1967 Outer Space Treaty

International Effort to Set Rules of Behavior in Space

March 10, 2021
ExoNews Editor

Article by Sandra Erwin February 24, 2021 (spacenews.com)

• The commander of the US Space Command, Major General DeAnna Burt (pictured above) says that international momentum is building for the adoption of a binding set of rules to make space safer and sustainable. A December 2020 UN resolution proposed by the UK will focus on a set of rules curtailing irresponsible or potentially threatening activities in space, and on reducing the risks of misunderstandings and miscalculations. The United States and allies including Canada, France, Germany Australia and New Zealand are now drafting language for the rules and the US Space Command is taking a central role. The UN has asked countries to submit input by May 3rd.

• This effort comes amid growing alarm about Russia’s anti-satellite weapon tests and concerns that the proliferation of satellites and debris is rapidly cluttering Earth orbit. US Space Command has grown especially mistrustful of Russia following recent tests of weapons that could be used to target satellites in low Earth orbit. In 2020 Russia tested two direct-ascent weapons. It also tested a co-orbital system that the United States claims was aimed at a US intelligence satellite.

• The 1967 Outer Space Treaty remains the basis for international space law but experts say the treaty has become outdated. For example, it bans the use of weapons of mass destruction in space but countries now deploy dual-use spacecraft that can be used for peaceful and military purposes.

• For decades there have been calls for the UN and other organizations to figure out a way to deter these types of activities and move forward as more nations engage in space operations. “[W]e want to see something that is binding. …The problem with previous UN resolutions is that they were non-binding”, said Burt. “We’re going to prepare what we believe will be proposal language that will go to the UN and hopefully result in a binding resolution,” she said. “[I]t’s going to be something we can all agree to.”

• It’s not just the U.S. and allied governments that care about this, said Burt. Private satellite owners and operators from many nations “have a vested interest in keeping the domain safe, sustainable and free for all to use,” says Burt. “There’s been a lot of (global) exploration over hundreds of years and we’ve established norms that become laws about the rules of the sea” under a long-standing maritime domain model. “How we operate in the space domain needs very similar kinds of customs and processes.” Any agreement has to clearly define what constitutes threatening, hostile or irresponsible behavior, Burt said. Based on that, a nation could decide if a particular action in space constitutes an act of war or if it can be handled through diplomatic or economic sanctions.

• Over the past decade, China and Russia have floated treaty proposals to ban weapons in space, but the United States has rejected them as unacceptable. The U.S. is not calling for a ban on specific weapons, Burt said. “The Chinese and the Russians have already put weapons in space. So I think we’re way past having a conversation about regulating them per se, which is why we focus on norms of behavior.” With regard to anti-satellite weapons, “I don’t think you can you can put that genie back in the bottle.”

• With more nations now involved in space, there are concerns beyond the use of weapons, such as safety of flight so that satellites do not collide with each other, said Burt, who spent 28 years in the U.S. Air Force operating satellites. Safety concerns will only grow as more humans start going to space, she added. Any international agreement also should hold accountable actors who create long-term debris. “That is something that we see is one of the biggest concerns,” she said. “We need to define what is long-term debris but a clear example is China’s 2007 anti-satellite test. We are still tracking debris from 2007.”

• Awareness of what other countries are doing will help attribute actions, said Burt. In instances when someone threatens a U.S. satellite, ideally “we want to show a picture … and share that on the national news” the same way the Air Force shows videos of aerial bombing campaigns. Most U.S. intelligence about the space domain is classified, however. Burt said U.S. Space Command leaders are working with the intelligence community to “declassify things we need to talk about to the American people.”

WASHINGTON — The United States and allies are drafting language in support of an international effort to adopt rules of behavior in space, U.S. Space Command’s Maj. Gen. DeAnna Burt told SpaceNews.

Burt is the commander of U.S. Space Command’s combined force space component at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. She said international momentum is building for the adoption of a binding set of rules to make space safer and sustainable.

U.S. Space Command is taking a central role in this effort amid growing alarm about Russia’s anti-satellite weapon tests and concerns that the proliferation of satellites and debris is rapidly cluttering Earth orbit.

Burt said a team of Defense and State Department officials is drafting language on the U.S. position on a resolution approved in December by the United Nations General Assembly which calls for “norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviors” in space. The UN has asked countries to submit input by May 3 for inclusion in a report to be reviewed by the UN General Assembly this summer.

The problem with previous UN resolutions is that they were non binding, said Burt. “We’re going to prepare what we believe will be proposal language that will go to the UN and hopefully result in a binding resolution,” she said. “There’s a lot of good work happening on the international stage.”

For decades there have been calls for the UN and other organizations to figure out a way forward as more nations engage in space operations. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty remains the basis for international space law but experts say the treaty has become outdated. For example, it bans the use of weapons of mass destruction in space but countries now deploy dual-use spacecraft that can be used for peaceful and military purposes.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

UK Proposes the Creation of a Space Command

January 18, 2021
ExoNews Editor

Article by Nicholas Puschman January 5, 2021 (lexology.com)

• Since the 1967 Outer Space Treaty established the international legal framework for space activities, space has become recognized as a potential domain of warfare. Satellites are increasingly viewed as essential components of critical communications for military and defense purposes, and space-faring countries have made clear the importance of space and space technology to their current and future defense posture.

• In 2019, space was recognized by NATO as the latest operational domain (along with air, land, sea and cyberspace). In October 2020, NATO announced that it would establish a center for space operations at Ramstein airbase in Germany to increase deterrence and defense. While many countries have had space-related functions within existing military branches, both the US and France have recently established new military branches devoted to the strategic and military importance of space. In 2019, the U.S. established Space Force and France formed a new Space Command (Commandement de l’Espace), which supersedes the previous French military service dealing with space.

• In recent years, the UK government has been considering how to develop its capabilities in using space technology and ensuring that space is part of its national defense strategy. In 2019, the UK Ministry of Defence announced several new military space initiatives and published plans for a Defence Space Strategy, noting that “satellites and space-based services are vital to modern life” and that “there would be severe consequences from any disruption, whether by natural or man-made hazards, or intentional threats from hostile states”.

• On November 18, 2020, the UK announced its proposal to establish a new military command dedicated to space. (see previous ExoArticle here) The proposal of a new Royal Air Force (RAF) space command was part of an announcement by the UK Government of the largest defense budget since the Cold War of £16.5 billion over the next four years. The full details of how this new UK space command will be composed, and what it will do, remain to be seen.

• The potential opportunities of a new UK military space command will likely be of interest to industry players, and in particular those involved in the UK spaceport market in relation to commercial spaceflight and spaceports, such as those being established in Scotland. In announcing the new defense budget, Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that “we will establish…a new RAF space command, launching British satellites and our first rocket from Scotland in 2022.”

Space has long been recognised as a potential domain of warfare – indeed, it was one of the major motivating factors in establishing the international legal framework for space activities in the form of the Outer Space Treaty 1967. Space continues to be viewed as an area of strategic importance for military capability, and satellites are increasingly viewed as essential components of critical communications for military and defence purposes. In recent years, many space-faring countries and international organisations have made clear the importance of space and space technology to their current and future defence.

At an international level, in 2019, space was recognised by NATO as the latest operational domain (along with air, land, sea and cyberspace) and adopted a new space policy. In October, NATO announced that it would establish a centre for space operations at Ramstein airbase in Germany to increase deterrence and defence.

At a national level, while many countries have long had space-related functions within existing military branches, countries such as the US and France, as two examples, have recently established new military branches to clearly demonstrate the strategic and military importance of space. In 2019, the US established an independent military branch dedicated to space defence, named the US Space Force. In the same year, France formed a new Space Command (Commandement de l’Espace), which supersedes the previous French military service dealing with space.

The UK announces the establishment of a new military command dedicated to space

On 18 November 2020, the UK announced its proposal to establish a new military command dedicated to space, similar to the recent moves taken by allied countries such as France and the US. The proposal of a new Royal Air Force (RAF) space command was part of an announcement by the UK Government of the largest defence budget since the Cold War of £16.5 billion over the next four years.

This announcement is in the continuity of the UK’s national defence strategy

While a new military branch is new, the UK Government has in recent years been considering how to develop its capabilities in using space technology and ensuring that space is part of its national defence strategy. In 2019, the UK Ministry of Defence announced several new military space initiatives and published plans for a Defence Space Strategy, noting that “satellites and space-based services are vital to modern life” and that “there would be severe consequences from any disruption, whether by natural or man-made hazards, or intentional threats from hostile states”.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Moving to the Moon – What Will the First Extraterrestrial City Look Like?

December 13, 2020
ExoNews Editor

Article by Steve Cowan December 1, 2020 (freenews.live)

• The Chinese probe “Chang’e-5” has successfully collected lunar rock and soil samples from the Moon, and is on its way back to Earth. This feat marks another stage in China’s ultimate plan to establish a permanent base on the Moon. Russia’s Roscosmos and NASA are also planning “lunar cities”.

• The last time humans were on the Moon was on December 14, 1972 when American astronaut Eugene Cernan walked on the lunar surface. In the coming years, we will inevitably witness a substantial increase in the Moon’s active development. However, unlike in the past, space agencies find it too expensive to launch heavy rockets whenever they want to visit the Moon. Today’s space programs will be more inclined to create permanent bases both in the Moon’s orbit and on the lunar surface.

• The Moon is attractive for several reasons. First, as an outpost for flights to other planets in the solar system. Secondly, as a source of minerals – primarily helium-3 which is used to produce thermonuclear fuel. Third, scientists plan to place a radio telescope on the Moon’s far side, protected from Earth’s interference. Using this telescope, scientists hope to discover the ‘cosmic microwave background’ allowing them to reconstruct the events of the universe during the first few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Fourth, and perhaps the most important benefit of establishing a Moon base, will be to test experimental technologies that will assist human migration to other planets in the future.

• While the 1967 Outer Space Treaty does not specifically regulate the use of space resources, an unratified December 1979 UN General Assembly Agreement does attempt to address the activities of states on the Moon and other celestial bodies. However, on April 6, 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order approving the commercial development of resources by the US on the Moon and other planets and asteroids of the solar system.

• The first problem with everyone wanting to colonize the Moon is not about science, but the legal and commercial aspects of everyone aiming to use the same locations and resources at the South Pole of the Moon (although it would be technically easier to make shuttle flights to and from an orbital space station). The South Polar Region is ideal because it contains relatively large “cold traps” where permanently shaded areas hold water ice which is essential for everything from drinking and growing food, to obtaining oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for rocket fuel. Also, it is never dark at the South Pole so you can continuously recharge solar panels. On the rest of the Moon’s surface, the night lasts for two weeks.

• Moon base developers suggest that mirrors can be fixed on craters’ edges and direct sunlight to shaded areas. The heated ice will turn into steam, which will go through a pipeline to an electrolysis plant where it is split into hydrogen and oxygen. Experts estimate that there are up to ten billion tons of ice in the cold traps near the South Pole. The water and oxygen needed to sustain a base with only four people would require several tens of tons of water per year.

• Ice can also be found in miniature cold traps, up to a centimeter in diameter, mostly in the circumpolar regions. Up to forty thousand square kilometers of the lunar surface could be covered in water ice. More recently, the SOFIA stratospheric Observatory’s infrared telescope detected signs of molecular water ice filling the voids between the grains of minerals in the lunar soil. If this ice could be harvested, the list of places to build a lunar base would expand significantly.

• The composition of lunar soil is 43 percent oxygen. By combining oxygen with hydrogen taken from other sources or delivered from Earth, you can produce water. For Moon dust to decompose in order to extract the oxygen, it needs to be heated up 900 degrees Celsius (1652 degrees Fahrenheit) which takes a lot of energy. Scientists suggest using giant mirrors that focus sunlight on the shell of a small reactor. Still, it would take years for a lunar facility to generate enough water fuel to send just one Apollo-sized spacecraft into lunar orbit.

• Despite all the difficulties, the European Space Agency (ESA) has already allocated funds to the British company, Metalysis, to finance the extraction of oxygen from lunar regolith. The company, along with scientists from the University of Glasgow, said that they successfully extracted 96 percent of oxygen from artificial lunar soil in experiments on Earth, turning the rest into useful metal powders.

• Unlike the Earth, the Moon does not have an atmosphere and a magnetic field. So structures in lunar bases must protect human inhabitants from cosmic rays, solar radiation, and a stream of meteorites. Shelters could be covered with a multi-meter layer of lunar soil, or the base could be located within a canyon or cave. Scientists have proposed a lava tunnel under the Marius Hills in the central part of the Ocean of Storms.

• The lunar base buildings themselves could be built using 3D printing from regolith particles, or with bricks made by melting regolith using a focusing solar reflector. Researchers calculate it would take three years to manufacture enough regolith bricks to build a two thousand square meter structure. Once built, the base could use a Sun reflector to illuminate residential premises and greenhouses. As part of a closed ecosystem, greenhouse plants would process organic waste and convert carbon dioxide into breathable oxygen. Astronauts on the International Space Station are already hydroponically growing and eating leafy green vegetables on board the station.

Yesterday, the lander of the Chinese probe “Chang’e-5” successfully separated from the orbital module and started landing on the Moon. It must collect and deliver samples of lunar soil to Earth. This is the next stage of an ambitious program, the ultimate goal of which is a permanent base on the satellite. Roscosmos and NASA are also planning “lunar cities.” About what will be the first human settlement outside of our planet is in the material.

To Leave, To Return

The last time humans landed on the Moon was 48 years ago. Then, on December 14, 1972, American astronaut Eugene Cernan, after walking on the lunar surface, said: “We are leaving as we came, and with God’s help, we will return.”

Over the past few years, several countries have declared their readiness to resume lunar programs. The Moon is attractive for several reasons. First, as an Outpost for flights to other planets in the Solar system-it is easier to start from it than from Earth.

Secondly, as a source of minerals-primarily helium-3: it can be used to produce thermonuclear fuel.

Third, on the Moon’s far side, scientists plan to place a radio telescope protected from earth’s interference. And with its help, they discover the cosmic microwave background, which they hope to reconstruct the events of the “dark ages” of the Universe-the first few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

And last, perhaps most important, the Moon’s base should become an experimental testing ground for testing technologies for human migration to other planets.

Therefore, in the coming years, we will inevitably witness the Earth’s satellite’s active development. But it is too expensive to send heavy missiles there every time. Today, no space agency will finance the sending of crews, as in the Apollo program. Everyone is inclined to create permanent bases — first in the Moon’s orbit and then on its surface. But this is not an easy task.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

British Doctor in Bid to Own Mars and Save the Earth

December 11, 2020
ExoNews Editor

Article by Tom Bull November 29, 2020 (dailystar.co.uk)

• The 1967 Outer Space Treaty was signed to prevent nuclear weapons from being sent into space. Dr. Phil Davies is concerned that the treaty is outdated, and that the private sector wants to abolish it to make it easier to mine and explore space. Davies also thinks that there could be a catastrophic arms race in space with nuclear weapons suspended above our heads.

• “If we can update the Space Treaty to accommodate what the Americans and ultimately what others want, then it stays strong and allows them to do their business. It doesn’t allow for nukes up there,” says Davies. “[W]hen there is only one law that stops us from putting weapons in space, …there is going to be a nation we are worried about.” “No one is mature enough to handle nukes in space. …[T]hreats could come from anywhere. America, China, or North Korea could go too far. Once you do that you change everything.”

• About ten years ago, Davis, a 55-year-old former RAF doctor, started shining a powerful laser at the planet Mars to liberate carbon dioxide on the alien planet. In doing so, he says he is creating an atmosphere. Under current UN space law, if you can show that you have taken steps to make an unpopulated planet ready for ‘sustained use’, you are entitled to stake a claim as the rightful owner of the alien territory.

• Davis is part of a ‘Mars for Sale multinational group’ of 150,000 folks who make a collective claim to own Mars in the name of world peace. Even the space pioneer Elon Musk has proposed accelerating a sustained Martian atmosphere by dropping bombs on Mars to release the trapped CO2.

• This isn’t about being the first on Mars. Davies and his group simply hope to “sting” the UN into updating its space laws to stop ‘nasty’ countries from weaponizing space in a bid to mine unexplored planets. “[T]he desire of greed is higher than the desire for peace,” says Davis. “If we could stir that up and show we’re going to be difficult to deal with … they’ll have to update the law in that direction.”

• But when the time comes, Davis believes he and his 150,000 friends who have purchased tracks of Martian land will be first in line to own the Red Planet. “There are no other celestial land claims filed with the UN,” says Davis. “[O]ne day it will be feasibly possible for humans to go to Mars and set up factories or who knows.” “[U]p will pop our claim. It will have been filed. As long as somebody is alive, then it’ll have to be dealt with.”

Dr Phil Davies knows that he seems a bit whacky when he points a laser at Mars from the back garden of his Hampshire home.

The doctor, who has made headlines for claiming he owns the Red Planet, takes the jokes and funny looks in his stride.

Because he, along with 150,000 others, are on a mission for world peace – to protect mankind from what he says is a real threat of nuclear weapons dangling above our heads.

About ten years ago, the 55-year-old started shining a powerful laser through space to liberate carbon dioxide on the alien planet 91 million kilometres away.

In doing so, he says he is creating an atmosphere, and, under current space law, is entitled to stake a claim at being the rightful owner of the martian territory.

Dr Davies says he is making it ready for sustained use, and in a court, his claim would stand up to scrutiny.

UN regulations state that to own part of a planet you have to show you have made it ready for ‘sustained use’.

But for the space-loving GP, it isn’t about being the first man on Mars. It’s about beating the world’s superpowers in a game of chess.

“It is all about the Outer Space Treaty,” he told The Daily Star. “That’s the only law that stops aggressive weapons in orbit above earth.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

America’s ‘Star Wars’ Against China

December 5, 2020
ExoNews Editor

Article by Tom Fowdy November 25, 2020 (news.cgtn.com)

• The Trump administration has announced that it is adding an additional 89 Chinese aerospace companies to the list of those prohibited from acquiring US-made components and technologies without approval, linking them to a “national security threat.” The obvious goal is protectionism – to stifle China’s own development in the aerospace sector, forcing China to rely on US firms such as Boeing.

• The Trump administration has made the decision that China represents a competitor in space exploration and technology, and that Beijing wants to militarize outer space. As China sends its Chang’e-5 lunar module to the Moon, Trump is trying to undermine China’s entire aerospace industry to gain the upper hand.

• In 2018, Trump created Space Force “to protect US and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force” including satellite-orientated warfare and missile technology. Is this not the militarization of outer space contravening the 1967 Outer Space Treaty? The United States wants to gain unchallenged military hegemony over the entire world and sees China as a “competitor.”

• The US defense community claims that it is Beijing that is militarizing space as it works on its own satellite and exploration programs. As an article from Defense News claims, “China wants to dominate space, and the US must take countermeasures.” Beijing, however, claims to uphold the consensus that space is for peaceful development only.

• In December 2019, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Geng Shuang condemned the US Space Force, stating, “The relevant US actions are a serious violation of the international consensus on the peaceful use of outer space, undermine global strategic balance and stability, and pose a direct threat to outer space peace and security.”

• The “China threat” narrative is about maintaining US strategic supremacy as the only major player in outer space. This view predates Trump, with the Obama administration banning coordination of China’s national space agency with NASA in 2011, and excluding China from participating in the international space station.

• More attention should be focused on America’s emerging “Star Wars” against China. Space Force is a new strategic frontier for American militarization, aimed at competitor states such as China, in contravention of international law. The development of outer space exploration and technology ought only to be for peaceful purposes for “the common heritage of mankind.”

• [Editor’s Note] Can the Chinese Communist Party be trusted to be peaceful? The CCP has come under the control of the Deep State and President Trump knows this. As the white hat Alliance is in the process of dismantling the Deep State – in America, in China, and everywhere else in the world – the Deep State would like nothing better than to trigger a global war in order to maintain its long-standing global domination. The Deep State-controlled CCP is desperate as the Chinese people, and even President Xi Jinping himself, see the Chinese government’s corruption and are turning against the established Communist Party. So as things come to a head now in this five-dimensional chess game, Trump and the US military may have a very good reason to keep the pressure on Beijing.

A few days ago the news was announced that the Trump administration was preparing to add an additional 89 Chinese companies to the commerce department’s entity list, prohibiting them from acquiring U.S.-made components and technologies without approval and claiming they are linked to the military and represent a “national security threat.” The firms were noticeably all in the aerospace industry, with an obvious goal of attempting to stifle China’s own development in this sector and force Beijing to be reliant on U.S. firms such as Boeing. Given the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac) (a firm being listed) is launching its own domestically made alternative to the 737, the C919, next year, it is difficult to see the move in any other light. It’s obvious protectionism.

But there is another angle, a strategic one too, of outer space. The Trump administration has long made a decision that China represents a competitor in space exploration and technology, and claimed falsely that Beijing seeks to militarize the cosmos as a pretext for their own militarization plans, contravening the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which pledges that space and “celestial bodies” may only be used for “peaceful development” and not military means.

In doing so, the administration has over the past few years put in place plans to transform space into the newest “strategic frontier” and now, as China launches Chang’e-5, seeks to undermine China’s entire aerospace industry to gain the upper hand. As a result, this is a sphere worth watching.
The U.S. “Space Force”.

In 2018, Trump announced the creation of a “U.S. space force” or “space command.” Although the idea was ridiculed for sounding like something out of a science fiction novel, it is, in fact, something serious. The strategic objectives of such a command is, as is stated on its website, “to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force.” That is the militarization of outer space. This includes things such as satellite-orientated warfare and missile technology. The United States wants to gain the upper hand in this sphere in order to maintain unchallenged military hegemony over the entire world and with that viewpoint comes the designation of China as a “competitor.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Air Force Secretary Barrett Calls for Clean-Up of Space Debris

November 28, 2020
ExoNews Editor

Article by Frank Wolfe November 16, 2020 (defensedaily.com)

• On November 16th, Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett called on industry to help the US Space Force with cleaning up space debris to help avoid collisions in space. Barrett told the ASCEND 2020 forum sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. “What we’d like to see in the future is not just tracking, but cleaning up that litter–figuring ways how do you consolidate, how do you get that hazard–17,500 miles per hour rocketing through space, it is a great hazard.”

• “Just think about the GPS system alone,” Barrett said. “Consider how much we depend upon the GPS system. It’s free and accessible to everyone globally, and it’s operated by just eight to 10 people on a shift. So a total of 40 people operate this extraordinary system upon which so much of our current economy depends. It’s broadly used. It’s transformative, but it’s fragile. So that space debris is really a danger to things like our GPS systems. We’ve got to replace those. We’ve got to minimize their vulnerability, and we have to have, as the Space Force will do, space capabilities that will deter others from doing damage to that system upon which so much depends.”

• According to NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO), there are 23,000 large pieces of debris greater than 10 cm tracked by the Space Force’s US Space Surveillance Network. Prior to 2007, the principal source of debris was from explosions of launch vehicle upper stages and spacecraft. But the intentional destruction of a weather satellite by China in 2007 and the accidental collision of the American communications satellite with a retired Russian spacecraft in 2009 greatly increased the number of large debris in orbit and now represent one-third of all cataloged orbital debris.

• US Space Command’s 18th Space Control Squadron at Vandenberg AFB, California monitors 3,200 active satellites for close approaches with approximately 24,000 pieces of space debris, and issues an average of 15 high-interest warnings for active near-Earth satellites, and ten high-interest warnings for active deep-space satellites, every day.

• NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine recently suggested that nations that damage satellites are risking a legal challenge under the 1972 Liability Convention to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. In the only claim under the Liability Convention, the Soviet Union paid Canada $2 million after a Soviet nuclear-powered reconnaissance satellite crashed in western Canada in 1978, scattering radioactive debris.

• The US Space Force and the UK are working together to reduce orbiting space debris. Last year, the UK became the first nation to join the US-led Operation Olympic Defender to deter “hostile” space actors, such as China, Russia, and Iran, and decrease the spread of on-orbit space debris. The White House has noted that private companies are developing ‘on-orbit robotic operations’ for active space debris removal. Last March, Space Force chief General John ‘Jay’ Raymond announced that Lockheed Martin‘s ‘Space Fence radar system’ had achieved initial operational capability track smaller objects in low Earth orbit and in Geostationary orbit.

Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett on Nov. 16 called on industry to help the Air Force and U.S. Space Force with cleaning up space debris to help avoid collisions in space.

“For a long time, the United States Air Force has been tracking space debris, but there’s a lot more to be done,”

**progression of orbiting space debris**

Barrett told the ASCEND 2020 forum sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). “What we’d like to see in the future is not just tracking, but cleaning up that litter–figuring ways how do you consolidate, how do you get that hazard–17,500 miles per hour rocketing through space, it is a great hazard.”

“Just think about the GPS system alone,” she said. “Consider how much we depend upon the GPS system. It’ s free and accessible to everyone globally, and it’s operated by just eight to 10 people on a shift. So a total of 40 people operate this

extraordinary system upon which so much of our current economy depends. It’s broadly used. It’s transformative, but it’s fragile. So that space debris is really a danger to things like our GPS systems. We’ve got to replace those. We’ve got to minimize their vulnerability, and we have to have, as the Space Force

will do, space capabilities that will deter others from doing damage to that system upon which so much depends.”

Barrett said that processes and doctrines to outline rules of the road in space and aid space traffic management are underway.
According to NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO), there are 23,000 large pieces of debris greater than 10 cm tracked by the Space Force’s U.S. Space Surveillance Network.

“Prior to 2007, the principal source of debris was from explosions of launch vehicle upper stages and spacecraft,” per ODPO. “The intentional destruction of the Fengyun-1C weather satellite by China in 2007 and the accidental collision of the American communications satellite, Iridium-33, and the retired Russian spacecraft, Cosmos-2251, in 2009 greatly increased the number of large debris in orbit and now represent one-third of all cataloged orbital debris.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Outdated Treaties and the Rush to Control Resources in Space

September 10, 2020
ExoNews Editor

Article by Malcolm Davis August 31, 2020 (aspistrategist.org.au)

• The US Air Force Academy’s Institute for Applied Space Policy and Strategy has a ‘military on the moon’ research team set up ‘to evaluate the possibility and necessity of a sustained US presence on the lunar surface’. The focus of its report (see here) seems to be on the establishment a US lunar military base.

• The notion of a military base on the Moon has the space law community seeing red. Such a base would directly conflict with both the spirit and letter of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (see here), which provides that: “The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapon and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.” A military base on the Moon would also violate the 1979 Moon Treaty (see here), which no major space power has yet ratified. According to these treaties, no Earthly nation may establish a lunar military base, so long as that nation remains a signatory.

• Space law was developed for a different, more benign era and doesn’t adequately address the emerging dynamics of modern space activities. The framework of the treaties contain gaps that that an adversary could exploit in coming decades. For example, ‘commercial’ space operations can provide a convenient cover for states that wish to sidestep established law.

• The 1967 Treaty allows military personnel to be on the Moon for scientific ‘or any other peaceful purposes’, and states that ‘the use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited’. This leaves a lunar facility’s role open to interpretation. Is it a commercial base or an undeclared military facility?

• Article IV of the 1967 Treaty extends to both military and private commercial activities in space. “States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by government agencies or by non-governmental entities.”

• The 1967 Treaty states that space is “not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.’ However, the 2015 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (see here) sets a precedent for legitimate activity by permitting a commercial company to secure, own and profit from a space resource. This creates a grey area between lawful commercial activities and illegal claims of sovereignty. Safeguarding access to a resource, and preventing a competitor from intruding, implies the necessity of security that the 1967 Treaty wasn’t designed to manage.

• In April 2020, President Trump signed an executive order ‘encouraging support for the recovery and use of space resources’… consistent with applicable law’. The Trump administration then released the Artemis Accords (see here) designed to establish a common set of principles to govern the civil exploration and use of outer space. In the accords, ‘all activities [on the Moon] will be conducted for peaceful purposes, per the tenets of the (1967) Outer Space Treaty’. The Artemis Accords require the US and its partners to share information on the location and general nature of operations so that ‘safety zones’ can be created to ‘prevent harmful interference’. This implies the delineation of territory or a zone of control around a facility.

• While lunar military bases may be prohibited, competition for resource wealth in space will test the premise of the 1967 Treaty. States and non-state actors will inevitably compete for access to and control over resources in space, and for a permanent and exclusive presence where those resources are located.

The 2019 movie Ad Astra had a US military base on the moon and a memorable battle scene involving a moon rover, implying that by late this century the moon will be heavily militarised. A question now being discussed in space policy circles is whether fact will follow science fiction, as the US Space Force considers exactly what its role will be. It has some pretty ambitious ideas, and a recent report indicates that its thinking will be shaped by a deep astrostrategic perspective.

So it wasn’t much of a surprise when news emerged that a group of US Air Force Academy cadets are researching the idea of military bases on the lunar surface. The academy’s Institute for Applied Space Policy and Strategy has a ‘military on the moon’ research team that was set up ‘to evaluate the possibility and necessity of a sustained United States presence on the lunar surface’. The focus seems to be on a military base, though there’s little information on exactly what they’re planning.

But the very notion of a military base on the moon has the space law community understandably seeing red.

Such a base would directly conflict with both the spirit and letter of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which provides the foundation for space law.

Article IV of the treaty states that: The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.

A military base on the moon would also violate the 1979 Moon Treaty, which Australia supports, though no major space power has ratified it. So that means no overt or declared lunar military bases, at least as long as all powers remain signatories to the OST.
The academy cadets would no doubt be aware of this. Why even consider such a move, then?

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Space Force Needs to Prepare for a Cold War in Earth’s Orbit

March 22, 2020
ExoNews Editor

Article by Luke Dormehl March 14, 2020 (digitaltrends.com)

• The United States launched Explorer 1, its first satellite, into space on January 31, 1958. Since then we have ramped up our reliance on these orbiting objects with every passing year. Today, there are over 2,000 active satellites in orbit belonging to both governments and private industry with more going up all the time.

• Three-star US Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who retired in July 2017, is worried about satellites. He’s not worried about the tremendously increasing number of satellites in Earth’s orbit. He’s worried about other nations’ capabilities to disable them or knock them out of orbit. Says Bogden, “Space is a new warfighting domain. Our job is to try and help the Department of Defense to become space warfighters.”

• One of the greatest threats to American satellite assets is the new ‘hunter-killer satellites’. These can fire jets of plasma to blast objects out of orbit. They are claimed to be useful in cleaning up space junk – shooting at an inactive satellite until it eventually disintegrates in the Earth’s atmosphere. But a hunter-killer satellites can also knock an active satellite from its designated orbit, rendering it useless. Bogden says that these hunter-killer have already been deployed by rival nations into space.

• Bogden is also concerned about foreign satellites getting too close to our satellites, or even smashing into them – called a “conjunction” of satellites. But hunter-killer satellites can also disrupt an active satellite by merely getting close to it, disrupting its maneuverability and its electro-magnetic field.

• Another threat involves anti-satellite missiles fired from the ground. China, India, and Russia have all demonstrated such weapons as a show of force.

• Knocking out satellites has the potential for massive damage. From a military perspective, satellites carry out worldwide sensing and imaging, and space-based communications, which are crucial for global voice and data communications on Earth. We also rely on satellites for GPS, or the global positioning system. Loss of these capabilities, says Bogden, could put America at an enormous ‘warfighting disadvantage’.

• For example, in January 2015, the US Air Force took just one of its GPS satellites offline. Somehow a fractionally wrong time was accidentally uploaded to the remaining satellites and caused twelve hours of severe problems. Global telecommunications networks were compromised. Police, fire and EMS radio equipment in parts of the US stopped working. BBC digital radio was knocked out for a couple of days for many people. And an anomaly was detected on electrical power grids. All from a time discrepancy of just thirteen-millionths of a second. If several satellites were disabled, it would be nothing short of a disaster.

• To avoid this type of scenario, we rely on a 1967 ‘Outer Space Treaty’ among Russia, Britain and the United States that provides guideline in settling disputes regarding the allocation of resources in space, and a 1963 treaty prohibiting nuclear explosions in outer space. But sixty years ago we didn’t consider space a ‘war-fighting domain’ as we do today. As Bogden says, “[W]e felt that no-one would [ever] threaten our space assets.”

• [Editor’s Note] Just like our electric grid and the internet, we are completely dependent on the 2218 satellites currently orbiting our planet (that we know of). And the world’s military and commercial titans are just starting to ramp up the number of satellites that will be deployed in the near future. The Pentagon has announced a National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA) satellite constellation consisting of seven layers of military capabilities. The first layer alone will deploy hundreds of satellites. (see Exoarticle here) The US, Russia and India all have its own GPS navigation system satellite constellations. (see Techworm article here) And one of the Pentagon’s NDSA layers will be an entirely new back-up GPS system. Yet all of these government satellites will be dwarfed by the commercial use of satellites in the future. Elon Musk alone plans to deploy up to 45,000 internet satellites in a SpaceX Starlink mega constellation. It’s no wonder that the Pentagon’s ‘first offensive space weapon’ is a ground-based satellite communications jamming system. (see The Drive/The Warzone article here)

Of course, this ‘modern’ anti-satellite weapons technology is primitive compared to what we truly have in space already, unknown to the vast majority of the world. It appears that the deep state will use a new military space race as their next Cold War distraction from what is really going on. Still, our inexorable encroachment into space only increases the odds that the secret space programs and the ubiquitous extraterrestrial presence will have to reveal itself to the world.

“The bottom line,” said retired three-star general Chris Bogdan, “is that we want to learn how to fight in space. Just as we know how to fight on air, land, sea, and, in some respects, in cyberspace. Space is a new warfighting domain. Our job is to try and help the Department of Defense to become space warfighters.”

Bogdan knows a thing or two about militarized combat. Over a 34-year career in the U.S. Air Force, Bogdan rose from a test pilot, flying no less than

**Lieutenant General (ret) Chris Bogdan**

30 different aircraft types, to the rank of lieutenant general. For the last five years of his career, before he retired in July 2017, he was program executive officer for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program for the Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and 11 allied nations. He has one of those grizzled, no-nonsense voices which suggests that he has forgotten more about warfighting before breakfast that day than you’ve ever known in your entire life. On balance, that’s probably not a bad guess.

Right now, Chris Bogdan is worried about satellites. But not for the same reason that many people are. Recently, satellites have gotten a bum rap. Astronomers have sounded the alarm regarding the plan of individuals like Elon Musk to launch enormous, sky-blotting mega-constellations of satellites. Bogdan doesn’t seem to be so tied up in knots about extra stuff being shot into space, however. Instead, he’s far more concerned about the stuff that’s already in space being shot down. Or, at least, being tampered with.

He’s particularly uneasy about things called hunter-killer satellites, deployed by one of the United States’ “pure adversaries,” being used to screw with America’s network of “space assets.”

A new kind of threat

A hunter-killer satellite represents a new kind of threat. In a paper published in the journal Scientific Reports in 2018, researchers from the Australian National University describe a hunter-killer satellite that can fire jets of plasma to blast objects out of orbit. They suggested that such a satellite could be used to help clean up space junk; shooting it down until it eventually disintegrates in Earth’s atmosphere. But such a tool could be used for more malicious purposes as well. A hunter-killer satellite might damage or purposely knock off-course a crucial active satellite, thereby negatively impacting its ability to operate.

“What we’re most concerned about is what we call conjunction,” Bogdan said. “That’s a space term describing two things colliding in space. But you don’t need to actually hit something in space to affect it or reduce its capability. You can fly a hunter-killer satellite close enough to a satellite that you can disrupt maneuvering or its electro-magnetic field to do a host of different things.”

How far away from deployment does he think these hunter-killer satellites, developed by those who don’t have America’s best interests at heart, might be? “I believe they’ve already been deployed,” he said.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Tag: 1967 Outer Space Treaty