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.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
On this day (April 17) in 1961, a brigade of 1,400 Cuban exiles (Brigade 2506) landed at the “Bay of Pigs” (Playa Girón) on the south coast of Cuba with the goal of removing Fidel Castro from power and liberating Cuba from communism. According to Wikipedia, “67 Cuban exiles from Brigade 2506 were killed in action, additionally, 10 more were executed by firing squad, 10 lost their lives on the boat Celia trying to escape, 9 captured exiles in the sealed truck container on the way to Havana, 4 by accident, 2 in prison, and 4 American aviators, for a total of 106 deaths.” Alas, the question of why the Bay of Pigs invasion failed is debated to this day; see here, for example.
Should the Insurection Act be amended? Check out this report, which originally aired on the PBS News Hour last week (8 April 2024). Here is a summary:
A bipartisan group of former senior officials are urging lawmakers on Capitol Hill to reign in a president’s ability to deploy the U.S. military within the country through a provision in the centuries-old Insurrection Act. Harvard Law School’s Jack Goldsmith, one of the leaders of these proposed reforms and former assistant attorney general, joins Geoff Bennet to discuss.
As it happens, I traced the historical origins and subsequent evolution of the Insurrection Act in my 2019 Univerity of Arkansas paper “Domestic Constitutional Violence“, which is also available here.
Will new “generative AI” models like ChatGPT end up self-imploding in endless feedback loops? Check out this report by Samantha Murphy Kelly titled “Teachers are using AI to grade essays“. Hat tip: Brian Leiter. Below is my favorite part:
And parents and students who are already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on tuition may wonder if an endless feedback loop of AI-generated and AI-graded content in college is worth the time and money.
“If teachers use it solely to grade, and the students are using it solely to produce a final product, it’s not going to work,” said Gayeski.
Thanks ChatGPT! (Sarcasm voice.)
Welcome to the online home of the IASS
Hopefully It’s Interesting.
In Conversation with Legal and Moral Philosophers
Relitigating Our Favorite Disputes
PhD, Jagiellonian University
Inquiry and opinion
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.
We hike, bike, and discover Central Florida and beyond
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
a personal view of the theory of computation
Submitted For Your Perusal is a weblog wherein Matt Thomas shares and writes about things he thinks are interesting.
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 