Carson Bullock* and Robert T. Johanson
Edited by Thomas G. Roberts and Friederike M. C. Benning
Article | Aug. 30, 2021
- Advances in tracking have clarified the risk orbital debris proliferation poses to satellites, but no system for risk assessment of individual space objects has yet been universally accepted. Consensus has been reached about a few broad classes of space objects that are high-priority targets for removal.
- Progress has been made in slowing the creation of new debris, but it is likely insufficient to ensure safe scientific and commercial activity in space without also removing existing debris. Several methods of active debris removal have been demonstrated and more are on the horizon, but how they will be funded, how to incentivize their use, and the legal regime around their deployment remains uncertain.
- Changes to federal policy can incentivize responsible behavior through a variety of mechanisms, each with benefits and drawbacks.
Space debris threatens to destroy valuable space infrastructure, but damages from debris are not an inevitability. The scientific community has ideas for how to prevent the creation of new debris and limit the impact of pre-existing debris, but it will take government action to see that vision through. This essay unpacks how we know what we know, in service of ultimately discussing how policy-makers can use predictions of the long-term risks posed by satellites and debris on the orbital environment to more effectively prescribe behavior for operators. Financial incentives for sustainability, including taxation and cap-and-trade systems, have the potential to greatly benefit the safety and reliability of space missions, but they carry a variety of political and economic challenges, particularly at the international level. Now is a critical time to determine a policy strategy for debris management, because negotiations in the near-term may set valuable precedents for controlling the next century of debris proliferation.
Kosmos-2251 is ready for liftoff. It is June 16, 1993, and 2251 is strapped atop a Kosmos-3M rocket, sitting on the pad at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Russia. The Strela-class communication satellite and its rocket have decades of heritage, so it is no surprise that the launch goes off without a hitch. Placed into a nearly circular orbit 500 miles above the Earth’s surface, 2251 can expect years of operation followed by decades more in retirement. Kosmos-3M’s first stage immediately falls back to Earth, and the second stage, a 1.4-ton solitary rocket body that travels nearly to 2251’s final orbit, is left drifting . Only a couple years later, the satellite shuts down early. From then on, 2251 whips around the Earth day in and day out, ignorant to the steady launch of new satellites. Until in 2009, when 2251 smashed into another satellite. Had 2251 been working, operators on the ground may have seen the impending disaster and ordered a quick maneuver. As it happened, Iridium 33 did not see 2251 either, and the two satellites were obliterated. At 22 000 mph, the collision flung thousands of pieces of debris throughout Low Earth Orbit (LEO). These pieces silently circle the Earth and will for decades to come, until some other satellite like Iridium 33 crosses their path or until someone becomes willing to pay a hefty price and use cutting-edge technology to try to remove them. The International Space Station maneuvered away from a piece of Iridium 33 debris in 2012 and was struck by a piece of debris of unknown origin in June 2021 [2, 3].
The Kosmos-Iridium collision was a wake-up call for the space industry. If Iridium’s loss of an operating spacecraft was not enough, that single event increased the cataloged objects in LEO by roughly 12%, as shown in Fig. 1 . Today, the number of catalogued pieces of debris is more than double the number of spacecraft in orbit . This figure includes rocket bodies and large fragments of destroyed spacecraft, but excludes objects like tools dropped by astronauts and paint chips, because they are too small to be tracked. At orbital speeds, even the smallest of these wandering missiles can cause crippling damage.
Incentivizing Sustainability Through Policy
The authors would like to thank MIT for the opportunity to work on these complex, interesting problems and to the Review’s editorial team for their support developing the ideas in this article.
Bullock, C. & Johanson, R. T. Policies for incentivizing orbital debris assessment and remediation. MIT Science Policy Review 2, 8-14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.16gdw8z5d4.
This MIT Science Policy Review article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/.
(1) 85 FR 52422.
(2) 85 FR 30790.
 Anselmo, L. & Pardini, C. Ranking upper stages in low earth orbit for active removal. Acta Astronautica 122, 19–27 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.01.019.
 Weeden, B. 2009 Iridium-Cosmos Collision Fact Sheet. Tech. Rep. (2010). Online: https://swfound.org/media/205392/swf_iridium_cosmos_collision_fact_sheet_updated_2012.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Strickland, A. Space junk hit the International Space Station, damaging a robotic arm. CNN (2021). Online: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/01/world/iss-orbital-debris-robotic-arm-scn/index.html. Accessed: July, 2021.
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Orbital Debris Quarterly News 13 (2009). Online: https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/odqnv13i2.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Orbital Debris Quarterly News 24 (2020). Online: https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/odqnv24i4.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Schaus, V. et al. Results of reference long-term simulations focussing on passive means to reduce the impact of space debris. 7th European Conference on Space Debris 7 (2017). Online: https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc7/paper/342/SDC7-paper342.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Liou, J.-C. & Johnson, N. L. Risks in space from orbiting debris. Science 311, 340–341 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121337.
 Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Legal Subcommittee 806th meeting – unedited transcript (2010). Online: https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/transcripts/legal/LEGAL_T806E.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Lal, B., Balakrishnan, A., Caldwell, B. M., Buenconsejo, R. S. & Carioscia, S. A. Global trends in Space Situational Awareness (SSA) and Space Traffic Management (STM). Tech. Rep. (2018). Online: https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/g/gl/global-trends-in-space-situational-awareness-ssa-and-space-traffic-management-stm/d-9074.ashx. Accessed: July, 2021.
 European Space Agency. Space debris by the numbers (2021). Online: https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Space_debris_by_the_numbers. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Wall, M. 2 big pieces of space junk could collide thursday night (2020). Online: https://www.space.com/possible-space-junk-collision-leolabs-oct-15-2020. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Wall, M. The odds of a NASA, US military satellite crash above Pittsburgh have gone up. (They’re still low.) (2020). Online: https://www.space.com/nasa-iras-ggse-4-satellites-collision-risk-update.html. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Wattles, J. Why we don’t know exactly what happened during a near-collision in space. (2020). Online: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/tech/space-junk-tracking-scn/index.html. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Rossi, A., Valsecchi, G. B. & Alessi, E. The criticality of spacecraft index. Advances in Space Research 56, 449–460 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.02.027.
 Letizia, F., Colombo, C., Lewis, H. G. & Krag, H. Assessment of breakup severity on operational satellites. Advances in Space Research 58, 1255–1274 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2016.05.036.
 McKnight, D. et al. Identifying the 50 statistically-most-concerning derelict objects in LEO. Acta Astronautica 181, 282–291 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.01.021.
 Lifson, M., Roberts, T. G., Arnas, D., Linares, R. & Wood, D. Comments of the Astrodynamics, Space Robotics, and Controls Laboratory (ARCLab) and Space Enabled Research Group. Tech. Rep. (2020). Online: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100968628105/FCC%20Orbital%20Debris%20FNPRM%20Comments%20ARCLabSpaceEnabled.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Rathnasabapathy, M. et al. Space sustainability rating: designing a composite indicator to incentivise satellite operators to pursue long-term sustainability of the space environment. 71st International Astronautical Congress (2020). Online: https://dam-prod.media.mit.edu/x/2020/10/14/IAC%202020%20Manuscript%20October.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 EPFL Space Center. eSpace to operate the Sustainable Space Rating by 2022 (2021). Online: https://espace.epfl.ch/2021/06/17/espace-to-operate-the-sustainable-space-rating-by-2022/. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities (2018). Online: www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2018/aac_1052018crp/aac_1052018crp_20_0_html/AC105_2018_CRP20E.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Technical report on space debris. Tech. Rep. (1999). Online: https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/un_report_on_space_debris99.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. U.S. government orbital debris mitigation standard practices, November 2019 Update. Tech. Rep. (2019). Online: https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/usg_orbital_debris_mitigation_standard_practices_
november_2019.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 NASA Office of Inspector General. NASA’S efforts to mitigate the risks posed by orbital debris. Tech. Rep. (2021). Online: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-011.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Maclay, T. & McKnight, D. Space environment management: Framing the objective and setting priorities for controlling orbital debris risk. Journal of Space Safety Engineering 8, 93–97 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2020.11.002.
 Shan, M., Guo, J. & Gill, E. Review and comparison of active space debris capturing and removal methods. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 80, 18–32 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.11.001.
 Liou, J.-C., Johnson, N. L. & Hill, N. Controlling the growth of future LEO debris populations with active debris removal. Acta Astronautica 66, 648–653 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.08.005.
 Redd, N. T. Bringing satellites back from the dead: mission extension vehicles give defunct spacecraft a new lease on life – [news]. IEEE Spectrum 57, 6–7 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2020.9150540.
 CONFERS. Astroscale (2019). Online: https://www.satelliteconfers.org/team/astroscale/. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Michael, J., Chudej, K., Gerdts, M. & Pannek, J. Optimal rendezvous path planning to an uncontrolled tumbling target. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 47, 347–352 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3182/20130902-5-DE-2040.00001.
 Aglietti, G. et al. The active space debris removal mission RemoveDebris. Part 2: in orbit operations. Acta Astronautica 168, 310–322 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.09.001.
 Mark, C. P. & Kamath, S. Review of active space debris removal methods. Space Policy 47, 194–206 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.12.005.
 Satellite Industry Association. 2020 state of the satellite industry report. Tech. Rep. (2020). Online: https://sia.org/newsresources/state-of-the-satellite-industry-report/. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Oz, B. S. Governing outer space as a global commons: examining tragedy in orbital medium. University of Cape Town (2020). Online: https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/29842. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Macauley, M. K. The economics of space debris: estimating the costs and benefits of debris mitigation. Acta Astronautica 115, 160–164 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.05.006.
 Rao, A., Burgess, M. G. & Kaffine, D. Orbital-use fees could more than quadruple the value of the space industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 12756–12762 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921260117.
 Baiocchi, D. & Welser, W. Confronting space debris: strategies and warnings from comparable examples including Deepwater Horizon (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2010).
 Salter, A. W. Space debris: a law and economics analysis of the orbital commons. Stanford Technology Law Review 19, 221–238 (2016). Online: https://law.stanford.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/19-2-2-salter-final_0.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Berger, E. NASA objects to new mega-constellation, citing risk of “catastrophic collision” (2020). Online: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/nasa-objects-to-new-megaconstellation-citing-risk-of-catastrophic-collison/. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Taylor, J. B. Tragedy of the space commons: a market mechanism solution to the space debris problem. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 50, 253–279 (2011). Online: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjtl50&div=9&id=&page=. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Hovi, J. & Holtzmark, B. Cap-and-trade or carbon taxes? The feasibility of enforcement and the effects of non-compliance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 6, 137–155 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-006-9002-6.
 Department of Commerce. Commerce Department releases new regulations to support U.S. leadership in commercial satellite remote sensing industry (2020). Online: https://www.space.commerce.gov/commerce-department-releases-new-regulations-to-support-u-s-leadership-in-commercial-satellite-remote-sensing-industry/. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Henry, C. FCC punts controversial space debris rules for extra study (2020). Online: https://spacenews.com/fcc-punts-controversial-space-debris-rules-for-extra-study/. Accessed: July, 2021.
 United States Congress Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Opening statement of Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Brian Babin (2020). Online: www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110487/documents/HHRG-116-SY16-MState-B001291-20200211.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Federal Aviation Administration. Liability risk-sharing regime for U.S. commercial space transportation: study and analysis. Tech. Rep. (2002). Online: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/faaliabilityrisksharing4-02.pdf. Accessed: July, 2021.
 Roberts, T. G. & Bullock, C. A sustainable geostationary space environment requires new norms of behavior. MIT Science Policy Review 1, 34–38 (2020). https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.kug3iij320.
 Rivière, A. Potential export control challenges and constraints for emerging space debris detection and removal technologies: the case of on-orbit collision. Advances in Astronautics Science and Technology 3, 105–114 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42423-020-00066-x.