http://wasmun.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/copuos_wasmun2019.pdfBackground Guide for the
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space
Washington State Model United Nations ■ March 2 – 3, 2019 ■ Seattle, Washington
На стр. 29-30
Improving Coordination of Orbital Traffic
The consequence of the rapid proliferation of space debris is that STM has become even more complex, particularly in high-traffic areas like LEO and GSO. Each collision caused by poor information on the flight paths of other satellites and debris will reduce the range of orbital paths available to all Member States wishing to operate in that region, making it in everyone’s interest to collaborate to improve STM. However, technical and political concerns create roadblocks to more effective cooperation and coordination between Member States.
Most debris are concentrated, as might be expected, around common orbital trajectories, making them ever less
navigable.[233] While making satellites more resilient to debris collisions is necessary, it is not sufficient to prevent damage given the high speeds involved and quantity of debris. Therefore, to avoid damage, Member States need both better information on their surroundings and increased maneuverability for their functional satellites so as to prevent collisions. The latter is not disputed, and is advocated for by COPUOS in its 2016 guidelines for the longterm sustainability of outer space activities. [234] The issue of information, however, is politically tenuous, as it involves Member States sharing potentially sensitive information about their assets or those of other Member States along with debris that they may or may not have an interest in keeping secret. The existing UN registry of tracked space objects, UNROLOS, only contains some of the information held on national registries, such as the launching date, general description of the object, and basic orbital parameters, as established by Articles III and IV of CROLOS. [235] Moreover, spacefaring Member States may not have the means to track their non-functioning satellites or debris fragments from destroyed assets, which they are still liable for under the Outer Space Treaty. [236] While orbital parameters may be set at the time of launch, when the information is first furnished to UNROLOS, the parameters may either be changed intentionally by the launching state as the mission does and or by a collision with debris. Under CROLOS, Member States are encouraged but not obligated to update the information on a given object, which, combined with objects that go completely unreported, renders the UN registry incomplete. [237] COPUOS has begun to address this issue with Guideline 6 of its 2016 updated guidelines on the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, but these remain voluntary and largely unimplemented. [238] Individual Member States and regional organizations maintain their own registries and monitoring capabilities, such as the US SSN [239] and the Space Situational Awareness Service (SSA)240, run by the ESA, though all are limited by technical barriers – for example, the SSN can only detect objects of greater than 10 cm in diameter in LEO and of greater than 1 meter in GSO. [241]
International organizations have been able to fill some gaps – the International Scientific Optical Network (ISON), a consortium of civilians operating over 40 observatories around the world, has successfully tracked an estimated 90% of objects larger than 50 cm in diameter at GSO, a far superior result to governmental surveillance networks, but no comprehensive structure exists to track and object paths in outer space. [242]
Beyond just tracking objects, a framework is necessary to coordinate traffic when disputes over flightpaths do
inevitably arise as more and more satellites are launched. Whether or not government satellites will be privileged
over commercial ones or those of other Member States is an open question, and only theoretical attempts to establish a regime governing space traffic have been floated. A recent IAA paper argues that the necessary standard would be to either establish a regime built on the cooperation of all Member States (bottom-up approach), or one built on the establishment of another international entity which presides over Member States and their actions in improving planned coordination of orbital traffic (top-down approach). [243] A bottom-up approach faces considerable obstacles in securing agreement from all Member States and gaining a complete cooperation attempt by all, particularly from Member States who do not wish their orbital information revealed. CROLOS is an existing framework, rooted in international law, which could potentially provide the base for a regulatory regime, though much work remains to be done. Any eventual regime will require the establishment of a clear hierarchy of prioritized traffic, a flexible and comprehensive tracking system, and due consideration of the privacy and strategic concerns of Member States.
