to come. Add to this volatile mix the fact that outer space is also a military zone, one that is vital to U.S. national security and the global balance of power, including the competition in outer space among China, Russia, and the United States. As I mentioned in a previous post, for example, earlier this month both the Department of Defense and the U.S. Space Force published new policies (see here and here) calling for the U.S. military and various U.S. national security agencies to procure some of the services and systems they need for their outer space operations from private commercial providers. Neither report, however, addresses the problems of space congestion and space debris.
So, how should we solve this veritable tragedy of the outer space commons without stifling innovation or endangering our national security? How can spacefaring countries like China, Russia, and the U.S. harmonize their competing uses of Low Earth Orbit in a peaceful, efficient, fair, and safe way? To this end, my colleague and friend Justin Evans and I want to make a modest proposal: Why not an LEO market or a system of space auctions? (See here, for example.) That is, what if countries like China, Russia, and the United States had well-defined property rights in outer space, and what if those rights could be traded? We will survey the new DoD, USSF, and Rand reports (see above) and explain our proposal in greater detail in our next few posts.
He was 82. See here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/philosopher-daniel-dennett-dead-at-82/
For me, Dennett’s most influential idea was his distinction between “skyhooks” and “cranes”: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1068/p241101
I mentioned in my previous post that Professor Justin Evans and I are currently researching and writing a new “space markets” paper, which is tentatively titled “Space Auctions and the Tragedy of the Outer Space Commons“. Our new paper builds on my previous work “Outer Space Auctions?“, which was published earlier this year in Volume 48 of the Annals of Air and Space Law. So, why are we writing a sequel, so to speak? The reason why is because three new developments in space markets have occurred — two of them as recently as this month:
In short, it suffices to say (for now) that these developments are super-exciting and have thus motivated Justin and I to write up our new space markets paper. Stay tuned: I will have more to say about each one of these three reports — the Space Force’s, the DoD’s, and RAND’s — starting on Monday …
My spring semester officially comes to a close on Monday, so looking ahead to the rest of spring as well as my summer break, I am happy to report that I will be working on three, possibly four, scholarly projects as follows:
The fourth project is, as yet, undefined, but I want to leave some extra space for it in case something unexpected or surprising catches my fancy.
Welcome to the online home of the IASS
Philosophical thought from an amateur and armchair thinker. No expertise, just speculation.
Thank you all to support my Blog. God bless us all. keep safe everyone!
In Conversation with Legal and Moral Philosophers
Trying to dig out from minus a million points
Relitigating Our Favorite Disputes
PhD, Jagiellonian University
Inquiry and opinion
A promise to change your outlook about the entire universe.😉
Viewing the world with a different vision!
Life is all about being curious, asking questions, and discovering your passion. And it can be fun!
Books, papers, and other jurisprudential things
Ramblings of a retiree in France
BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH
Natalia's space
hoping we know we're living the dream
Lover of math. Bad at drawing.
Photos and Writing
Blog about economic history & comparative development
We hike, bike, and discover Central Florida and beyond
A blog about economics, politics and the random interests of forty-something professors
Making it big in business after age 40
Reasoning about reasoning, mathematically.
I don't mean to sound critical, but I am; so that's how it comes across
remember the good old days...
"Let me live, love and say it well in good sentences." - Sylvia Plath
Neuroscience and psychology news and views.
a personal view of the theory of computation
Logic at Columbia University
Just like the Thesis Whisperer - but with more money
the sky is no longer the limit
Technology, Culture, and Ethics
Just like the horse whisperer - but with more pages
Poetry, Other Words, and Cats
prior probability 