Space Junk: Preservation or Eradication?
Space Junk: Preservation or Eradication? Where does an astronaut hang out on a keyboard? On the space bar!
LEAH HAMILTON AND WILLIAM ROBERTSON MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS
T
his is the second terrestrial communication in our trio of articles about space law, and will focus on an issue of increasing concern: space junk and extra-terrestrial waste management. (Check out Leah and William’s first article in the 2013 summer edition of Advocate here.) Space junk does not refer to some form of intergalactic steroids, but to the vast number of man-made objects found on the surfaces of celestial bodies and in orbit. Although one may think that space junk is of little concern due to the vastness of space (can’t it just float around forever?), 53 years on from the launch of Sputnik 1 numerous man-made objects of varying size and components can still be found on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.1 Since this waste is so long-lasting and pervasive, what should we do with it? In this article we will examine the potential threat that space junk poses to us directly, to our satellites and other research objects in space, to future space vehicles, and even to the Earth’s surface if space junk re-enters the atmosphere. There are two conflicting schools of thought concerning what to do with space junk: disposal and preservation. We also examine whether any laws in New Zealand relating to environmental preservation or waste disposal can provide any clues about how we should deal with space junk. The threat of space junk The main objection to leaving space junk in space is the risk that doing so will pose a supernova-sized threat to future scientific endeavours. There is a serious risk that by leaving space junk unregulated in space, there will be a considerable increase in the likelihood of collisions with both apparatus and vehicles carrying human life. As space junk has the potential to turn into lethal hypervelocity missiles,2 it can be a considerable hazard to both
launched vehicles and those of us remaining on Earth. However, it also has significant scientific value, as it can provide mankind with valuable research opportunities. It is clear that this problem is not going to simply disappear. Unfortunately, the solution is not as easy as digging a large hole and burying all of our waste as we do here on Earth. The preservation of space junk One view is that space junk should be collected and preserved due to its archaeological and historic value. Space junk can provide valuable insights into human and cultural evolution, as well as valuable opportunities for scientific experimentation. For example, there are numerous research possibilities in collecting organic matter left behind by our astronauts in space (for example, Astro-faeces and Pluto-pee) as it can allow scientists to examine how cosmic radiation affects organic molecules, and any possible health risks in human exposure to cosmic radiation.3 Space junk can also provide mankind with the opportunity to understand the history of early space flight and technology. Objects such as the Hubble telescope, United States satellite Vanguard 1, as well as various objects scattered on the Moon and at the Apollo landing site provide insight into the cultural history of space exploration. They also provide an invaluable insight into the corrosive properties of various metals, alloys, and plastics in space. Given the historical and educational importance of these objects, it seems as though an effort should be made to preserve them for future generations.4 In New Zealand, the Historic Places Act 1993 establishes the Register of Historic Places, Historic Areas, Wahi Tapu and Wahi Tapu areas. It is the national schedule of >
J Silk The Infinite Cosmos: Questions From the Frontiers of Cosmology (Oxford University Press, USA, 2006). J Lebans and B Mcdonald The Quirks & Quarks Guide to Space: 42 Questions (and Answers) about Life, the Universe and Everything (McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, Ontario, 2008) at 36. 3 D Viggiano “One Man’s Space Junk is Another Man’s Archaeological Treasure” (paper presented to New Perspectives on Space Law, Proceedings of the 53rd International Institute of Space Law Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, Young Scholars’ session, Prague, Czech Republic, 2010) at 206. 4 Viggiano, above n 3, at 208. 1 2
10 YLC ADVOCATE
> New Zealand’s treasured heritage places and is compiled by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT). If a property is registered, local authorities are required to notify the NZHPT if a project information memorandum or building consent application is received regarding the property. This provides the opportunity for the NZHPT to offer conservation advice to property owners.5 However, this registration is an identification tool and does not in itself prevent places being altered or sold. Furthermore, the Protected Objects Act 1975 provides for increased protection of certain objects by regulating the export of protected New Zealand objects, establishing and recording the ownership of nga taonga tuturu, as well as providing for the return of unlawfully exported foreign objects and stolen protected objects. These Acts could provide clues about how to structure any extraterrestrial site or object preservation legislation.6 Even so, the possibility remains that if countries were to add extra-terrestrial objects to their registry, other nations may interpret this as appropriation or as a claim of sovereignty which would conflict with obligations under the Outer Space Treaty 1967 (OST) and may offend other signatories to this Treaty.7 There are also considerable enforcement problems as an extra-terrestrial police force does not currently exist. Although it may be somewhat difficult, it is possible that elements from these statutes could be incorporated into a regime for the effective management of historical artefacts in space.
The elimination of space junk On the other side of the spectrum, many people want to see man-made items in space minimised or completely eliminated due to the danger and threat that they pose to future scientific endeavours, current space projects, and their potential impact on Earth. Although space as far as we know is vast, conflicts still eventuate over desirable real estate in outer space.8 Perhaps one of the biggest concerns is threat posed to geostationary orbits. Geostationary orbit frequencies are capped, and are highly desirable due to their ability to host communication satellites. Arguably they are currently the most important piece of space “real estate” available.9 As scientists have estimated that geostationary orbits may only possess the capacity to hold 1,500 or so satellites, this resource is considerably scarce and must be protected. Thus, it is vital that the orbits be kept as clear as possible and free from any space junk. Currently, however, there are in excess of 200 deceased satellites littering the geostationary orbit and it has been suggested that this number could increase considerably in the next ten years.10 Space junk has the potential to turn into lethal hypervelocity missiles, and one commentator has noted the potentially exponential increases in danger. This is because when space junk collides with another object, it may shatter into countless smaller, but equally-dangerous pieces resulting in a debris belt11 larger than that worn by Jabba the Hutt himself. Some space environmentalists suggest that if the prevalence of space junk is not decreased completely, the possibility remains that outer space may become soiled and
New Zealand Historic Places Trust “About the Register” <www.historic.org.nz>. Viggiano, above n 3, at 211. 7 Viggiano, above n 3, at 211. 8 Viggiano, above n 3, at 213. 9 C Collis “The Geostationary Orbit: A Critical Legal Geography of Space’s Most Valuable Real Estate” in M Parker and D Bell (eds) Space Travel and Culture, From Apollo to Space Tourism (Wiley-Blackwell, London, 2009). 10 The Times of India “Robots to Push Dead Satellites off Earth’s Orbit” The Times of India (12 October 2009) . 11 D Kessler and B Cour-Palais “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt” (1978) 83 J of Geophysical Res 2637. 5 6
AUTUMN 2013 11
at worst, unusable.12 This concern underlies the necessity to implement some form of regime to manage, clean and regulate space junk in the extra-terrestrial environment.13 New Zealand’s disjunctive ad hoc approach to waste management fails to provide any helpful assistance. Current waste management in New Zealand is subject to a complex array of statutes, bylaws and regulations.14 These include statutes such as the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. The lack of uniformity and comprehensiveness precludes our current regime from posing as a potential model in outer space. Arguably what is required is an integrated statutory framework capable of providing effective waste management.
must be “carried out for the benefit and interests of all countries”.17 Space junk and its associated risks are arguably not in the best interests of all countries and they could be said to constitute harmful contamination. In addition, NASA’s Orbital Debris Programme Office has implemented some guidelines with the aim of slowing down the accumulation of space junk. These rules limit what is able to be dumped out in space and they require satellite operators to assist in the clean-up of the geosynchronous belt by shifting redundant space crafts into “graveyard orbits”.18 However, this approach again lacks the thrust of an effective enforcement mechanism. The OST arguably lacks the specificity required to bring an effective legal claim and does not specify any significant deterrents. Mere diplomatic pressure alone is arguably insufficient to coerce states into compliance with NASA’s guidelines, or the OST.19
So then, what to do with space junk?
Conclusion
Article 8 of the OST provides that a state party to the Treaty, who launches an object into space, shall retain jurisdiction and control over it and ownership of objects launched into space is not affected by their presence in outer space.15 This means that nations are able to effectively ‘own’ space junk. Arguably, this means that a state’s municipal law could apply to the decision-making surrounding what to do with space junk.
As preservationists wish to protect the very same objects which environmentalists wish to destroy or clean up, there is great potential for conflict to arise. In this situation, the ideal approach would be to develop the two areas of law in tandem. The appropriate mechanism for the development of environmental law and management of “space junk” is arguably the establishment of an international regulatory body, with effective enforcement powers. This could allow important objects to be preserved, but waste to be destroyed in a principled and considered manner. If only it were as simple as zapping the unwanted items with our “lazer”. Where is Dr Evil when you need him?
Exactly how to go about the task of dealing with space junk is where Houston may have a problem. Currently no legal regime is in place to manage waste or historic objects in outer space.16 The OST may provide some help, however. Article 1 provides that activities in outer space
H Baker “Protection of the Outer Space Environment: History and Analysis of Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty” (1987) 12 Annuals Air and Space 143-173. 13 Viggiano, above n 3, at 215. 14 Environment Canterbury Regional Council “Waste regulation” . 15 United Nations Outer Space Treaty 1967, art 8. 16 Viggiano, above n 3, at 208. 17 Outer Space Treaty, above n 15, art 1. 18 Viggiano, above n 3, at 218. 19 Viggiano, above n 3, at 217. 12
12 YLC ADVOCATE
LEAH HAMILTON AND WILLIAM ROBERTSON MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS
T
his is the second terrestrial communication in our trio of articles about space law, and will focus on an issue of increasing concern: space junk and extra-terrestrial waste management. (Check out Leah and William’s first article in the 2013 summer edition of Advocate here.) Space junk does not refer to some form of intergalactic steroids, but to the vast number of man-made objects found on the surfaces of celestial bodies and in orbit. Although one may think that space junk is of little concern due to the vastness of space (can’t it just float around forever?), 53 years on from the launch of Sputnik 1 numerous man-made objects of varying size and components can still be found on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.1 Since this waste is so long-lasting and pervasive, what should we do with it? In this article we will examine the potential threat that space junk poses to us directly, to our satellites and other research objects in space, to future space vehicles, and even to the Earth’s surface if space junk re-enters the atmosphere. There are two conflicting schools of thought concerning what to do with space junk: disposal and preservation. We also examine whether any laws in New Zealand relating to environmental preservation or waste disposal can provide any clues about how we should deal with space junk. The threat of space junk The main objection to leaving space junk in space is the risk that doing so will pose a supernova-sized threat to future scientific endeavours. There is a serious risk that by leaving space junk unregulated in space, there will be a considerable increase in the likelihood of collisions with both apparatus and vehicles carrying human life. As space junk has the potential to turn into lethal hypervelocity missiles,2 it can be a considerable hazard to both
launched vehicles and those of us remaining on Earth. However, it also has significant scientific value, as it can provide mankind with valuable research opportunities. It is clear that this problem is not going to simply disappear. Unfortunately, the solution is not as easy as digging a large hole and burying all of our waste as we do here on Earth. The preservation of space junk One view is that space junk should be collected and preserved due to its archaeological and historic value. Space junk can provide valuable insights into human and cultural evolution, as well as valuable opportunities for scientific experimentation. For example, there are numerous research possibilities in collecting organic matter left behind by our astronauts in space (for example, Astro-faeces and Pluto-pee) as it can allow scientists to examine how cosmic radiation affects organic molecules, and any possible health risks in human exposure to cosmic radiation.3 Space junk can also provide mankind with the opportunity to understand the history of early space flight and technology. Objects such as the Hubble telescope, United States satellite Vanguard 1, as well as various objects scattered on the Moon and at the Apollo landing site provide insight into the cultural history of space exploration. They also provide an invaluable insight into the corrosive properties of various metals, alloys, and plastics in space. Given the historical and educational importance of these objects, it seems as though an effort should be made to preserve them for future generations.4 In New Zealand, the Historic Places Act 1993 establishes the Register of Historic Places, Historic Areas, Wahi Tapu and Wahi Tapu areas. It is the national schedule of >
J Silk The Infinite Cosmos: Questions From the Frontiers of Cosmology (Oxford University Press, USA, 2006). J Lebans and B Mcdonald The Quirks & Quarks Guide to Space: 42 Questions (and Answers) about Life, the Universe and Everything (McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, Ontario, 2008) at 36. 3 D Viggiano “One Man’s Space Junk is Another Man’s Archaeological Treasure” (paper presented to New Perspectives on Space Law, Proceedings of the 53rd International Institute of Space Law Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, Young Scholars’ session, Prague, Czech Republic, 2010) at 206. 4 Viggiano, above n 3, at 208. 1 2
10 YLC ADVOCATE
> New Zealand’s treasured heritage places and is compiled by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT). If a property is registered, local authorities are required to notify the NZHPT if a project information memorandum or building consent application is received regarding the property. This provides the opportunity for the NZHPT to offer conservation advice to property owners.5 However, this registration is an identification tool and does not in itself prevent places being altered or sold. Furthermore, the Protected Objects Act 1975 provides for increased protection of certain objects by regulating the export of protected New Zealand objects, establishing and recording the ownership of nga taonga tuturu, as well as providing for the return of unlawfully exported foreign objects and stolen protected objects. These Acts could provide clues about how to structure any extraterrestrial site or object preservation legislation.6 Even so, the possibility remains that if countries were to add extra-terrestrial objects to their registry, other nations may interpret this as appropriation or as a claim of sovereignty which would conflict with obligations under the Outer Space Treaty 1967 (OST) and may offend other signatories to this Treaty.7 There are also considerable enforcement problems as an extra-terrestrial police force does not currently exist. Although it may be somewhat difficult, it is possible that elements from these statutes could be incorporated into a regime for the effective management of historical artefacts in space.
The elimination of space junk On the other side of the spectrum, many people want to see man-made items in space minimised or completely eliminated due to the danger and threat that they pose to future scientific endeavours, current space projects, and their potential impact on Earth. Although space as far as we know is vast, conflicts still eventuate over desirable real estate in outer space.8 Perhaps one of the biggest concerns is threat posed to geostationary orbits. Geostationary orbit frequencies are capped, and are highly desirable due to their ability to host communication satellites. Arguably they are currently the most important piece of space “real estate” available.9 As scientists have estimated that geostationary orbits may only possess the capacity to hold 1,500 or so satellites, this resource is considerably scarce and must be protected. Thus, it is vital that the orbits be kept as clear as possible and free from any space junk. Currently, however, there are in excess of 200 deceased satellites littering the geostationary orbit and it has been suggested that this number could increase considerably in the next ten years.10 Space junk has the potential to turn into lethal hypervelocity missiles, and one commentator has noted the potentially exponential increases in danger. This is because when space junk collides with another object, it may shatter into countless smaller, but equally-dangerous pieces resulting in a debris belt11 larger than that worn by Jabba the Hutt himself. Some space environmentalists suggest that if the prevalence of space junk is not decreased completely, the possibility remains that outer space may become soiled and
New Zealand Historic Places Trust “About the Register” <www.historic.org.nz>. Viggiano, above n 3, at 211. 7 Viggiano, above n 3, at 211. 8 Viggiano, above n 3, at 213. 9 C Collis “The Geostationary Orbit: A Critical Legal Geography of Space’s Most Valuable Real Estate” in M Parker and D Bell (eds) Space Travel and Culture, From Apollo to Space Tourism (Wiley-Blackwell, London, 2009). 10 The Times of India “Robots to Push Dead Satellites off Earth’s Orbit” The Times of India (12 October 2009) . 11 D Kessler and B Cour-Palais “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt” (1978) 83 J of Geophysical Res 2637. 5 6
AUTUMN 2013 11
at worst, unusable.12 This concern underlies the necessity to implement some form of regime to manage, clean and regulate space junk in the extra-terrestrial environment.13 New Zealand’s disjunctive ad hoc approach to waste management fails to provide any helpful assistance. Current waste management in New Zealand is subject to a complex array of statutes, bylaws and regulations.14 These include statutes such as the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. The lack of uniformity and comprehensiveness precludes our current regime from posing as a potential model in outer space. Arguably what is required is an integrated statutory framework capable of providing effective waste management.
must be “carried out for the benefit and interests of all countries”.17 Space junk and its associated risks are arguably not in the best interests of all countries and they could be said to constitute harmful contamination. In addition, NASA’s Orbital Debris Programme Office has implemented some guidelines with the aim of slowing down the accumulation of space junk. These rules limit what is able to be dumped out in space and they require satellite operators to assist in the clean-up of the geosynchronous belt by shifting redundant space crafts into “graveyard orbits”.18 However, this approach again lacks the thrust of an effective enforcement mechanism. The OST arguably lacks the specificity required to bring an effective legal claim and does not specify any significant deterrents. Mere diplomatic pressure alone is arguably insufficient to coerce states into compliance with NASA’s guidelines, or the OST.19
So then, what to do with space junk?
Conclusion
Article 8 of the OST provides that a state party to the Treaty, who launches an object into space, shall retain jurisdiction and control over it and ownership of objects launched into space is not affected by their presence in outer space.15 This means that nations are able to effectively ‘own’ space junk. Arguably, this means that a state’s municipal law could apply to the decision-making surrounding what to do with space junk.
As preservationists wish to protect the very same objects which environmentalists wish to destroy or clean up, there is great potential for conflict to arise. In this situation, the ideal approach would be to develop the two areas of law in tandem. The appropriate mechanism for the development of environmental law and management of “space junk” is arguably the establishment of an international regulatory body, with effective enforcement powers. This could allow important objects to be preserved, but waste to be destroyed in a principled and considered manner. If only it were as simple as zapping the unwanted items with our “lazer”. Where is Dr Evil when you need him?
Exactly how to go about the task of dealing with space junk is where Houston may have a problem. Currently no legal regime is in place to manage waste or historic objects in outer space.16 The OST may provide some help, however. Article 1 provides that activities in outer space
H Baker “Protection of the Outer Space Environment: History and Analysis of Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty” (1987) 12 Annuals Air and Space 143-173. 13 Viggiano, above n 3, at 215. 14 Environment Canterbury Regional Council “Waste regulation” . 15 United Nations Outer Space Treaty 1967, art 8. 16 Viggiano, above n 3, at 208. 17 Outer Space Treaty, above n 15, art 1. 18 Viggiano, above n 3, at 218. 19 Viggiano, above n 3, at 217. 12
12 YLC ADVOCATE
