Protecting our future in space
Sunday, 7 October 2007
David Wright and Laura Grego
THE 50th Anniversary this week of Sputnik I, the first satellite in space, provides an opportunity to look back at the stunning achievements of the space age, and speculate about the future.
To most Americans, the term "space age" conjures up the romance of the Apollo missions to the moon or probes to Mars and the outer reaches of the solar system. But what touches our lives daily is a bit less glamorous, but at least as important: the hundreds of satellites that orbit the planet. These satellites carry global communications and television broadcasts. They support international commerce, allowing nearly instantaneous, global financial transactions. They monitor the weather and the environment. They broadcast navigation signals to our cars. They provide a worldwide time standard. And they monitor suspect military activities and provide assurances that no one has launched a missile attack.
So, in looking forward, we need to figure out how to protect these space assets. And to do that, we must recognize that the space environment has changed dramatically since the Soviets launched a 2-foot-wide metal ball back in October 1957.
First, space is now multinational. For decades, the United States and Soviet Union dominated space, but today more than 50 countries own satellites or a share in one, and nine countries have successfully launched satellites. People in nearly every corner of the globe now depend on the services satellites provide.
As a result, space is getting crowded. Over the last five decades, the number of objects in space has increased dramatically. Today, more than 850 operating satellites and nearly 700,000 pieces of debris larger than a marble orbit the Earth. A collision with such a piece of debris could damage or destroy a satellite. Laws and "rules of the road" to guide operations in space, and controls on the production of space debris are increasingly necessary. Meanwhile, some resources are at a premium: Slots in the highly sought-after "geostationary band," the part of space where satellites can remain over a given point on Earth, are assigned by the International Telecommunications Union on a first-come, first-served basis. Many developing countries are concerned that slots won't be available when they are ready to use one.
Second, space is in danger of becoming weaponized. While space has long supported military forces through reconnaissance, navigation, and communication satellites, there currently are no weapons based in space. The Bush administration, however, has been pushing to develop weapons to deny other countries the use of space; these include space-based interceptors, which could be used to attack satellites. Meanwhile, China's successful test of an antisatellite weapon last January dramatically demonstrated that satellites are already at risk.
Left unchecked, the fear that controlling space may afford a decisive military advantage threatens to trigger a space arms race. That would divert economic and political resources from other pressing issues, and hinder international cooperation necessary to make progress on such problems as nuclear nonproliferation and terrorism. In addition, increasing reliance on satellites for crucial military functions could cause instability in a crisis. Military war games suggest that the loss of important satellites, such as reconnaissance satellites, could spark a quick escalation in a conflict.
Increased congestion and the threat of weaponization pose an important challenge: How do we continue to reap the benefits of space and avoid conflict? That requires a new model for space. Long over are the "Wild West" days when most viewed space as sparsely populated with little need for laws and rules, and so vast that no one was worried about degrading the environment. This new model must reflect our modern, interconnected world. It requires a legal framework to regulate space traffic, allocate limited resources equitably, and provide ways to resolve disputes. Particularly important are limits on potentially harmful or destabilizing technologies, such as a ban on testing and use of weapons that destroy satellites, and verification measures to instill confidence in and strengthen adherence to the regime.
Forty years ago this month, the Outer Space Treaty entered into force. The treaty bans stationing weapons of mass destruction in space and extends the UN Charter to cover space operations. It lays out the fundamental principles for governing space, which should be used to create a legal framework that addresses today's issues and technologies.
To do this, international negotiations are urgently needed. Some steps have been taken, but much more work is needed, especially on military issues.
Since 1994, a handful of countries, including the United States, has blocked efforts to begin international negotiations on space arms control. Given its long history in space, the United States, which owns more than half of the active satellites orbiting today, instead should be promoting negotiations to protect our future in space as well as security on Earth.
David Wright is the co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Laura Grego is a program staff scientist.
..............................................
Globe Newspaper Company
THE 50th Anniversary this week of Sputnik I, the first satellite in space, provides an opportunity to look back at the stunning achievements of the space age, and speculate about the future.
To most Americans, the term "space age" conjures up the romance of the Apollo missions to the moon or probes to Mars and the outer reaches of the solar system. But what touches our lives daily is a bit less glamorous, but at least as important: the hundreds of satellites that orbit the planet. These satellites carry global communications and television broadcasts. They support international commerce, allowing nearly instantaneous, global financial transactions. They monitor the weather and the environment. They broadcast navigation signals to our cars. They provide a worldwide time standard. And they monitor suspect military activities and provide assurances that no one has launched a missile attack.
So, in looking forward, we need to figure out how to protect these space assets. And to do that, we must recognize that the space environment has changed dramatically since the Soviets launched a 2-foot-wide metal ball back in October 1957.
First, space is now multinational. For decades, the United States and Soviet Union dominated space, but today more than 50 countries own satellites or a share in one, and nine countries have successfully launched satellites. People in nearly every corner of the globe now depend on the services satellites provide.
As a result, space is getting crowded. Over the last five decades, the number of objects in space has increased dramatically. Today, more than 850 operating satellites and nearly 700,000 pieces of debris larger than a marble orbit the Earth. A collision with such a piece of debris could damage or destroy a satellite. Laws and "rules of the road" to guide operations in space, and controls on the production of space debris are increasingly necessary. Meanwhile, some resources are at a premium: Slots in the highly sought-after "geostationary band," the part of space where satellites can remain over a given point on Earth, are assigned by the International Telecommunications Union on a first-come, first-served basis. Many developing countries are concerned that slots won't be available when they are ready to use one.
Second, space is in danger of becoming weaponized. While space has long supported military forces through reconnaissance, navigation, and communication satellites, there currently are no weapons based in space. The Bush administration, however, has been pushing to develop weapons to deny other countries the use of space; these include space-based interceptors, which could be used to attack satellites. Meanwhile, China's successful test of an antisatellite weapon last January dramatically demonstrated that satellites are already at risk.
Left unchecked, the fear that controlling space may afford a decisive military advantage threatens to trigger a space arms race. That would divert economic and political resources from other pressing issues, and hinder international cooperation necessary to make progress on such problems as nuclear nonproliferation and terrorism. In addition, increasing reliance on satellites for crucial military functions could cause instability in a crisis. Military war games suggest that the loss of important satellites, such as reconnaissance satellites, could spark a quick escalation in a conflict.
Increased congestion and the threat of weaponization pose an important challenge: How do we continue to reap the benefits of space and avoid conflict? That requires a new model for space. Long over are the "Wild West" days when most viewed space as sparsely populated with little need for laws and rules, and so vast that no one was worried about degrading the environment. This new model must reflect our modern, interconnected world. It requires a legal framework to regulate space traffic, allocate limited resources equitably, and provide ways to resolve disputes. Particularly important are limits on potentially harmful or destabilizing technologies, such as a ban on testing and use of weapons that destroy satellites, and verification measures to instill confidence in and strengthen adherence to the regime.
Forty years ago this month, the Outer Space Treaty entered into force. The treaty bans stationing weapons of mass destruction in space and extends the UN Charter to cover space operations. It lays out the fundamental principles for governing space, which should be used to create a legal framework that addresses today's issues and technologies.
To do this, international negotiations are urgently needed. Some steps have been taken, but much more work is needed, especially on military issues.
Since 1994, a handful of countries, including the United States, has blocked efforts to begin international negotiations on space arms control. Given its long history in space, the United States, which owns more than half of the active satellites orbiting today, instead should be promoting negotiations to protect our future in space as well as security on Earth.
David Wright is the co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Laura Grego is a program staff scientist.
..............................................
Globe Newspaper Company