Other

Moving towards a code of conduct

The Washington Times reported last week that the administration is considering signing on to a code of conduct for space operations promoted by the European Union. The “Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities” calls on countries to take measures to avoid satellite collisions and other activities that create space debris, such as “any intentional action which will or might bring about, directly or indirectly, the damage or destruction of outer space objects.” According to the Times article, the administration is ready to sign on to the code with only a “few minor changes” in its language, not specified in the article.

The report is not that surprising. Back in December administration officials strongly hinted that they supported the code, saying that while a decision regarding the code hadn’t been made, it was “very consistent with the key policies outlined in the president’s new space policy,” in the words of Frank Rose, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Space and Defense Policy. The Times article suggests there may be some congressional opposition to the code, quoting a couple unnamed staffers who expressed concerns that the code could be a “slippery slope” to space arms control, including preventing space-based missile defense systems.

Speaking of the code, the Marshall Institute is hosting a panel on codes of conduct in space this Friday in Washington. Two of the three panelists for the Friday event—Paula DeSutter, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation; and Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University—are quoted in the article as being at least cautiously supportive of the EU code. The third, Peter Marquez, is the former director of space policy at the National Security Council and led the development of the national space policy released last year.

22 comments to Moving towards a code of conduct

  • Robert G. Oler

    And in the code of conduct we will all promise (in the words of the Leslie Nelsen character in Police Squad) “to make nice”.

    As for a back door approach to banning space missile defense systems…lol since the only kind of Space defense system likely to work are “lasers” and we are some years from those, maybe decades who cares…

    Robert G. oler

  • amightywind

    The code doesn’t say much about the weaponization of space.

    Space faring nations and businesses, with the exception of the Chinese, have already been acting in their self interest to reduce debris, avoid RF interference, and dispose of obsolete satellites. Leave it to the statists in Europe to fix a situation that is not broken.

  • As for a back door approach to banning space missile defense systems…lol since the only kind of Space defense system likely to work are “lasers” …

    Not so Robert, DARPA last year tested a kinetic energy weapon designed to survive reentry and destroy targets with the same intensity as nuclear devices; http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/falcon/index.html

    Although the vehicle wasn’t space worthy, the concept itself is sound.

    Also satellites can be used to ram each other and take out comms constellations, you know that. Space war isn’t just space to space/air/ground weaponry.

    Sure, it’s “nice to make nice” and that would be good, but how could this “code” be enforced?

  • Allen Thomson

    This is mildly encouraging in that it does recognize “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the United Nations Charter”, but does encourage/commit the states party not to mess up earth orbit in pursuit of those rights. In the case of wartime ASAT, that might mean that softish-kill is ok, if regrettable, but nukes, hypervelocity impact, etc aren’t.

    We’ve recently had a discussion about this on Armscontrolwonk, and my opinion is that the military arguments for taking out certain satellites, notably reconnaissance/ELINT ones, in wartime are so strong that some sort of ASAT or counter-space action is almost inevitable. So an agreement that limits the wider effects of ASAT, as this code of conduct kinda implicitly does, might actually be honored; a flat-out ban is a non-starter and even if signed probably wouldn’t be honored in a shooting war.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Allen Thomson wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 10:15 am

    yes.

    if two powers that have space assets start shooting at each other then well a code of conduct wont mean anything…but the question that one has to ask is “how likely is it that two space powers start shooting at each other”.

    Nothing in my view point has changed since the 1960’s in that regard. The theory is to try and keep direct combat between two nuclear powers from ever happening in any real guise because to initiate it at any level is to have a hard time trying to stop it before the escalator starts.

    So when the Chinese force an EP-3 down, the reality is that they “got that one”…the tit for tat never makes the cycle.

    If we get to exchanging “cycles” (or a tit for a tat) then its hard to stop.

    The good news is that the real pygmy nuclear powers dont have the ability to take out any of the major nuclear powers space assets…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    dad2059 wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at

    I dont think that kinetic will work as an anti missile defense. To be in “the right place at the right time” is going to take a lot of “brilliant pebbles” or whatever we are calling them these days…and the battle management issues would be enormous.

    Lasers have a set of problems all their own. Ithink those are solveable and I would not be surprised if in 20-30-40 years we have a laser capable of engaging at “very long ranges” but we are in my view that far from it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    Re: High energy beam.

    They are not confined to lasers. Further you can disable an asset without necessarily destroying the asset, e.g. blinding. Atmospheric lasers may be decades away but “in space” lasers or other high energy beam may be just right there. Now, are we supposed to have weapons in space?… How do you build a space laser that is not a weapon, like say for atmospheric research where you beam down a laser instead of up.

    No sir it ain’t no weapon, it’s atmospheric science. Oops we just involuntarily turned the laser the other way, sorry for your satellite…

    Oh well…

  • Allen Thomson

    > The good news is that the real pygmy nuclear powers dont have the ability to take out any of the major nuclear powers space assets…

    At least not yet. But remember that at least the US’ optical and imaging reconnaissance satellites are low (< 1000 km) and few(< 10). And replacing any one of them would take months at least; rebuilding the constellation would be a matter of years. We need to get serious about ORS.

  • John Schilling

    Nuclear powers have engaged in direct conflict at least twice, fortunately without full escalation. More if we count proxy wars in which one nuclear power’s forces were reflagged for the purpose of fighting another nuclear power, e.g. Russian-flown MiGs in Korea. ASAT attacks are in many ways ideally suited for that sort of game – they are plausibly deniable, nobody gets killed, and yet a substantial military advantage can be obtained with a handful of missiles (lasers, photon torpedoes, whatever…)

    But for arms-control purposes, what matters is not the wars that are actually fought, rather the wars that people prepare for. Nuclear powers plan and invest a great deal for both limited and total war against other nuclear powers. In the twenty-first century, that will include both offensive and defensive counterspace warfare. It is exceedingly unlikely that a “no space weapons” treaty will be signed, and if it is it will most probably be violated from the start.

    Which is the sort of thing that makes a code of conduct particularly important. First, to ensure that at least the peacetime testing of counterspace weapons doesn’t threaten the peaceful use of space. And second, to make it clear that taking a shot at someone else’s satellite is in fact an act of war, and ought to be avoided by anyone who isn’t actually planning to wage war. Sadly, I suspect attempts to turn the present code of conduct into a formal treaty will be held hostage to the disagreement over a broader no-space-weapons-period treaty, but a joint US/EU policy declaration is still a good step to take.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 11:55 am

    space based lasers are a long way off…not so much because of the laser but because of the infrastructure needed to support them on orbit (ie lots of power, some form of crew maintenance etc). I plan to be around another or say four or five decades…I think we will see them by then…but not in the next two.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Allen Thomson wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    “At least not yet. But remember that at least the US’ optical and imaging reconnaissance satellites are low (< 1000 km) and few(< 10). And replacing any one of them would take months at least; rebuilding the constellation would be a matter of years. We need to get serious about ORS."

    concur completely and for what it is worth I think that the X-37 is something along the lines of rebuilding those constellations quickly…ie testing new technologies.

    The two pygmies with specials or soon to have them that really worry me are the Israelis and the Iranians. Both countries have governments that have no problems thinking in terms (to paraphrase General Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove) of " a hundred thousand deaths" (not "mega deaths" ), both countries have very small specials (or soon will be) on their missiles, both are trying to develop space assets…and the governments are clearly both crazy.

    Neither would flinch from a "space demo" like the starfish test or something that happened to "knock down" the others space assets…to make a point. And in the process do some harm to ours…The danger is that this tit and tat could easily spiral into an exchange that would be on a scale that eventually folks on both sides, after it was shut down by the big powers would say "wow that wasnt so bad".

    The IDF wont even acknowledge that they have the Jerichos and the Iranians are likely to be as difficult.

    All of which makes your post even more salient.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Allen Thomson

    I said, “US’ optical and imaging”

    Whereas what I really meant to say was, “US’ optical and radar imaging”

    Four optical (plus maybe one, if Misty II is still operational) and five radar, one of which is very elderly and was reported to be having significant but non-fatal problems back in the 1990s.

    It’s not a whole lot of depth for satellites that take years to manufacture and launch and cost gigabucks per item on orbit.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    What I mean is that the technology exists. Not as much for atmospheric laser. They can be fielded if need be. The infrastructure would require refueling in space but we could send multiple laser equipped satellites. Lasers are not that different from a jet engine… Technology exists and you don’t have to worry about atmospheric disturbances that kill effective atmospheric lasers.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    things come in time and the time for Laser battle stations is not now…but we are inching that way….the Navy is going to have a laser main anti missile gun here soon…

    It is highly likely that such stations will have to have a crew…not to operate but maintain…and we will get there. The technology either exist or is near term…but it exist

    Robert G. Oler

  • Rhyolite

    Allen Thomson wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    “And replacing any one of them would take months at least; rebuilding the constellation would be a matter of years. We need to get serious about ORS.”

    That means we need to get serious about operationally responsive launch.

    The closest thing to that in the world was the Zenit luancher, which was designed to repopulate Soviet satellite constellations as fast as US ASATs could knock them down.

    We need to be investing in small to medium launch vehicles that launched with minimal preparation time – no months long launch campaigns. HLVs need not apply.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rhyolite wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Allen Thomson wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    “And replacing any one of them would take months at least; rebuilding the constellation would be a matter of years. We need to get serious about ORS.”…ooste

    hello. Allen can chime in for himself, he is one of the smart people in the field…but I suspect that the issue is not so much the boosters as it is the satellites themselves.

    they are almost “hand made” and each one is different from the next…attempts to develop “smaller” satellites in more populated constellations (grin) have floundered…

    One of the things I suspect that X-37 is designed to address is not only the notion of a refurbishable platform but also more rapid time from prototype to build.

    Robert G. Oler

  • byeman

    “one of the things I suspect that X-37 is designed to address is not only the notion of a refurbishable platform but also more rapid time from prototype to build. ”

    It does nothing of the sort nor even if is did, it would not provide any advantage over existing buses. Rapid spacecraft development is easy, look at the buses available, Ball and OSC have many of them and they can fly on many launch vehicles.

  • Robert G. Oler

    byeman wrote @ February 2nd, 2011 at 8:55 am

    I assume you dont agree with the rapid time from prototype to build…t certainly is a refurbishable platform.

    I do not agree. At one point in the 80’s the shuttle was being considered as a sort of “flying test bed” for a whole series of different sort of payloads, some of which were classified and some of which were pure civilian.

    These were one of a kind payloads where there was value (in fact a lot of it) in getting the payload back to analyze failure modes and to do modifications on the payload to allow it to fly again in a different form but with the same hardware.

    I dont know for a fact it is happening on X-37 and besides it would be classified but I dont know for a fact that it is not happening but it wouldnt surprise me if it was. Where I went to Grad school there were all sorts of these payloads lining up for GAS and other special kind of flights on the shuttle when Challenger went bang.

    Ball and OSC do have buses but none of them are reusable and hence the instruments end up being sort of “one of a kinds”.

    Put another way, there is nothing that prohibits X-37 from being used in this manner and I dont think you can prove it is not!

    take care Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Having finally had time to read the article, this concerns me

    refrain from any action which intends to bring about, directly or indirectly, damage or destruction of outer space objects unless such action is conducted to reduce the creation of outer space debris and/or is justified by the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the United Nations Charter or imperative safety considerations.”

    That would potentially put the breaks on any discussion about utilizing in space resources, particularly large scale mining (which, I will grant, is more than a few years off)

  • Vladislaw

    Ferris, it states the following:

    “2. General principles
    The Subscribing States resolve to abide by the following principles:

    – the freedom of access to, exploration and use of outer space and exploitation of space objects for peaceful purposes without interference, fully respecting the security, safety and integrity of space objects in orbit”

    I believe that quote of yours is more refering to banging other country’s satellites or activities that create more debri in local operational space (LEO2GEO).

  • Rhyolite

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 2nd, 2011 at 2:09 am

    “hello. Allen can chime in for himself, he is one of the smart people in the field…but I suspect that the issue is not so much the boosters as it is the satellites themselves.”

    Realistically, no manufacturing process is going to keep up with a developing modern conflict so it would be necessary to keep a small stockpile of satellites and launch vehicles. This is not as unusual as it sounds. Many commercial programs involve the creation of a ground spare. Even with government programs, I can think of examples where a block of satellites was build, stored and launched over an extended period of time as necessary. This strategy would involve building a number of spares after the system full operational capability was achieved and having them at the ready.

    “they are almost “hand made” and each one is different from the next…attempts to develop “smaller” satellites in more populated constellations (grin) have floundered…”

    Most satellites are hand made and it is arguable that commercial GEO satellites usually have customized payloads. However, building satellites in blocks is not unusual either (various GPS blocks, WGS blocks, Intelsat satellites up to series up to series VII and to a lesser degree up to IX, the various Inmarsat series 1 though 5 and so on). The government doesn’t have a good record on LEO constellation (SBIRS Low and space based radar) but GPS is a constellation and the commercial constellations are all preparing to launch second generation constellations (Orbcomm, Globalstar and Iridium). I wouldn’t rule out the constellation concept for government systems, especially if we can get responsive low cost launch.

Leave a Reply to Vladislaw 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>