Other

Coming soon: a US decision on supporting a space “code of conduct”

The US government will make a decision soon on whether to support a proposed “Code of Conduct” for space operations, a State Department official said Wednesday. Speaking at a “Next Steps in U.S. Space Diplomacy” forum at the Stimson Center in Washington, Frank Rose, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Space and Defense Policy, said the administration was considering the “Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities” proposed by the EU two years ago. The code, designed to promote peaceful, safe uses of space, includes provisions requiring nations to establish procedures to avoid collisions and the production of space debris, including refraining from “any intentional action which will or might bring about, directly or indirectly, the damage or destruction of outer space objects.

“We have been working very, very collaboratively with the EU the past two years” on the code of conduct, Rose said. The new national space policy, which endorses the use of “transparency and confidence-building measures to encourage responsible actions in, and the peaceful use of, space”, allows the administration to now consider formally supporting the EU code. Rose said the State Department, and soon an interagency group, will examine whether the US can support the code. “We hope to make a decision very much in the near future.” Rose said later, in response to a question, that while the US hasn’t made a decision on whether to support that document, such a code “is very consistent with the key policies outlined in the president’s new space policy.”

The concept of a code of conduct, if not the EU’s proposed code, was also endorsed at the event by Ambassador Greg Schulte, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy. “We need to start work on ‘rules of the road'” for space operations, he said, with such rules including not just debris mitigation and collision avoidance but also potentially radiofrequency interference and “discouraging destabilizing behavior in a crisis.” He added this his office is supporting Rose’s group at the State Department in its review of the proposed EU code.

One obstacle to this approach has been an effort by China and Russia to propose instead a treaty banning weapons in space, an accord known by the acronym PPWT, something the US has opposed in part because such a treaty would be unverifiable. Rose said he had discussions with Russian officials earlier this year about their support for a code of conduct, but PPWT remains a stumbling block. “We were very much open this year to cosponsoring a [UN] resolution with Russia” on the subject, “and we came very, very close.” However, “unfortunately, they wanted a reference to their PPWT treaty in the resolution.”

23 comments to Coming soon: a US decision on supporting a space “code of conduct”

  • While it will be nice to avoid producing more space debris and avoid collisions caused by actively controlled objects, the reality is that LEO has a ton of no-longer-controlled objects that have been put up there over the years, and without active removal, we’re likely headed for a mess. I wish there was more clarity on the legal liability of states for collisions caused by space junk they left up there. If there was a clear cost associated with letting say your Russian satellite that you left up there tumble around till it hits an Iridium satellite (for example), it would be a lot easier to create an economic incentive for people to actually clean up the mess. Not adding to the mess may be necessary, but I somehow doubt it will be sufficient for protecting the LEO environment for future use.

    ~Jon

  • GeeSpace

    Amen to your idea, Brother Jonathan

  • Anne Spudis

    How can you have an agreement, let alone cooperation with any country that has a secret military space program? Isn’t NASA prohibited from working jointly with any country that conducts a secret space program? We would be very foolish to sign such a document. What purpose would it serve?

  • This one is “Promise #150″ on the Politifact watch list of President Obama’s campaign space promises. Currently categorized as a “compromise”.

    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/150/seek-code-of-conduct-for-space-faring-nations/

  • amightywind

    One would think that the issue of orbital debris and end of life disposal of satellites is separate from the issue weaponization of space. A hunter killer satellite could be designed to be a very good space citizen up to the moment it was used. Russia and China will do anything to hobble US efforts in military space. This is just the latest example.

  • Major Tom

    “Not adding to the mess may be necessary, but I somehow doubt it will be sufficient for protecting the LEO environment for future use.”

    As you know, orbits under about 700km degrade relatively quickly (on the order of years to low tens of years, depending on debris characteristics). So if you’re willing to accept that as your definition of the “LEO environment”, it will clean itself out in well under a human lifespan, assuming rules of the road to create no new debris are adopted and followed. But this is admittedly a big “if” and if LEO debris creation continues, a tipping point could be reached at some future point in time where collisions are happening so often that active debris removal is needed to address the problem in a shorter timeframe.

    “I wish there was more clarity on the legal liability of states for collisions caused by space junk they left up there. If there was a clear cost associated with letting say your Russian satellite that you left up there tumble around till it hits an Iridium satellite (for example), it would be a lot easier to create an economic incentive for people to actually clean up the mess.”

    I believe (someone may correct me) that nations are liable under international law for damage caused by anything launched under their auspices/license. I think the problem is that these collisions are still such a rare event that it’s hard to justify the cost of developing and operating an active debris removal system. When you compare the cost of the damage caused by these collisions over the history of the Space Age to all the money that’s been invested in LEO satellites and systems during the Space Age, the former is infinitesimally smaller than the latter. From a government or insurance perspective, it’s just cheaper to swallow the cost of a replacement when a collision very rarely does happen than to invest in active debris removal. (In fact, I can’t think of an example where a government or company replaced a satellite due to a debris collision.)

    On top of that, better tracking systems and now data-sharing arrangements are giving satellites a better and better capability to know when a conjunction is imminent and avoid it. So even though the debris problem is getting worse, our ability to avoid damage without resorting to active debris removal is getting better. So the threshold for when it makes economic sense to invest in active debris removal may be receding into the future, rather than getting closer.

    Of course, this is all dependent on the costs of active debris removal. If a concept came along that cost the proverbial “nickel”, then the decision to go down the active debris removal path would become easier (although international coordination is another issue).

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    I believe of the roughly 20,000 pieces of junk about 2000 are old satellites. I have never see a chart on how long the degrading process takes before a satellite loses it’s solar array wings, or stuff starts falling off or sats put in a graveyard parking orbit that degrades out of that orbit.

    That is the part of the equation that worries me the most. Are we going to start seeing 30/40 year old sats breaking up as atomic oxygen and partical accumulation starts wearing componets out to the point they start falling apart.

    http://setas-www.larc.nasa.gov/LDEF/ATOMIC_OXYGEN/ao_intro.html
    http://www.spenvis.oma.be/help/background/atmosphere/erosion.html

  • Doug Lassiter

    “How can you have an agreement, let alone cooperation with any country that has a secret military space program?”

    Like us? We have a secret military space program. Where have you been?? Or maybe you know what the X-37 was doing for that past six months?
    Heh, NASA is prohibited from working with our country?

  • CharlesHouston

    Hopefully some sort of incremental treaty could be signed – committing countries to reasonable goals of debris mitigation, radio frequency non-interference, etc etc. If we don’t have to do it all – or nothing – it could be a useful treaty.

    Now, racing all other sentient posters, I must point out that Anne Spudis said: How can you have an agreement, let alone cooperation with any country that has a secret military space program? Isn’t NASA prohibited from working jointly with any country that conducts a secret space program? and of course I agree with her!!! How dare NASA cooperate with the US, since we have that darn secret space program!!!! Such as the recently-returned X-37, secret photo and elint satellites, etc etc. I am shocked, shocked!!

  • I believe (someone may correct me) that nations are liable under international law for damage caused by anything launched under their auspices/license.

    (Space law professor) Glenn Reynolds wrote a piece at Popular Mechanics about that about a year ago.

  • common sense

    Nope. NASA is not prohibited from working with other countries that have a secret space program!

    Unless, and only UNLESS, the name of the country starts with C and ends with A and that are believed (by some) to secretly work on a program to invade the Moon and utilize He3 or something.

    Come on, it’s not as if Europe, Japan, Russia and others who flew with NASA have a secret space program! They are nice people only striving at our, US, greater good.

    Oh well…

  • Rhyolite

    Anne Spudis wrote @ December 3rd, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    “How can you have an agreement, let alone cooperation with any country that has a secret military space program?”

    When did that ever stop us from working with our international partners? When did that ever stop anyone from working with us?

    “Isn’t NASA prohibited from working jointly with any country that conducts a secret space program?”

    What does this have to do with NASA? You realize that space debris affects a lot more than just NASA. We have a lot more money invested in commercial and military satellites than anything NASA does.

    “We would be very foolish to sign such a document. What purpose would it serve?”

    To help protect billions of dollars in US commercial and government owned space assets from damage by errant space junk.

  • Duncan

    The liability regime is set out in the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (entered into force for US on October 9, 1973). It is available at: http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/treaties.html

  • Gregori

    “How can you have an agreement, let alone cooperation with any country that has a secret military space program?”

    Oh sweet Jesus, if we were to be that up-tightly principled, we’d never get anything done. We wouldn’t be able to work with anyone. All major world powers are doing secret stuff in space. They wouldn’t be very effective powers if they didn’t. The Pentagon has an entire program for this that cost billions per year, more than any of the other countries could afford to spend on it. The X37B, for example, no one knows what that’s been doing for the past 7 months!!!

    I’m not worried if China is secretive about its manned space program. Having people in space is a liability, no an asset when it comes to military applications. There is not that much nefarious stuff you can do up there in anyway, except maybe spy on other nations, drop weapons or destroy satellites. Most of these are easy to spot since satellites are big visible objects that have known orbits and give off radio-waves. Nothing to worry about being secretive since we know probably what they will, can and know how to do. There is no super advanced evil technologies that we probably haven’t thought of already. And the US definitely spies on this just in case!!!

    The World would be a whole lot better if people cooperated instead getting on a puritanical high horse and quarreling. You don’t even have to like someone to share benefits of cooperation with each other.

  • Anne Spudis

    All:

    So, since everyone is doing their own thing on the sly, there really is no point in signing something that bears nothing but pious lies.

    Thanks for the input.

  • Doug Lassiter

    What country isn’t doing something “on the sly”? I mean, really. If international diplomacy in general is just a matter of signing documents that can bear nothing but pious lies, we should probably just close down the State Department.

    Pragmatically, the advantage of such documents is that you can always refer back to an agreement. The signed agreement allows finger-pointing, which can be a potent diplomatic tool. An agreement doesn’t make anyone cooperate, but if there is no agreement, then there is absolutely no incentive to cooperate. That’s how diplomacy works. It’s about incentives, not arm twisting.

    Re blowing up satellites in LEO, such a code-of-conduct agreement formally admits that the signees all know how to blow up satellites in LEO. That admission is basically what the Chinese always wanted, and it’s an inexpensive admission that will ideally keep the Chinese from feeling that they need to do it again to prove it.

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. You don’t want to sign such an agreement because it would prevent US from blowing up satellites in LEO?

  • Anne Spudis

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ December 5th, 2010 at 1:54 pm [That’s how diplomacy works. It’s about incentives, not arm twisting.]

    I believe there is peace through strength.

    “Bribery,” diplomacy — that just goes so far.
    If you don’t have something to back it up you’re adrift and vulnerable.

    Look around and think on that a bit.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Ah, so what we need to do, you’re saying, is blow up a BIGGER satellite in LEO than they did. That’ll teach ‘em. Diplomacy only goes so far, you’re saying. But you don’t even want to go there.

    Is this what has come to be known as American exceptionalism?

  • Anne Spudis

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ December 6th, 2010 at 8:10 am

    I don’t believe you read my post (if that last comment was directed at me).

    You don’t get to that point, when those who would threaten or attack you (in what ever fashion) know you are prepared to defend your country and your allies. When they understand you are serious and not just tossing around threats, “aid,” and/or dependent on diplomatic square dancing, but actually prepared, they retreat from aggression.

    I have not discussed blowing up anything sir — you did.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Anne Spudis wrote @ December 6th, 2010 at 9:49 am
    “I don’t believe you read my post (if that last comment was directed at me).”

    It was, and I did. In reading the original post, you’ll notice that we’re talking about ““any intentional action which will or might bring about, directly or indirectly, the damage or destruction of outer space objects.”
    Yep, I was the one that said “blowing up satellites”, which is the hallmark example of this kind of action, as demonstrated recently by the Chinese.

    You talk about being prepared to “defend your country and your allies”, and about doing that without “tossing around threats”. You use these words without any kind of specificity about how to do it, aside from avoiding treaties and agreements. So I’m just guessing that in the absence of these treaties and agreements, you must be thinking about blowing up bigger satellites! I mean, blowing up a satellite is how the Chinese showed they were prepared to defend their country, being serious and not just tossing around threats. They did it! It worked!

    If you have a plan that’s any more sophisticated than muscle flexing and staring down our enemies to avoid being adrift and vulnerable, please do let us know. Yes, diplomacy goes only so far, but again, you’re evidently unwilling to go even there.

  • Dennis Berube

    We have our own military space race. Look at the spy plane that just returned to Earth. To say that only China does these things is totally wrong. Dominance is the word here. The big three want it!

  • Dennis Berube

    Cleaning up near Earth orbit, is a great idea, except presently no one has that ability. No one to my knowledge even has an interest to spend money on it. It was always just thought, that the junk would burn up on Earths atmosphere. Some have suggested a giant solar sail to gather the junk. Who knows..

  • Rhyolite

    “Cleaning up near Earth orbit, is a great idea, except presently no one has that ability.”

    All the more reason to minimize the creation of additional junk.

Leave a Reply to Anne Spudis Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>