A sustainable geostationary space environment requires new norms of behavior

When, why, and how new norms are created has been the subject of lively academic discussion since the 1990s. According to the pioneering work by Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, international norms undergo a three-phase life cycle: 1) emergence, wherein the norm begins with just a few influential actors; 2) cascade, wherein the norm grows in acceptance until they reach a critical mass of proponents and become seen as typical behavior; and 3)internalization, wherein, the norm has become so routine as for its adherence to be assumed and it is no longer the subject of any significant contestation.[10] While some literature suggested a natural evolution through these phases overtime, more recent works have increasingly characterized norm change as an intentional process brought about by individual stakeholders.[11] Originally developed for application in the field of sociology and behavioral economics, so-called norm entrepreneurs actively encourage the spread of certain norms.This notion of norm entrepreneurship, in turn, led to the conceptualization of norm “antipreneurs” who resist changes to the norm status quo. The antipreneur framework has been explored to describe the failure of norms to reach cascade or internalization, in the contexts of disarmament,international trade, and democratization.[12][13] This theory has gained traction in the outer space domain because states that have enjoyed the greatest presence throughout history—the United States and Russia—have incentives to preserve the status quo because it has been historically shaped by them for their own benefit. For example, while those states with low access to space have recently acted as norm entrepreneurs in international fora by pushing for modifications to space law to promote equal access, more established space actors respond with antipreneurism by emphasizing the sufficiency of existing space law and the unwillingness to support change.[14]

A New Normal in GEO

There is no internationally agreed-upon minimum separation distance between non-cooperating satellites in GEO.[15] Most satellites maintain safe distances of over 200 kilometers from their nearest neighbors in the geostationary belt.[16] Over the past five years, however, some satellites have made a pattern of getting much closer to their neighbors—distances on the order of 10 kilometers—prompting other satellite operators to make public comments expressing concern.[17]While occasional, short-lived close approaches are often an unintended side effect of operating in a densely populated orbital regime, an intentional, long-duration close approach with a non-cooperative satellite could be interpreted as nefarious behavior. Satellites that are designed to closely approach other satellites could be used for on-orbit visual inspection, receiving another satellite’s communications, or more seriously, as part of an attack designed to disrupt,degrade, or destroy a target.[18]

To take full advantage of the geosynchronous orbital regime, satellites must use station-keeping maneuvers—periodic trajectory adjustments performed by onboard engines—to maintain their positions in the geostationary belt. When a satellite fails to station-keep—either by its operator’s choice or when it reaches the end of its operational life and has expended all of its onboard propellant—its orbital period falls out of sync with the Earth’s rotation due to a combination of external forces from the Moon and Sun, and it appears to slowly drift in the sky for observers on the ground.[19] The same onboard propulsion system that is used to station-keep, however, can also be used to efficiently reposition a satellite from one longitude on the geostationary belt to another.

Unlike other orbital regimes, satellite positions in GEO are regulated by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a specialized agency of the United Nations. Charged with preventing harmful interference in the radio-frequency spectrum, the ITU allocates satellite licenses to member states. A geostationary satellite license from the ITU grants states the right to communicate in select bands of radio frequencies from specific positions in the geostationary belt,which they can then apportion to individual operators.[20] Without the ITU’s regulatory framework, GEO satellites might attempt to communicate with their ground stations over the same frequencies from similar positions in space as their neighbors, confusing receivers on the ground, and jeopardizing the satellites’ missions. Due to the geometry of the geostationary belt, orbital positions can be measured in degrees corresponding to the longitude of the point directly below on the Earth’s equator. The ITU licensing system also assigns satellites to orbital slots, or small sectors of the geostationary belt, generally about 0.1 or 75 km wide.[21] A GEO satellite at 78.5W, for example, appears directly overhead for observers in Quito, Ecuador. At an altitude of almost 36,000 km, satellites in GEO can observe approximately one third of the Earth’s surface, so a satellite at 78.5W is also well-positioned to serve the United States and Canada. Although the ITU frequency licenses only hold for their corresponding orbital slots, satellite operators often choose to maneuver and operate in other parts of the geostationary belt not covered by their original ITU license.[16] In those cases, operators may choose to take over an existing license held by the same ITU member state, not communicate with ground stations while in the new orbital position, or disregard the standards put in place by the ITU. 

Although many satellites operate at one longitude for many years, others reposition themselves as their mission requirements change over time. Operators are not required to report satellite maneuvers. So, while some satellite operators publicly declare their plans to reposition their satellites, either through press releases, public filings, or by maintaining an online maneuver schedule, others do not.[22][23][24]

In 2015, a Russian satellite known as both Luch and Olymp-K maneuvered from 96.4E to 17.9W and positioned itself between two Intelsat satellites, getting as close as 10 km to both satellites between June and September of that year.[16] Intelsat—a U.S. commercial satellite operator with more than 60 satellites in GEO—quickly expressed concern about the incident. In an interview with Space News in October 2015, after Luch had maneuvered to another location, a senior Intelsat executive called Luch’s behavior “not normal” and “irresponsible,” a rare public rebuke of a foreign satellite operator’s on-orbit activities.[25] Although there are mechanisms in place for international satellite operators to communicate with one another through the U.S. Department of Defense, which manages a public database of space objects called Space-Track, the Russian Ministry of Defense did not respond to Intelsat’s messages, nor are there any existing norms or international laws that might compel it to do so.