CC BY
45
Сеюцш 6
ДИНАМИКА ЛЕТАТЕЛЬНЫХ АППАРАТОВ. ТРАНСПОРТНЫЕ И КОСМИЧЕСКИЕ СИСТЕМЫ
UDC 621.592
Mr. Matteo Emanuelli* e-mail:[email protected]
Ms. Tiffany Chow* e-mail: [email protected]
Mr. De\>a Prasad'*, e-mail: devaprasadm@gmaiL com
Ms. GiuliaFederico* e-mail: [email protected]
Mr. Joshua Loughman * e-mail: [email protected]
•Space Generation Advisory Cum in 1 (SGAC)
CONCEPTUALIZING AN ECONOMICALLY, LEGALLY AND POLITIC ALLY VIABLE ACTIVE DEBRIS REMOVAL OPTION
It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the issue of space debris, particularly in low-Earth orbit can no longer be ignored or simply mitigated. Orbital debris currently threatens safe spaceflight for both satellites and humans aboard the International Space Station. Additionally, orbital debris might impact Earth upon re-entry, endangering human lives and damaging the environment with toxic materials. In sum. orbital debris seriously jeopardizes the iuture not only of human presence in space, but also of human safety on Earth. While international efforts to mitigate the current situation and limit the creation of new debris are useful, recent studies predicting debris evolution have indicated that these will not be enough to ensure humanity's access to and use of the near-Earth environment in the long-tenn. Rather, active debris removal (ADR.) must be pursued if we are to continue benefiting from and conducting space activities. While the concept of ADR i.s not new. it has not yet been implemented. This is not just because of the technical feasibility of such a .scheme, but also because of the host of economic, legal/regulatory, and political issues associated with debris remediation. The costs of ADR are not insignificant and. in today's restrictive fiscal climate, are unlikely/ to be covered by any single actor. Similarly. ADR concepts bring up many unresolved questions about liability the protection of proprietary information safety, and standards. In addition because of the dual use nature of ADR technologies, any venture will necessarily require political considerations. Despite the many unanswered questions surrounding ADR. it is an endeavour worth pursuing if we are to continue relying on space activities for a variety of critical daily needs and services. Moreover, we can't ignore the environmental implications that an unsustainable use of space will imply for life on Earth in the long run This paper aims to explore some of these challenges and propose an economically, politically, and legally viable ADR option. Much like waste management on Earth, cleaning up space junk will likely lie somewhere between a public good and a private sector service. An international, cooperative, public-private partnership concept can address many of these issues and be economically sustainable, while also driving the creation of a proper set of regulations, standards and best practices.
Keywords ADR, space debris, policy, scorecard
I. INTRODUCTION
Tins paper will explore briefly the non-technical challenges associated with fielding ail ADR concept, propose a method of evaluating a concept for feasibility against a few non-technical criteria, and then apply this method to one case study, the Swiss Space Centers CleanSpaceOne project. Hie paper will begin with some background information on the current debris situation in high-use orbits and several of the currently proposed ADR concepts. It will then give a brief overview of the economic, political, and legal challenges associated with ADR and then propose some criteria for evaluating our case study. The intent behind this paper is to identify what elements would be necessary for an ADR concept to be considered economically, legally, and politically viable; thus addressing those non-technical hurdles satisfactorily. It the authors"1 hope that tins contributes to the ongoing discussion about ADR and helps advance the likelihood of debris remediation in the near future.
II. BACKGROUND
In over half a century of space activities, more than 4800 launches have placed some 6000 satellites into orbit, of which less than a thousand are still operational today. The U.S. Space Surveillance Network regularly tracks and maintains in its catalogue an estimated 15000 items in orbit, but tins only includes objects larger than approximately five to ten centimetres in low Earth orbit (LEO) and 30 cm to 1 meter at geostationary altitudes (GEO). Only 6% of their catalogued orbital population represent operational satellites, while 38% can be attributed to decommissioned satellites, spent upper stages and mission-related objects (launch adaptors, lens covers, etc.). Hie re-mammg 56% originates from more than 200 in-orbit fragmentations, which have been recorded since 1961. Except for a few collisions (less than ten accidental and intentional events), the majority of the 200 break-ups were explosions of spacecraft and upper stages - typically due to leftover fuel, material fatigue or pressure increase in batteries [1].
Several studies have already assessed the current state and future evolution of orbital regions showing the increase in space debris threats coming from existing debris and future launches, hi 2002. the Inter-agency Space Debns Committee (IADC) developed a senes of mitigation guidelines that were adapted for the 2007 Umted Nations (UN) resolution [2]. These guidelmes. although important, only address active satellites currently hi orbit and future launches. Despite the serious threat posed by existing orbital debns. which regularly endanger active operational satellite [3] and manned operations [4], they were not addressed by these international initiatives
About 89% of the roughly 1000 operational satellites currently in orbit are either hi LEO (300-2000 km altitude) or GEO (-36000 km altitude) [5]. hi LEO. satellites and orbital debris are quite widely scattered hi terms of altitude, inclination and ascending node. This, in combination with the fact that orbital speeds are considerably higher than in the GEO case, makes both the amount of crossings and the relative velocities of the bodies dumig these crossings very high oil average The wide and random distribution of objects in LEO also implies that a system of graveyard orbits is not possible like it is in GEO Another critical issue is that ISS operations are performed at low7 LEO altitudes, makmg it essential that the nsk of collision is minimized to the greatest possible extent in this area for safety of human spaceflight. On the other hand, objects in LEO experience a certain amount of atmospheric drag causing them to gradually spiral down towards Earth, a process of which the duration depends on the object's altitude, area-to-mass ratio and solar activity*. Unlike the LEO case, the majority* of satellites at GEO altitudes are located in a confined ring in which geosynclnonous motion is possible. Due to the higher altitude, and thus distance from Earth, detection of objects in GEO is limited to those larger than ~1 meter Furthermore, debris in GEO will orbit the Earth for many centimes, as the stabilizing effect of atmospheric drag is absent. However, because the semi-major axis and thus the circumferential area of geosynchronous orbits is so large, spatial densities in the GEO band are still two or three orders of magnitude lower than in the most crowded regions of the LEO region [6]. In addition, because of the uniform motion of all objects and their high altitude, relative velocities are substantially lower than in the LEO region, leading to less severe collisions. Finally, it should be noted that after then mission lifetime, GEO satellites can be injected into a quasi-noil-decaying graveyard orbit reducing the hazard for other and future missions.
Therefore, threats from orbital debris are greater in the LEO region due to a combination of high debns concentration, large number of crossings and lugh relative velocities [7]. Hie combination of these factors may lead to an exponential growth of debris objects by future cascade of collision [6] as outlined ni Fig. 1
Hie cascade effect, or Kessler syndrome [8] is based on the fact that ever}* intact satellite or other large body, has the potential to fragment into numerous smaller pieces due to a collision with a debris object or other active spacecraft. Many resulting fragments will then, in turn, pose a certain nsk for the catastrophic destruction of another large orbital body, and so on. Once a certain debns density* has been reached, tins effect causes the debris population to continue growing, even w ithout the launch of new objects.
S 2000
......
— — Total —Meets 4 mission related debris ^Екрккюл fragments -Collision РглдтапЕ:-
г
/ Л" ,. г
и г V. —^ s г-" - " 1
У -гч- /
1Ч6И пито isao 2010 203U 2u» hjjo 2W0 211« гпэо 21S0 21 !о 2i«j 22тг>
vest
Fig. 1. Funire model of amount of large debris objects in the LEO region, ba wd 011a "lio-launclies after 2006" scenario [9]
Space debus in LEO can be divided into three categories in terms of size, potential risks and possibility of detection.
Table 1
Space debris according to a generally accepted categorization [f |
с ; _ . Potential Detec- Num- Mass
aize Risk tion ber fraction
>10пи Complete Tracked 21000 >95%
destruction
1-10сш Partial/total Partially 500000 <5%
destruction tracked
<10сш Damage, can Not >100
be shielded tracked. million
statically
assessed
A11 important fact is that although the number of debus objects is many times higher for the small-sized debus, nearly all the mass of the LEO debris is concentrated in the large objects. In the long term, the large >10 cm objects pose a greater risk. Their significant mass means that they could create large clouds of new. smaller, high-speed debris should they' even be involved in a collision, thus addmg substantially to the problem. Moreover, although the number of collisions between an intact object and a fragment have higher probability then impacts between two mtact objects, since the latter contains more mass in the process, the result in tenns of contnbution to the future debns population is almost the same. Therefore, an effective and technologically feasible method for ADR should focus on intact objects that also have the advantage of a known size, mass and shape.
A study performed by NASA, using then LEGEND debris evolutionary model, investigated the future of the LEO environment considering compliance with UN guidelines and a repetition of the 1999-2006 launch cycle, which is an underestimation of the future situation according to mane recent forecasts [10]. Hie scenario was completed with the assumption of an ongoing space debns removal program beginning in 2020. According to the cases analysed, illustrated m Fig. 2, five large objects would need to be removed per year to stabilize the LEO debns enviromnent. The necessity of an efficient ADR program is highlighted by these results.
20000
1EOOO
?
u 0 16000
■
ft
14000
U
O £ 12000
a
"E 10000
L_
O JZ3 6 000
E
3 6 000
a
>
Vj 4 000
a
St LU 2000
0
PMD PMD + ADR 02
_ _
PMD + AD =105 #1 m "» * 1 0* If
r
J
i
/
1050 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 21 30 2150 2170 2190 2210
Year
Fig. 2. Comparison of three different .scenarios. From top to bottom: post mission disposal (PMD) according [2] (removal within 25 years), PMD and Autonomous Debris Removal (ADR) of two objects per year, and PMD and ADR of five objects per year
in. REVIEW OF XON-TECHNCIAL CHALLENGES in.I Legal and Political Challenges
Since the seventies scientist opposed the idea that space could be exploited without lnnits. Nowadays; space debris seriously threatens sustainable use of space, as it is considered to become a major navigational hazard to functioning (operating) satellites. The cascade effect previously explained has increased the number of warnings and collision avoidance manoeuvres. Furthermore, space debris can also endanger life on earth, since pieces of space junk can survive re-entry into the atmosphere and fall on Earth where they could cause injury or death, not to mention damages to property' and environment. Although there are different sources of space debris (break up of spacecraft and rocket bodies, mission related debris, and non-functional satellites), there is no internationally recognized definition about what is and what is not space debris.
US, Europe and Russia, are tacking actions to monitor debris, but the only country that has formulated a strategy' in this regard is the US [11] so far. However, just monitoring together with mitigation are passive means to face the debris situation. Hie passive solutions should be combined with an active removal of debus, which is currently not incentivized byr the unclear definition of debns and the complicated liability and licensing regulations that expose contingent public and private efforts to high nsk.
Hie international space law framework is not even in a position to effectively deal with issue of space debris creation and mitigation [12]. Moreover, space debns are not even mentioned in the Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States 111 the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, mcludmg the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty), entered in force in 1967, which provides for protection of space environment
The lack of definition make impossible to recognize which objects can be removed. However even if we were able to make such a distinction, removal would have been complicated due to international regulations that apply to space objects. Art EI of the Convention on International Liability' for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention), ratified in 1972, establishes that, "In the event of damage being caused elsewhere than 011 the surface of the earth to a space object of one launching State or to per sons or property on board such a space object by a space
object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or thefault ofpersons far whom it is responsible. " [13]
Further analysis of the Liability Convention also helps to understand that there is no legal provision, which imposes any clear obligation upon the states to prevent the space debns creation 01 to undertake the mitigation measures. However the consequences of liability are mitigated since whenever a similar situation occur states generally go hi to negotiations and compensation payments to avoid fully liability-. Article Ш of Liability Convection together with article VII of Outer Space Treaty- declaring that "Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, " [14] establish a regulatory framework that does not facilitate debris removal, since each debris should be identified and its removal negotiates with the launching state that is the only one that had junsdiction and control over that object. Hiere is a possibility that the launching state abandon the space object, determining the fact that this latter could be removed without permission, and however the launching state remains liable for the space object and damages caused by it.
Considering the number of debns such practice is not doable, especially hi the commercial framework, which is becoming important in space activities. Some object may serve important or secret purposes or might be subject of US International Traffic in Anns Regulations (TTARs) or similar. ITARs ш particular establish that spacecraft and 1 elated cannot be transferred to any foreign person (company' or state) w ithout pnor approval of US State Department. It applies if the object is American or canies Amencan technologies. In practice smce very few objects do not belongs to tins category ITARs free objects are a limited number.
Hiis is not the only reason why there are no flourisliing activities of ADR. If dunng ADR attempt any damage is caused to a third party the launcliing state of the company carrying out the ADR will be held liable and be required to pay a compensation to claimant state. This remiburse-ment is a condition of the license issued to private companies. ADR are nsky because of the crowded environment and lack of space situational awareness as well as traffic management capabilities, therefore such close on the license is highly discouraging. The present international space law conventions and instruments fail m creatmg a legal regime for ADR and even the relatively new Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines fails in clearly providing for a legal regime, which would impose responsibility upon the states to undertake responsibility for creation of space debris [15]
According to the above considerations, in order to foster active debns removal the international community would need to take at least a senes of actions as follow ing:
- Agreed on a shared definition of Space debris in order to enable space farers actors to proceed with the development of practices and technology needed to do ADR.
- Definition of a pro-active legal regime to envisage a public private partnership method of responsibility sharing.
- Develop greater technical capability* in order to perform ADR.
- Develop more accurate monitoring capabilities in order to classify and share information about space debris develop transparency and confidence building measures in this regard establish an organization to track and store data about orbital debris.
- Develop a more efficient traffic management system that w ill make the operation of ADR less risk}r and thus reduce licensing costs.
in n Economical Challenges
Hie goal of this section is to identify what commercial and economic considerations there are when analysing trades for active debiis removal options.
There are two sides to this type of trade. The first is the cost of an ADR architecture. Hie second is the value the activity1 provides that can be recovered in some manner. This second aspect of the problem must, in part, be addressed by policy approaches and there are many different frameworks that this could be accomplished 111 Examples of these frameworks include an international tax or license on launch operations, hi such example, the proceeds would then be used by the taxing authority to purchase ADR services from a commercial provider Alternatively, if the owner of certain debris that needed to be removed was identified the owner would pay a fee to have it removed. Another option could involves those assets in potential hazardous areas that could pay a tax on that :real estate1 to pay for commercial ADR services or they could pay directlyr given a particular threat
After the who should pay' the bill" is defined, the 'how much' must be addressed. Given the particular payer framew ork, to assess the value it is important to know how much the stakeholders value the activity. Depending on the cost of the activity', which would be traded against several possible "targets' with several alternatives, the cost and v alue determination could be made. If the cost of the activity is less than the value proposition and less than the cost of the alternatives, the activity should be pursued and the stakeholders would use tlieir payer structure to procure the service. The value of removing debus can be established by determining the risk that debus would otherwise have to nearby space assets The manner in which a value proposition can be established depends on several factors including who the stakeholders are, the time horizon used and how one treats risk. Tins value proposition determination must take into consideration collisional ride due to debris and its potential growth (both catastropliic risk and simply mission-limiting risk), hi addition it need to consider the time-discounted value of the space assets at risk (both present and future assets), and filially the cost of reducing that risk at different points (i.e. costs of removing debris early while still potentially intact 01 after a collision or break-up event when the debris is more dispersed). This risk can then be applied not just to assets that are immediate risk of a collision but also at a less-likelv and more time-discounted, but potentially still non-zero risk, of future collision with a secondary effect.
One of the principal barriers to ADR is the development of the applicable technology and a consistent ADR technology' roadmap. To convince stakeholders on the service offered, it should be considered also the possibility1 of a build it first" demonstrator. A demonstrator mission, either privately funded or supported by government defence or space agency, would solve some of the technical issues, setting a baseline mission cost and resolving some of the operational issues. Once the demonstrator has proven the concept, not only the future application would become more real disclosing the technology development costs but also appropriate frameworks will be established making commercialization more likely. National space agencies have followed this approach of covering the developmental costs and by domg so estabhshmg many of the procedures and policies that can then be applied by economic forces, in different fields (telecommunications satellites, launchers, space station and in the far future maybe space mining)
One of the compelling reasons for having a public element in debiis policy could be to establish longer time horizons for debris-related risk discounting as this might see past a potential cascading fiiture and have the time to act appropriately before that nsk is realized.
Assuming that there the legal 01 policy concerns are resolved and won't mipede commercial constraints on ADR then the primary commercial objectives of a conceptualized ADR option are: a. Clearly identified value proposition for clearly defined stakeholders b Modelling of risk to multiple assets over a discounted tune horizon c Identification of alternatives and trade study of those options
IV. ASSESSING ADR SYSTEMS
The above considerations have brought the authors to start developing an objective method to multidisciplmary assess ADR projects, ш order to identify potential successful candidate but also to suggest a path to follow.
ГУ1 Scorecard Method
The scorecard method is a strategy performance tool that is used to keep track of criteria considered important of the performance of the system, hi this case, the scorecard method define a methodology to assess ADR projects, according to specific ciitena. The method is ultimately about choosing measures and weight. The criteria are summarized as indicators tliat measure the weight of the criteria itself against the others. All the criteria identified are presented with value. The method takes especially into account the legal and policy framework but also consideniig the technical and economic criteria to discern among different kmd of projects and it must be considered a first proposal to be developed further with addition of new indicators.
ГУ! Scorecard Method for ADR projects
The scorecard assigns for each framework 9 pomts which are the measures of the project's effectiveness in the specific field. Therefore. 9 pomts are given to Legal Framework (LF), Policy Framework (PF). Technical Framework (TF) and Economical Framework (EF). hi this framework, the single criteria are evaluated and they would have a certain value, obviously less than the total for the framework. The criteria and the framework will be organized in a scheme, representing all the possible solution considered for an ADR mission. Hie scheme will also offer the "perfect" line, following which, it w ill be possible to see all the cnteiia needed to acquire the best score. The score represent an assessment of the feasibility of the projects, considering all together the frameworks involved hi a typical ADR mission The scorecard method does not want to provide a complete and organic description of the ADR project assessed, but it can provide a simple and easy-to-use indicator to determine the overall value of the ADR projects analysed.
ГУД Policy and Legal Framework
The PF and the LF are considered together, giving the close connection between the two frameworks. Five cnteiia have been с ho sen reflecting the influence of current laws, strategy, countries involved, composition of the project and danger represented by a possible military use of the technology used for debris removal.
a. Nationality
b. Strategy
c. Type of Cooperation
d. Legal Framework
e. Possibility of Weaponize
Nationality
The nationality of the project is rather miportant, because it involves many aspects to take into account when dealing with space, in general. The nationality influences not only the technology that can be used and the economic resources available, but also, in the current legal framework of mtemational space law, the objects that can be deorbited.
Table 2.
Summary of the storecard value given for the Nationality criteria.
Project National International
US 1 3
Russia 1 3
Europe 0 1
China 0 1
Japan 0 1
Others 0 1
Given their resources and the legal framework, a project solely earned out by initiatives m US or Russia would give a minmium score, due to the reasons above mentioned. International projects would instead liave a higher score. Hie score has been decided in relation at the "nationality" of the orbiting debris in LEO. The number of Russian-American debris is many tunes higher than the other countries together; therefore, their score is higher
Strategy
Higher value is given if a project is within an elaborated strategy' to tackle the space debris problem provided by agencies or other kind organizations. The strategy would guarantee appropriate involvement and commitment to face the challenged posed at legal, technical and economic level.
Type of cooperation
Hie cooperation criteria wants to empliasize the importance of cooperation in debris removal projects. Therefore, in the frame of international project, a higher score will be given to multilateral cooperation while bilateral cooperation w ill not acquire any score because of the cooperation itself. Having a large number of participants, is not only* important to decrease the overall cost of development and operation, but also influences the object that can be deorbited.
Legal framework
Hie possibility that the method used for ADR could be easily implemented within the existing institutional and legal framework of international space law. Active removal of debris is currently not incentivized by the unclear definition of debris and the complicated liability and licensing regulations tliat expose contingent public and private efforts to high risk. The realization of the condition of definition, liability1 and licensing provide the projects with a certain framework within an ADR mission can be, according to the case, more or less effective.
Weapomze
Probability nf military or non-peacefi.il use of outer space due to the method used for ADR leading to violation of Outer Space Treaty and international space law framework.
Table 3.
Summary of the scorecard value given for the remaining criteria
Strategy Elaborated Strategy (1) No Strategy (1)
Type of Bilateral (0) Multi cooperation (1)
Coopera-
tion
LF Within current LF Creation of new LF No LF (0)
Liability (6) Licensing (5) Liability (4) Licensing (3)
Weapomze Yes (-6) No (0)
rVTTT Technical Framework
Technology Readiness Level
Technology' Readiness Level (TRL) is a measure used to assess the maturity of evolving technologies (devices, materials, components, software, work processes, etc.). When a new teclmol-ogy is first invented or conceptúalized. it is not suitable for immediate application. Instead, new7 technologies are usually subjected to experimentation refinement, and increasingly realistic testing. Once the teclmology is sufficiently proven, it can be incorporated into a system/subsystem. Instruments and spacecraft sub-systems are on a scale of L to 9. Levels 1 to 4 relate to creative and limo-vative technologies before or during the mission assessment phase. Levels 5 to 9 relate to existing technologies and to missions in definition phase. When the TRL is too low, then it must be taken mto account possible delays or cost over-runs [16].
IV.IV Economic Framework
Although different considerations have been discussed in the previous sections about the economic and commercial challenges, in this first phase of the study, it was decided to focus on just three initial criteria. In the next phase, a broader and detailed analysis of everything involved will consider different aspects of the economic ñame work.
Definition of the busmess
Just public or private initiatives, for the above considerations are not enough to completely tackle the issue. Therefore, a public prívate partnership is the preferred solution to deal with ADR projects. The scorecard values considered reproduce this consideration: Public (1), Private (I), Public-private partnership (2).
Estimated Cost per Mission
The estimated cost per mission (ECM) is a measure of the total cost of the mission, not including the development phase.
Table 4.
Scorecard rallies for the Estimated Cost per Mission criteria
ECM [million $] Score
ECM > 300 0
200 < ECM < 300 1
100 < ECM <200 2
50 < ECM < L00 3
ECM < 50 4
Estimated cost per kg de orbited
The estimated cost per kg deofbited (ECD) is a measure of the cost hi relation to the mission^ capability. ADR projects are sometimes accused to be not efficient. ECD w ill define the cost-effectiveness for the analyzed missions
Table 5.
Scorecard values for the Estimated Cost per kg deorbited criteria
ECD [thousand Î] re Sco
ECD > 50 0
40 < ECD < 50 1
20 < ECD < 40 2
ECD < 20 3
V. CASE STUDY
A case study is needed to test the method and verify the criteria proposed.
V.I CleanSpace One fl7l
As case study for in this paper, it has been chosen the Swiss Space Center's CleanSpace One project. Hie project is intended to demonstrate technologies for future debris removal missions of small satellites and it should lead to an ADR satellite in 2015-2016. Hie first CleanSpace (Due prototype has been planned to deorbit one of two 11011-functioning Swiss satellites. Once launched. CleanSpace One will have to match the target satellite's orbital plane of 630-750 kilometres above sea level. In order to do so. it will have to adjust its trajectory, using an ultra-compact electrical motor, still in development Hien. it will have to grasp it with a grabbing mechanism still in development and stabilize it while moving at 28,000 km/h. Once CleanSpace One has captured its target, the two of them will head out of orbit and towards the earth, where they will both bum up in the atmosphere as shown in fig. 3. A line of CleanSpace-mspned satellites is planned for the future, each one capable of capturing and destroying a different type of satellite
Fig. 3. A C lean Space One info graphics [17]
V.n Clean Space One's assessment
Clean space is a project elaborated by the Swiss Space Center. Hie Swiss Space Centei is a unit attached to the Vice-Presidency for Academic Affairs of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. It has however very close links to the School of Engineering ("Sciences et Techniques de l'Ingénieur") for educational purposes. Its members are industries and academic institutions. This institution is riot properly part of the government despite the fact that it is supported by the national ministry of education However it is not included in the decision making process of the country*. The membership is not limited to Swiss industries or universities, nonetheless, participation is mostly from Switzerland based companies.
Hie effort made by the numerous universities and the nineteen members of the centre has produced the results that the centre has stalled a programme for the development of technologies for narK>satellites which should remove debris m orbit around the earth. Within this framework the project Clean Space One has find his reason d'être. Clean Space One went public on February 15, 2012, to demonstrate rendezvous and capture technologies and operations. However the paper provided by the EFPL, in June 2013, does not give a clear definition of what kind of debus the project is targeting, outside of the size of it, neither it explain how the project would overcome security issues regarding sensitive technology.
Swiss Foreign-Policy Strategy 2012-2015 is based on the following fundamental principle, i.e., the rule of law, universality, and neutrality. It furthermore adds the notions of solidarity and responsibility. Stability in the rest of the world will constitute a third priority, nnplemented by way of international cooperation (development cooperation, cooperation with Eastern Europe, and humanitarian aid), along with activities in the domain of peace-promotion, respect for human rights, and fostering the rule of law. For these reasons, although Sw itzerland is not a spacefairing country, it looks lite it could be a suitable country to start active debris removal initiatives, which deal with security and complicated legal issues.
However, the scorecard result is poor (7 out of 36 points available), mainly because of the lack of cooperation with countries w ith a more significant presence in space and the fact that, currently, the project is aimed just to nano satellite.
VI. CONCLUSION
Hus paper has explored what an economically, politically, and legally viable active debiis removal concept. It has proposed a method of evaluation based on a scorecard with criteria in each of these non-technical areas and applied it to a case study. Future works will consider a more detailed analysis of the economic factors to justify ADR missions, m particular it will be analysed the cost of ADR versus other practices commonly used to avoid collisions (collision avoidance manoeuvres, nun-optimal choice of orbit, accurate tracking of debns, heavier structure to resist impacts etc.). hi addition, the scorecard method will be expanded and new case studies will be considered.
References:
1 European Space Agency, "Space Debns," 2009. [Online]. Available: http ://www_ esa_ mt/Ab outUs/ESAPub 11 c attons/E SAB R-274_i_Spac eDebnsi
2. United Nation Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space, "Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines," 2007.
3. European Commission, "Avoiding damage from space debris - space surveillance and tracking proposal," 28 February 2013. [Online], Available: http: //euro pi eu/rapid/pre ss releaseMEMO-13-149_eii.htm.
4. Amos, J. International Space Station in debris scar, 2011. [Online]. Available: http //www bbc.co uk'newsscience-environment-13949956.
5. Weeden, B. Hie Current Space Debiis Situation, in Space Debris Mitigation Workshop. Beijing, 2010.
6 Kessler, D. Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: Hie Creation of a Debiis Belt, Advances in Space Research. -1991- Vol 11. - P. 1263-1266.
7 Liou, J. C. Characterization of the cataloged Fengyun-lC fragments and then long-term effect on the LEO environment / J. C. Liou, N. L. Johnson // Advances in Space Research, 2009. -Vol 43 -P 1407-1415.
8. D. Kessler and B G. Com-Palais, "Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: Hie Creation of a Debris Belt," Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. S3, pp. 2637- 2646. 1978.
9 J. Liou , "An Assessment of the Current LEO Debns Environment and the Need for Active Debns Removal," in ISTC Space Debris Mitigation Workshop, Moscow, 2010.
11. US Department of Defence, '""National Secunty Space Strategy: Unclassified Summary." 2011. [Online]. Available: http ://www_ defense, gov/home/features/2 011/011 lnsss/docs/ NationalSecimtySpaceSteategyUnclassifiedSummary Jan 201 l.pdff.
12. P. L Meredith, Legal Implementation Of Orbital Debns Mitigation Measures: A Survey Of Options And Approaches," U. J. INT'L L. &POL'Y, no. 6, pp. 203,205, 1991.
13. United Nations, "Article in. The Convention oil International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Resolution 2777," 1972.
1S6
14. United Nations, ' Article VII of the Treaty on Pimciples Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," 1967.
15. S. Hobe and J. Helge, "UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines," ZL W, no. 58, pp. 388, 394, 2009.
16. European Space Agency, "Technology Readiness Level," 2013. [Onlnie]. Available: http: 7sei esa. rnt ■ sre-ft/3 771O-strategic -le adine ss-level.
17. Richard, M.. Charrnot B., Ivanov, A., Gass V. and Nicoliier, C. "CleanSpace One Project,5' 2012.
