With the news that SpaceX’s Starship is nearing readiness for another test launch, FAS CEO Dan Correa has been thinking more about what its technology could mean for national security, space science, and commercial space activities. Correa believes policymakers should be thinking and talking more about the implications of Starship and other competing space efforts as well. He recently sat down with Karan Kunjur and Neel Kunjur, founders of space technology startup K2 Space, to find out just how big of a leap the next generation of launch vehicles will represent.
Dan Correa, FAS CEO: Let’s start with reminding people exactly what SpaceX’s Starship is – and why it could be such a paradigm shifter.
Karan Kunjur, K2 Space Co-founder, CEO: Starship is a next generation launch vehicle and spacecraft being developed by SpaceX, and when operational will change the game in space exploration. It’s the largest and most powerful launch system to ever be developed (150+ tons of payload capacity to LEO) and is intended to be fully re-usable.
A single Starship launching at a cadence of three times per week will be capable of delivering more mass to orbit in a year than humanity has launched in all of history.
With Starship-class access to space, we’re about to move from an era of mass constraint, to an era of mass abundance. In this new era, what we put in space will look different. The historic trades that were made around mass vs. cost will be flipped on its head, and the optimal spacecraft required for science, commercial and national security missions will change.
DC: Can you be more specific about what types of economic sectors are likely to be affected by Starship and other similar next generation launch vehicles? In other words, is there a broader ecosystem of products and services that you think are likely to emerge to take advantage of Starship or similar capabilities from other companies?
Neel Kunjur, K2 Space Co-founder, CTO: Historically, almost every application in space has been constrained by something commonly known as ‘SWAP’ – Size, Weight and Power. Satellite bus manufacturers have been forced to use expensive, lightweight components that are specially designed for spacecraft that need to fit inside current rockets. Payload designers have been forced to pursue compact sensor designs and complicated, sometimes unreliable deployables. Brought together, these needs have resulted in lightweight, but necessarily expensive vehicles.
A perfect example of this is the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). In order to fit required mission capabilities within SWAP constraints, the designers of JWST had to 1) Develop a highly complex deployable segmented mirror to fit within the volume budget, 2) Use expensive and novel Beryllium mirrors to fit within the mass budget, and 3) Design low power instruments and thermal conditioning hardware to fit within the power budget. This kind of complexity dramatically increases the cost of missions.
KK: Exactly. In a world with Starship, things will become significantly simpler. Instead of a complex, unfolding, segmented mirror, you could use a large monolithic mirror. Instead of expensive Beryllium mirrors, you could use simpler and cheaper materials with lower stiffness-to-mass ratios, similar to those used in ground-based telescopes. Instead of expensive, power-optimized instruments, additional power could be used to make simpler and cheaper instruments with more robust thermal conditioning capabilities.
The potential for change exists across every type of mission in space. It will become possible to have a satellite bus platform that has more power, more payload volume and more payload mass – but one that comes in at the cost of a small satellite. In a world with launch vehicles like Starship, satellite-based communications providers will be able to use the increased power to have greater throughput, remote-sensing players will be able to use more volume to have larger apertures, and national security missions will no longer need to make the trade-off between single exquisite satellites and constellations of low capability small satellites.
DC: Can we get more specific about what we think the new costs would be? If I’m a taxpayer thinking about how my government financially supports space exploration and activity, that’s important. Or even if I’m a philanthropic supporter of space science – it matters. So what are some “back of the envelope” estimates of cost, schedule, and performance of Starship-enabled missions, relative to status quo approaches?
KK: Here’s an example: the MOSAIC (Mars Orbiters for Surface-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Connections) concept, identified as a priority in the National Academies’ 2022 Planetary Decadal Survey, was a 10-satellite constellation to understand the integrated Mars climate system from its shallow ice, up through Mars’ atmospheric layers, and out to the exosphere and space weather environment. The study envisioned deploying one large “mothership” satellite and nine smaller satellites in orbit around Mars using SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Rocket. Development of these spacecraft was expected to cost ~$1B (excluding recommended 50% reserves).
In a world with Starship, the same mission could cost $200M in spacecraft costs. With this next generation launch vehicle, you could launch 10 large satellites in a single Starship. Each satellite would be redesigned to optimize for Starship’s mass allowance (150 tons), allowing the use of cheaper, but heavier materials and components (e.g. aluminum instead of expensive isogrid & composite structure). Each satellite would have more capabilities from a power (20kW), payload mass and payload volume than the large “mothership” satellite envisioned in the original MOSAIC study.
DC: You’ve told me that standardization and modularization possibilities with Starship as it relates to satellites and scientific instruments is crucial. Can you elaborate on that idea?
NK: Longer term, having mass will allow us to do interesting things like over-spec the SWAP capabilities of the satellite bus to meet the requirements of various space science missions – thereby driving standardization. With sufficient SWAP, we could start to include a consistent bundle of instruments (rather than selecting a few to fit within limited SWAP budgets) – reducing the level of customization and non-recurring engineering (NRE) required for each mission.
Although there will always be some level of customization required for each individual scientific mission, the potential to standardize a large portion of the hardware will make it possible to mass produce probes, increasing the potential frequency of missions and reducing the potential cost per mission. Examples here include standardized build-to-print suites of spectrometers, cameras, and particle and field sensors.
DC: What are the implications for the Defense Department? What are some of the important opportunities to deliver capabilities to solve national security problems in less time, at a lower cost, and with greater resilience?
NK: In 2022, the Space Force made resilience its No. 1 priority. One of the ways it hoped to achieve resilience was through the use of cheaper, more quickly deployed satellites. Unfortunately, the only path historically to going cheaper and faster was by going smaller, thereby sacrificing capabilities (e.g. low cost satellites typically come in <2kW of array power).
With Starship, and companies like K2, agencies such as the Department of Defense will have access to larger, more capable satellites that are built cheaper, faster and with lower NRE. Instead of a single exquisite satellite with 20kW of power, the DoD will be able to deploy constellations of 40 satellites, each with 20kW of power, all within a single Starship. With the rise of refueling and next generation propulsion systems, these high power constellations will be deployable in higher orbits like Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) and Geostationary Orbit (GEO), providing a much needed alternative to a potentially crowded Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
DC: The NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program (COTS) program used firm, fixed-price milestone payments to solve a problem (deliver and retrieve cargo and crew to the International Space Station) at a fraction of the cost of “business as usual” approaches. NASA also gave companies such as SpaceX greater autonomy with respect to how to solve this problem. What are some key lessons that policy-makers should learn from the NASA COTS program and similar efforts at the Space Development Agency?
KK: The NASA COTS program and SDA have demonstrated that policy can be as effective as technology in driving positive change in space. The move towards firm, fixed priced models incentivized reductions in cost/time, and pushed commercial entities to be thoughtful about what it would take to deliver against stated mission requirements. The autonomy that was given to the companies like SpaceX was critical to achieving the unprecedented results that were delivered.
Moving forward, other areas that could benefit from this approach include deep space communications infrastructure and space debris identification and remediation.
NK: Take the communications capabilities around Mars. The current infrastructure is aging and throughput limited – we just have a collection of Mars orbiters that are operating beyond their primary design lifetimes. With the ramp-up of ambitious scientific missions expected to be launched over the next decade (including eventual human exploration efforts), this aging infrastructure will be unable to keep up with a potentially exponential increase in data demands.
Rather than addressing this via conventional completed missions, where the end-to-end mission is prescribed, a new approach that uses mechanisms like data buys or Advance Market Commitments could fit well here. Assigning a price for throughput deployed on a $/Gbps basis – what the U.S. government would be willing to pay, but not actually prescribing how those capabilities are deployed – could result in a cheaper, faster and more effective solution. Companies could then raise capital against the potential market, build out the infrastructure and shoulder a majority of the risk, much like any other early stage venture.
DC: What new commercial capabilities might Starship unlock? Would any of these capabilities benefit from some government involvement or participation, in the same way that the NASA COTS program helped finance the development of the Falcon9?
KK: Almost every new commercial space customer has been forced to operate with sub-scale unit economics. Given capital constraints, their only option has been to buy a small satellite and compromise on the power, payload mass or payload volume they actually need. In a world with Starship, commercial players will be able to deploy capable constellations at a fraction of the cost. They’ll be able to multi-manifest in a single Starship, amortizing the cost of launch across their full constellation (instead of just 4-8 satellites). The mass allowance of Starship will make previously infeasible commercial businesses feasible, from large fuel depots, to orbital cargo stations, to massive power plants.
As we think about development across the solar system, as future deep space missions increase the demand for data, the lack of comms capabilities beyond the Deep Space Network (DSN) is going to play a limiting factor. A concerted effort to start building these capabilities to handle future data demand could be an interesting candidate for a COTS-like approach.
DC: For policy-makers and program managers who want to learn more about Starship and other similar capabilities, what should they read, and who should they be following?
KK: There are a number of great pieces on the potential of Starship, including:
- Starship will be the biggest rocket ever. Are space scientists ready to take advantage of it?
- Starship is still not understood
- Accelerating Astrophysics with SpaceX
DC: Great recommendations. Thanks to you both for chatting.
KK: Thank you.
The $350 billion space industry could grow to more than $1 trillion by 2040, spurring international interest in harnessing space resources. But this interest will bring with it a challenge: while existing international agreements like the Artemis Accords promote the peaceful and shared exploration of celestial bodies, they do little to address differences between existing scientific research activities and emerging opportunities like lunar mining, particularly for water ice at polar latitudes and in the perpetually shaded depths of certain craters. Lunar water ice will be a vital resource for outer space exploration and development efforts because it can be used to make hydrogen fuel cells, rocket fuel, and drinking water for astronauts. It will also be cheaper than transporting water from Earth’s surface into outer space, given the moon’s lower surface gravity and proximity to human space operations on its surface and beyond. The moon harbors other valuable long-term commodities like helium-3, the fuel needed for low-emissions nuclear fusion energy.
However, current multilateral agreements do not address whether nongovernmental operators can claim territory on celestial bodies for their use or own the resources they extract. Further, the space object registration process is currently used for satellites and other spacecraft while in orbit, but it does not include space objects intended for use on the surface of celestial bodies, such as mining equipment. These gaps leave few options for the United States or other Artemis Accords nations to resolve conflicts over territorial claims on a celestial body. In the worst-case scenario, this increasing competition for resources—especially with other major space powers like China and Russia—could escalate into military conflict.
Adopting new treaties or amendments to the existing Outer Space Treaty (OST) for modern space use is a slow process that may fail to meet the urgency of emerging space resource issues. However, the United States has another diplomatic avenue for faster action: revision of the existing United Nations’ Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space under the auspices of the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Such a process avoids the decade-long deliberations of a formal treaty amendment. The United States should thus lead the development of multilateral protocols for extracting resources from celestial bodies by proposing two updates to either the COPUOS Guidelines, the OST, or both. First, there should be an updated registration process for all space objects, which should specify the anticipated location, timeline, and type(s) of operation to establish usage rights on a particular part of a celestial body. Second, the United Nations should establish a dispute resolution process to allow for peaceful resolution of competing claims on celestial surfaces. These strategies will lay the necessary foundation for peacefully launching new mining operations in space.
Challenge and Opportunity
Right now, outer space is akin to the Wild West, in that the opportunities for scientific innovation and economic expansion are numerous, yet there is little to no political or legal infrastructure to facilitate orderly cooperation between interested terrestrial factions. For example, any nation claiming mining rights to lunar territory is on shaky legal ground, at best: the Outer Space Treaty and the subsequent Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space, promulgated by the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, do not provide legally sound or internationally recognized development rights, enforcement structures, or deconfliction mechanisms. If one claimant allegedly violates the territorial rights of another, what legal systems could either party use to press their case? Moreover, what mechanisms would avert potential escalation toward militarized conflict? Right now, the answer is none.
This is an unfortunate obstacle to progress given the enormous economic potential of outer space development in the coming decades. To put the potential value in perspective, the emerging $350 billion space industry could grow to more than $1 trillion by 2040, motivating significant international interest. One potentially lucrative subset of operations is space mining, a sector valued at $1 billion today with a potential value of $3 billion by 2027. Once operational, space mining would be a valuable source of rare earth elements (e.g., neodymium, scandium, and others), 60% of which are currently produced in China. Rare earth elements are necessary for essential technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, computers, and medical equipment. Additionally, in the event that nuclear fusion becomes commercially viable in the long-term future, space mining will be an essential industry for securing helium-3 (He-3), an abundant isotope found on the moon. Recent increases in fusion investment and a breakthrough in fusion research show the potential for fusion energy, but there is no guarantee of success. He-3 could serve as a critical fuel source for future nuclear fusion operations, an emerging form of energy production free of carbon emissions that could provide humanity with the means to address global climate and energy crises without losing energy abundance. The abundance of lunar He-3 could mean having access to secure clean energy for the foreseeable human future.
Furthermore, human exploration and development of outer space will require water, both in the form of drinking water for crewed missions and in the form of rocket propellant and fuel cell components for spacecraft. As it costs over $1 million to transport a single cubic meter of water from Earth’s surface into low Earth orbit, extracting water from the lunar surface for use in outer space operations could be substantially more economical due to the moon’s lower escape velocity—in fact, lunar water ice is estimated to be worth $10 million per cubic meter.
The space mining sector and lunar development also offer promise far beyond Earth. Our moon is the perfect “first port of call” as humanity expands into outer space. It has lower surface gravity, polar ice deposits, and abundant raw materials such as aluminum, and its status as our closest celestial neighbor make it the ideal layover supply depot and launch point for spacecraft from Earth heading deeper into our solar system. Spacecraft could be launched from Earth with just enough fuel to escape Earth’s gravity, land and refuel on the moon, and launch far more efficiently from the moon’s weaker gravity elsewhere into the system.
All in all, the vast untapped scientific and economic potential of our moon underscores the need for policy innovation to fill the gaps in existing international space law and allow the development of outer space within internationally recognized legal lines. The imperative for leading on these matters falls to the United States as a nation uniquely poised to lead the space mining industry. Not only is the United States one of the global leaders in space operations, but U.S. domestic law, including the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, provides the U.S. private sector some of the necessary authority to commercialize space operations like mining. However, the United States’ rapid innovation has also led the way to a growing space industry internationally, and the sector is now accessible to more foreign states than before. The internationalization of the space economy further highlights the gaps and failings of the existing space policy frameworks.
Two main challenges must be addressed to ensure current governance structures are sufficient for securing the future of lunar mining. First is clarifying the rights of OST State Parties and affiliated nongovernmental operators to establish space objects on celestial bodies and to own the resources extracted. The OST, the primary governing tool in space (Figure 2), establishes that no State that signed the treaty may declare ownership over all or part of a celestial body like the moon. And despite the domestic authority bestowed by the 2015 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, the multilateral OST does not address whether nongovernmental operators can claim territory and own resources they extract from celestial bodies. Thus, the OST promotes the peaceful and shared exploration of space and scientific research but does little to address differences between research operations and new commercial opportunities like lunar mining. This leaves few options to resolve conflicts that may arise between competing private sector entities or States.
Even if domestic authorization of mining operations were sufficient, a second challenge has emerged: ensuring transparency and recordkeeping of different operations to maintain peaceful shared operations in space. Through the OST and the Registration Convention, States have agreed to inform the U.N. Secretary General of space activities and to maintain a record of registered space objects (including a unique identifier, the location and date of launch, and its orbital path). But this registration process covers space objects simply at a geospatial position in orbit, and there are gaps in the process for space objects intended for use on the surface of celestial bodies and whether a spacecraft that was designed for one purpose (i.e., landing) can be repurposed for another purpose (i.e., mining). This leaves little recourse for any group that seeks to peacefully pursue mining operations on the moon’s surface if another entity also seeks to use that land.
In spite of these gaps, the U.S. government has been able to move forward with scaling up moon-related space missions via NASA’s bipartisan Artemis Program and the corresponding Artemis Accords (Figure 1), a set of bilateral agreements with updated principles for space use. The Accords have 24 signatories who collectively seek to reap the benefits of emerging space opportunities like mining. In part, the Artemis Accords aim to remedy the policy gaps of previous multilateral agreements like the OST by explicitly supporting private sector efforts to secure valuable resources like He-3 and water ice.
But the Accords do not address the key underlying challenges that could stifle U.S. innovation and leadership in space mining. For instance, while the Accords reaffirm the need to register space objects and propose the creation of safety zones surrounding lunar mining operations, gaps still remain in describing exactly how to register operations on celestial objects. This can be seen in Section 7 of the Artemis Accords, which states that space objects need to be registered, but does not specify what would classify as a “space object” or if an object registered for one purpose can be repurposed for other operations. Further, the Accords leave little room to address broader international tensions stemming from increased resource competition in space mining. While competition can have positive outcomes such as spurring rapid innovation, unchecked competition could escalate into military conflict, despite provisions in the original OST to avoid this.
In particular, preemptive measures must be taken to alleviate potential tensions with other OST signatories in direct competition with the Accords. China and Russia are not party to the Accords and therefore do not need to abide by the agreement. In fact, these nations have declared opposition to the Accords and instead formed their own partnership to establish a competing International Lunar Research Station. As these programs develop concrete lunar applications, designating methods to determine who can conduct what type of operations on specific timelines and in specific locations will be a crucial form of anticipatory diplomacy.
Plan of Action
The United States should propose that when any State registers a space object in advance of operations on a celestial body, it must specify the anticipated location of the operation; the timeline; and the type(s) of operation, described as “intent to” do one or more of the following: mine/extract resources for sale, conduct scientific research, or perform routine maintenance. This multilaterally developed process would clarify the means to register space objects for peaceful occupation of celestial object surfaces.
Additionally, the United States should propose the implementation of a process for States to resolve disputes through either bilateral negotiation or arbitration through another mutually agreed-upon third party such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Similar disputes related to maritime resource extraction under the United Nations Law of the Sea have been resolved peacefully using the aforementioned bilateral negotiations or third party arbitration. The new dispute resolution process would similarly allow for peaceful resolution of competing claims on celestial body surfaces and resources.
To guide the creation of a space object arbitration process, other such processes like the ICJ, PCA, and International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea can be used as models. The PCA has had success with halting unfair processes and setting up a dialogue between participating parties. It has helped smaller countries set up arbitration processes with bigger ones, such as Ecuador vs. the United States, in which the Republic of Ecuador instituted arbitral proceedings against the United States concerning the interpretation and application of an investment treaty between the two countries. In the short term, existing negotiation avenues will likely be sufficient to allow for dispute resolution. However, as the space industry continues to grow, it may eventually be necessary to establish an internationally recognized “Space Court” to arbitrate disputes. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea provides an example of the type of international body that could arbitrate space disputes.
These anticipatory diplomacy steps could be implemented in one of three ways:
- As a binding amendment to the OST: This would require the most time to implement, but this would also make it enforceable and binding, an obvious advantage. It would also provide an opportunity to bring all the important players to the table, specifically the parties who did not sign the Artemis Accords, and would help to start a discussion on the improvement of diplomatic relations for future space operations.
- As a nonbinding update to COPUOS Guidelines: This would be faster to implement, but would not be enforceable or binding.
- As an update to the COPUOS Guidelines followed by an amendment to the OST: This would allow for both quick action in the nearer term and a permanent and enforceable implementation longer-term. Implementing a revised COPOUS could be a precursor to build support for the nonbinding updates to COPUOS. If the model is successful, State Parties would be more likely to agree to a binding amendment to OST. However they are implemented, these two proposed anticipatory diplomacy steps would improve the ability of space faring nations to peacefully use resources on celestial bodies.
Could this be done through bilateral agreements? After all, the United States has shown diplomatic initiative by entering into agreements with countries such as France, Germany, and India with the aim of using space for peaceful purposes and cooperation, though they don’t explicitly mention mining. But a bilateral process does not offer good prospects for global solutions. For one, it would be very slow and time-consuming for the United States to enter into bilateral agreements with every major country with stakes in lunar mining. If space mining agreements were to occur on a similar timeline to bilateral trade agreements, each agreement could take from one to six years to take effect. A crucial obstacle is the Wolf Amendment, which prevents the United States from entering into bilateral agreements with China, one of the its major competitors in the space industry. This restriction makes it hard to negotiate bilaterally with an important stakeholder concerning space mining.
Further, reaching these agreements would require addressing aspects of the Accords that have made many major stakeholder countries hesitant to sign on. Thus, an easier path would be to operate diplomatically through the COPUOS, which already represents 95 major countries and oversees the existing multilateral space treaties and potential amendments to them. This approach would ensure that the United States still has some power over potential amendment language but would bring other major players into some sort of dialogue regarding the usage of space for commercial purposes.
While the COPUOS guidelines are not explicitly binding, they do provide a pathway for verification and arbitration, as well as a foundation for the adoption of a binding amendment or a new space treaty moving forward. Treaty negotiations are a slow, lengthy process; the OST required several years of work before it took full effect in 1967. With many Artemis Program goals reliant upon successful launches and milestones achieved by 2025, treaty amendments are not the timeliest approach. Delays could also be caused by the fact that some parties to the OST may have reservations about adopting an amendment for private sector space use due to another space treaty, the Moon Agreement. This agreement, which the United States is not party to, asserts that “the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and that an international regime should be established to govern the exploitation of such resources when such exploitation is about to become feasible.” Thus, countries that have signed the Moon Agreement probably want the moon to operate like a global commons with all countries on Earth having access to the fruits of lunar mining or other resource extraction. Negotiations with these nations will require time to complete.
The U.S. State Department’s Office of Space Affairs, under the Bureau of Oceans and Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES), is the lead office for space diplomacy, exploration, and commercialization and would be the ideal office to craft the required legislation for an OST amendment. Additionally, the Office of Treaty Affairs, which is often tasked with writing up the legal framework of treaties, could provide guidance on the legislation and help initiate the process within the U.S. State Department and the United Nations. Existing U.S. law like the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, and international treaties like OST and Registration Convention, provide authority for these proposals to be implemented in the short term. However, negotiation of updates to COPOUS Guidelines and amendments to the OST and other relevant space treaties over the next 5 to 10 years will be essential to their long term success.
Finally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at the Department of Transportation would be the logical federal agency to initially lead implementing the updated registration process for U.S.-affiliated space objects and for verifying the location and intended use of space objects from other nations. FAA implements the current U.S. process for space objects registration. In the long term it could be appropriate to transfer responsibility for space object registration to the rapidly growing Office of Space Commerce (OSC) at the Department of Commerce. Moving responsibilities for implementing space object registration and verification to the OSC would provide opportunities for the office to expand with the rapidly expanding space industry. This change would also allow the FAA to focus on its primary responsibilities for regulating the domestic aerospace industry.
Douglas Adams may have put it best: “Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.” While Adams was describing the sheer size of space, this description applies just as well to the scale of outer space’s scientific and economic prospects. After all, any new economic theater that will grow into a multi-trillion dollar market in just a few decades is not to be taken lightly. But without a plan to avert and resolve potential conflicts with other outer space actors, the United States’ future efforts in this emerging theater will be hamstrung. Improved collaboration on space mining provides an opportunity to promote international cooperation and economic development, while military conflict in space poses high risks to the economic potential of the current and future space industry. Transparent and widely agreed-upon frameworks would allow for peaceful competition on scientific research and resource extraction on celestial objects.
Lunar mining has shown promise for providing access to water ice, rare earth metals, He-3, and other raw materials crucial for the further exploration of space. Providing a peaceful and secure source of these materials would build on the bipartisan Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act’s guidelines for space resource extraction and, in the long run, further enable the modernization and decarbonization of the U.S. electric grid for public benefit.
In order to promote the peaceful exploration and development of space, we must update existing international law—either the COPUOS Guidelines, the OST, or both—to clarify the locations, timeline, and types of outer space operations conducted by state actors. We must also propose deconfliction mechanisms for OST parties to resolve disputes peacefully via bilateral negotiation or arbitration by a mutually acceptable third party like the ICJ or PCA. Just as the United States led the world into the “final frontier” in the 20th century, so too must we lead the next chapter in the 21st. If implemented successfully, the anticipatory space diplomacy we propose will allow for the shared peaceful use of celestial bodies for decades to come.
Dr. Sindhu Nathan provided valuable insights into the writing of this memo.
There would be no additional cost to the recommendation outside of existing costs for diplomatic and U.N. activities. The Artemis Program is expected to cost $93 billion through 2025 and Congressional appropriators are already questioning the billion-dollar price tag for each planned launch. Thus, clarifying these legal frameworks may help incentivize private innovation and reduce launch costs. This proposal may facilitate economic benefits at virtually no extra cost. Therefore, the United States and Artemis Accords nations have a vested interest to ensure that these continuing investments result in successful missions with as few additional costs as possible. This proposal will likely also facilitate further private investment and innovation and protect against risk to investment from military conflict.
Another similar treaty, the Antarctic Treaty of 1961, is a great example of how different countries can unite and create a dialogue to effectively manage and share a common resource. Although the region is used for various scientific purposes, all countries can do so in a peaceful and cooperative manner. This is in part because the Antarctic treaty has been systematically updated to reflect the changing times, especially concerning the environment. The OST has not undergone any such changes. Thus, updating the COPUOS would provide a means for the United States to take the lead in ensuring that space remains a common shared resource and that no country can unfairly claim a monopoly over it.
Nuclear fusion is currently not commercially viable. However, significant interest and investment is currently centered around this potential energy source, and breakthroughs in the technology have been recently reported by leading researchers in the field. Access to He-3 will be critical if and when this industry is commercially viable.
The OST currently allows State Parties to observe space flights and access equipment for any other OST State Party. One way States could use this power to ensure these guidelines are followed is for States and the COPUOS to track how many and what types of space object operations occur on celestial bodies. (The U.S. Department of Defense already tracks over 26,000 outer space objects, but cross-referencing with COPUOS could help differentiate between debris and state objects of interest.) Interested or concerned parties could verify the accuracy of registered operations of space objects on celestial bodies led by other States, and any violations of the new guidelines could be referred to the new dispute resolution process.
In the United States, the Guidelines would be ratified in the same way as other United Nations regulations and international treaties, in the form of an executive agreement. These are directly implemented by the president and do not require a majority in the Senate to be passed but are still legally binding.
The purpose of a neutral organization like the United Nations is to engage in meaningful dialogue between powerful countries. Since space is a common shared resource, it is best to ensure that all parties have a stage to be part of talks that deal with the sharing of resources. Suggesting guidelines to a popular treaty is a good place to start, and the United States can show leadership by taking the first step while also advocating for terms that are beneficial to U.S. interests.
All the signatories of the COPOUS meet every year to discuss the effectiveness of the treaty, and countries propose various statements to the chair of the committee. (The United States’ statements from the 65th meeting of the committee in 2022 can be found here.) Although there is no obvious precedent where a statement has directly been converted into guidelines, it would still be useful to make a statement regarding a possible addition of guidelines, and one could reasonably hope it could open doors for negotiations.
Arbitration processes such as those described in the U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea ensure that powerful countries are not able to dominate smaller countries or frighten them with the possibility of war. Although the verdict of the arbitration process would have to be enforced by OST States, it provides a peaceful alternative to immediate military conflict. This would at least halt disputed proceedings and give time for States involved with the dispute to gather resources and support. The existence of an arbitration process would reinforce the principle that all OST States, both small and large, are entitled to access space as an equal resource for all.
We face an existential crisis: Space is at risk of developing the equivalent of the ocean’s “drifting island of plastic.” Air, space, and light pollution now present looming environmental threats created by the launch of new “mega-constellations” of thousands of satellites in the part of space near Earth called “Low Earth Orbit” (LEO). A “take risks and fail often” approach to new technology has been extended to space without consideration of the fact that mistakes in space cannot be cleaned up like they can on Earth.
In 2019, a European Earth observation satellite came dangerously close to colliding with a newly launched mega-constellation satellite, having to perform a last-minute maneuver to avoid the satellite, whose operator did not respond to attempts to contact it. As the number of satellites in congested orbits increases exponentially, close calls like this are becoming more commonplace. And we are seeing an unexpected number of these satellites fail such that they do not even have the ability to try to avoid dangerous collisions. As the movie Gravity illustrated, a collision in space can set off a chain reaction of further collisions, potentially destroying or disabling satellites and spreading large amounts of dangerous space junk. The recent introduction of thousands of satellites in LEO is also creating light and radio-frequency pollution that impairs the once-clear access to the cosmos for critical scientific-based research. Indifferent to these serious environmental issues, and largely unregulated, mega-constellation operators are rushing to launch as many satellites as possible before new rules are put in place.
The Biden-Harris Administration should direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fully examine and address these critical environmental issues before the United States authorizes thousands more LEO satellites in mega-constellations. Three concrete steps are warranted: (i) determine the aggregate impact of all mega-constellations, (ii) conduct a thorough review of these “unprecedented” new uses of space under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and (iii) adopt new rules that consider the full environmental impacts of mega-constellations before they are launched. In this regard, the Biden-Harris Administration should consider either (i) issuing an Executive Order instructing the FCC and the FAA to evaluate the environmental consequences associated with mega-constellations before permitting their launch or deployment, or (ii) proposing legislation that requires the FCC and the FAA to do the same.
Action — or inaction — by the Biden-Harris Administration will set the standard on which the global space industry will base its next design choices. Unless we act now, we may find that, as with climate change, we wish we had acted much sooner.
Challenge and Opportunity
Space near Earth is both a limited and a shared resource — a ”commons” that must be protected. Currently, as leading experts recognize, certain satellite operators do not have an economic incentive to protect shared resources. The same is true for our atmosphere and our night sky.
These threats have developed because of recent changes in the marketplace and commercial cost/safety tradeoffs that have negative environmental impacts.
Many recent technological advances have eliminated the high cost of access to space that once fostered a responsible space ecosystem, and limited the number of objects in space. Previously, the rules to manage the risks were adequate. That is no longer the case. Today, self-interest and the public good are quickly diverging, as the cost of failure to an individual actor is far, far less than the collective risk of multiple individual failures — a long-anticipated “tragedy of the commons” in space.
One example is the needless choice of using large numbers of economically expendable satellites that have high negative environmental impacts, when fewer and more reliable satellites can achieve the same goals without those impacts. This threat to the commons both in space and here on Earth is manifested in the many thousands of LEO satellites being launched into space, with one company alone planning to launch over 40,000 satellites in the near future. By comparison, mankind has launched only about 9,000 satellites total since space exploration began seven decades ago. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and national regulatory filings indicate that around 100,000 LEO satellites could be launched in the coming decade. Indeed, the FCC has authorized or received applications for constellations that will consist of about 100,000 LEO satellites operating at any given time, and when expected replacements are factored in, many multiples of that number will launch and ultimately vaporize in the atmosphere over a 15-year license term.
A leading provider of collision-threat analysis tools has notionally depicted the scale of the satellite constellations expected to deploy in LEO over this decade, in the following figure:
Mega-constellations in LEO raise a number of significant environmental threats:
- Air pollution: When the satellites in LEO mega-constellations fail or wear out (ranging from soon after launch to five or ten years later), they are designed to vaporize as they reenter our atmosphere. That process releases chemical compounds that linger in the stratosphere and can affect climate change and the ozone layer.8 As those defunct satellites are constantly replaced, the release of pollutants continues.
- Space pollution: When satellites in mega-constellations collide with existing space debris or with other satellites and rocket bodies, they produce wide-ranging environmental harm in the form of lethal fields of high-speed space junk that persist for decades or more and pollute orbits used by others. Such risks grow with the size of mega-constellations — which threaten far more potential collision events than other satellite systems — and not all collisions can be avoided. Cost/safety tradeoffs that prioritize using large numbers of low-cost, economically expendable satellites over fewer and more reliable satellites increase the risk further: satellites that cannot maneuver cannot avoid collisions.
- Light and radio-frequency pollution: These unprecedented new uses of space are a source of disruption to critical scientific research that relies on optical and radio-based astronomy. This impairment is caused by light and radio-frequency pollution emitted by large numbers of satellites in LEO constellations. Massive LEO constellations also pose a threat to the continued majesty of the night sky as countless visible light trails from large numbers of these satellites fill the sky, impairing stargazing and astrophotography.
Polluting Our Air and Affecting Climate Change
Mega-constellations are designed so their defunct satellites reenter the atmosphere and vaporize, releasing chemical compounds, including aluminum oxides. The Aerospace Corporation (an advisor to the U.S. Space Force) reports that this massive increase in the number of satellites reentering the atmosphere and releasing chemical compounds and particles could contribute to climate change through radiative forcing and ozone depletion.1 Most of the reentering mass vaporizes into small particles consisting of a “zoo of complex chemical types.” The stratosphere where this pollution gathers is home to the fragile ozone layer that protects the Earth from UV radiation.
None of these risks is currently being examined, or even considered, by the FCC as the United States authorizes mega-constellations to serve the United States. Authorization includes permission for initial deployment and the subsequent deployment of an unlimited number of replacement satellites over a license term in the case of U.S.-licensed systems, and, in the case of constellations licensed by other Administrations, permission to serve the United States with those constellations.
The operation of large numbers of LEO satellites in mega-constellations significantly raises the risk of collisions in space. This is particularly true when those satellites do not retain a high level of reliable maneuverability for as long as they remain in orbit. Satellites that cannot maneuver cannot avoid collisions with other satellites or the large amounts of lethal space junk already in LEO orbits. The resulting collisions can be catastrophic—fragmenting the satellite into thousands of pieces on new space junk that spread into and impact orbits hundreds of kilometers above and below the collision. This new space junk essentially becomes high-speed, unguided missiles that pose a collision risk to other satellites.2
The following figure from the European Space Agency depicts the growing number of space objects in the LEO region (2000 km and below).3 A significant portion of recent increases is attributable to LEO satellites themselves, as well as the fragmentation of those satellites after collisions.3
Collisions can have a devastating impact, sending large clouds of high-speed shrapnel-like space junk into surrounding orbits. This space junk can disable or destroy other satellites that are critical for connectivity, mapping, weather, and defense purposes — and it can persist for decades and even a century or more, making access to space riskier and more expensive. Thus, satellites in mega-constellations that fail or degrade such that they can no longer be reliably maneuvered while they remain in orbit present undue risks to space and everyone who seeks to utilize space. Of great concern are the cost/safety tradeoffs being made in mega-constellation designs that value low-cost, economically expendable satellites over constellations with fewer and more reliable satellites. Making that tradeoff reduces the likelihood of successfully maneuvering to avoid collisions.
Under current policies, mega-constellations continue to be authorized by the FCC under risk standards that were developed for single satellites and that are wholly inadequate for megaconstellations. Today, the FCC seeks to ensure that the risk of a single satellite colliding with another space object is less than one in 1,000 for the expected lifetime of that satellite. That approach does not consider the additive risk from each satellite in a mega-constellation and the unlimited number of replacements that could be launched over a 15-year license term. This would allow for catastrophic collisions very frequently, as depicted below:
When even a single collision can have devastating effects, effectively sanctioning many collisions is simply an untenable policy. Collision risk scales with LEO constellation size and the number of LEO constellations, and this aggregate risk is not being considered in the current authorization process. Moreover, the tools the FCC uses today to evaluate collision risk do not factor in a number of relevant risks, including:
- Increased risk of collisions due to known changes in the orbital environment.
- The risk of collisions with all sizes of space objects (not just those ≥ 10 cm and ≤ 1 cm).
- The continued reliability of command and propulsion capabilities needed to allow satellites to maneuver to avoid collisions.
- The risk of intra-system collisions within any of these mega-constellations.
- Known risks with maneuvering techniques used to attempt to avoid collisions.
If mega-constellations are allowed to continue to deploy without a full and complete analysis of these issues and the adoption of suitable mitigation measures, competition and innovation in space may come to a standstill. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) calls the deployment of mega-constellations a “game changer” and warns of the prospect for a never-ending spiral of collisions that would eventually render LEO unusable and possibly impenetrable — foreclosing access to and innovation in space for generations.
Polluting Dark and Quiet Skies
Mega-constellations present threats to ongoing critical scientific research in the fields of optical astronomy and radio astronomy. The question of how these threats should be mitigated has not yet been resolved. They include three types of interference: (i) satellites in the night sky reflecting sunlight that interferes with optical research telescopes; (ii) artificial radio wavelength emissions that interfere with radio telescopes; and (iii) light pollution that impacts naked eye viewing of the night sky. Indeed, the disruptive nature of the growing number of mega-constellation trails in the night sky is evident from a variety of reports. Nevertheless, the effect of fully-deployed mega-constellations on the visibility of the night sky and on professional astronomical observations has not been adequately considered as a policy matter.
The threats of mega-constellations to critical astronomy-based scientific endeavors were recently addressed by a leading group of experts under the auspices of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), which included the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and the International Astronomical Union, among others. Their recent report and recommendations emphasize that “[c]utting edge astronomical discoveries can only continue on the basis of an unobscured and undisturbed access to the cosmic electromagnetic signals,” and detail why mega-constellations are a threat to astronomy. As the report explains in detail, further work to mitigate the adverse impacts of LEO mega-constellations is urgently needed, and appropriate limits must be adopted and enforced by individual national governmental authorities.
Tragically, there is no apparent systematic means for addressing these matters in the United States. Historically, these threats have not been addressed by the FCC in authorizing the deployment and operation of LEO mega-constellations. In fact, some mega-constellation proponents have asserted that the FCC does not even have jurisdiction over the “visibility of satellites,” and have resisted calls for the FCC to fulfill its statutory obligation under NEPA, and consistent with standing Executive Orders, to examine the environmental impact of deploying thousands of satellites.
Plan of Action
As the Biden-Harris Administration sets its agenda, protecting the environment in space and on Earth and keeping space accessible for all should be of utmost importance and an immediate priority.
The last Administration recognized that these operators have little incentive to protect the “commons” that is our environment, but still failed to act. Indeed, the prior Administration allowed more mega-constellation satellites to be launched while it said it would consider new rules that remain unadopted. The Biden-Harris Administration should chart a new course.
First, the Biden-Harris Administration should immediately cease the existing practice of authorizing constituent parts of an individual mega-constellation without considering the aggregate impact of (i) all of the parts of that constellation, (ii) all of the other megaconstellations that are authorized or in the process of being authorized, and (iii) other megaconstellations that are likely to be developed and deployed as a natural response to the lack of regulatory oversight.
Second, the Biden-Harris Administration should order a thorough review of the environmental threats caused by each of these unprecedented new uses of space, including consideration of suitable mitigation techniques such as meeting the same objectives with fewer and more capable satellites. In this regard, the Biden-Harris Administration should consider either (i) issuing an Executive Order instructing the FCC and the FAA to evaluate the environmental consequences associated with megaconstellations before permitting their launch or deployment, or (ii) proposing legislation that requires the FCC and the FAA to do so. Such an Executive Order would be consistent with the Carter Administration’s prior directive that federal agencies evaluate major actions significantly affecting the environment of the global commons.
Third, the Biden-Harris Administration should adopt rules that require that the total impact of a mega-constellation be considered before providing authorization to launch from or serve the United States. Indeed, acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has recognized that “this rush to develop new space opportunities requires new rules. Despite the revolutionary activity in our atmosphere, the regulatory frameworks we rely on to shape these efforts are dated.” Acting Chairwoman Rosenworcel has also warned that the FCC’s history of approving LEO constellations without addressing these risks means the U.S. will be “junking up our skies” if we do not move faster in adopting new rules.22 Operators should be required to provide sufficient assurances at the application stage about how they will mitigate those impacts. Periodic “health checks” should be conducted to ensure operators are living up to their commitments, and when they do not, the Biden-Harris Administration should take appropriate action, including freezing authority for further launches.
Early Prevention is Critical
While there are a number of important steps needed to manage these issues, the most critical step is to prevent more harm before it occurs, by addressing these issues at the application stage, where US agencies authorize the deployment of satellites.
For decades, the FCC has been the agency authorizing the deployment and operation of commercial satellites, and their ability to serve the United States. In that role, the FCC has also for decades addressed the safe flight of commercial satellites and the potential for them to contribute to the space junk problem. The FCC is also mandated by statute to factor in public interest considerations that are not within the charter of other agencies. The FCC has had a rulemaking proceeding on safe flight and space junk issues pending for over two years.4 More generally, the FCC is also obligated to consider the requirements of NEPA and implement directives and orders as to the environmental impact of FCC actions.
Other agencies study or oversee different aspects of these issues. For example, the FAA authorizes the launch of satellites from U.S. soil and is obligated to consider NEPA in that context. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has studied the effects of space junk on the long-term sustainability of physical access to space but has not addressed: (i) the risks associated with space junk disrupting vital communications networks in the near term, (ii) the impact on Earth of a steady stream of thousands of satellites vaporizing and polluting our atmosphere, or (iii) the disruptions to ongoing scientific research that mega-constellations create.
Congress, industry leaders and other experts have recognized the need for increased awareness of the growing number of trackable objects in space. It is apparent that this challenging task only becomes more difficult as space fills up with more uncontrollable space junk. To date, the Department of Defense has had a lead role in this task. More recently, there have been calls by Congress and others in the industry to bring this mandate under the Office of Space Commerce (OSC), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. OSC would be charged with collecting space situational awareness data from government, foreign and commercial sources as well as with developing a space traffic management function to prevent operational satellites from colliding with space junk. This function is incredibly important, and it must be facilitated by ensuring that operators are building, deploying and operating satellite systems in a manner that minimizes the chance of collisions and creating increased space junk in the first place.
We should also work closely with our international allies to put rules in place that ensure safe and shared access to space, a clean atmosphere, and a dark and quiet night sky. The United Nations’ COPUOS and UNOOSA have started to address some of these issues, but the existing UN COPUOS guidelines on space junk were adopted over 13 years ago, before the New Space Age. They do not address the risks presented by mega-constellations that the FCC has recently acknowledged or the environmental harms discussed above. Moreover, these guidelines are not legally binding. Under the leadership of UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield and Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, we should ensure there is international action in this area and shared responsibility regarding space and Earth.
Of course, any guidance at the multinational level must be applied and enforced at the national level to be effective. Recent reports from OECD and the COPUOS working group emphasize the need for a national-level focus on the environmental threats created by mega-constellations. The United States (through the FCC) must implement rules for the licensing of commercial satellites and otherwise address the environmental threats posed by mega-constellations to ensure that US companies, government agencies, and scientists have continued safe and reliable shared access to these finite resources.
The Biden-Harris Administration has already demonstrated its commitment to science-based policymaking and to the environment. That initiative should include a rigorous examination of the environmental threats posed by mega-constellations to our shared resources in space and here on Earth. The U.S. should lead in establishing sustainable environmental policies in the New Space Age — not continue existing practices that perpetuate the current reckless rush to fill space with mega-constellations before suitable rules and policies can be put in place. If the Biden-Harris Administration acts expeditiously, America can get in front of these threats and lead the world.
The standard the Biden-Harris Administration sets today with respect to mega-constellations — whether by action or inaction — is what the global satellite industry will soon follow. It is unquestionable that mega-constellations pose a variety of significant environmental threats, and that NEPA requires these issues to be fully examined. By instituting and applying high standards for environmental protections, the Biden-Harris administration can ensure our shared space resources are used safely and in a manner that limits environmental harm both in space and on Earth.
A new and very different use of space is occurring in the form of constellations of thousands, or even tens of thousands, of satellites in the part of space nearest Earth, and known as “Low Earth Orbit” (LEO), which is already congested with space objects. These “mega-constellations” are considered “game changers” and even their proponents describe these proposals as “unprecedented” in nature.5 These mega-constellations are being advanced without a full evaluation on the environmental costs they impose, and without regard for whether the same objectives could be achieved in a more environmentally friendly manner — or if the missions to be served by these mega-constellations are in fact worth the environmental consequences. Leading third parties have detailed the expected environmental harms from these megaconstellations: air pollution, space pollution, and light and radio-frequency pollution.6 Mistakes in space cannot be cleaned up like they can on Earth. It would be common sense to prevent junking up space in the first place. Moreover, decisions made — or not made — during the course of this year as more mega-constellations satellites are approved for deployment will set the standard for the global space industry and the design of additional satellite constellations in LEO.
Yes. The vaporization of mega-constellation satellites when they deorbit and reenter the atmosphere releases chemical compounds that could contribute to climate change through, among other things, radiative forcing and ozone depletion.7 That process poses a new source of air pollution in the form of small particles comprising “a zoo of complex chemical types” that will “form around an 85-kilometer altitude, then drift downward, accumulating in the stratosphere…”8 The stratosphere where this pollution gathers is home to the fragile ozone layer that protects the Earth from UV radiation.9 Scientists anticipate that the fact that these pollutants are directly injected into the uppermost layers of the atmosphere (top down) means that they can cause significantly greater harm than pollutants that emanate from Earth (bottom up).
Particularly under these circumstances where many experts have issued calls to arms about the significant environmental effects of mega-constellations, there is no excuse for turning a blind eye by failing to conduct an environmental review. A key purpose of NEPA is to ensure that agencies look before they leap, particularly when presented with previously unanticipated circumstances that may have a significant environmental effect.10
The FCC has long recognized the lack of economic incentives for individual actors to act responsibly with respect to the shared resource that is space.11 Changes in the space industry have eliminated the incentives to achieve safe-space operations that previously existed.12 The cost of launch has dropped precipitously, reducing the cost of access to space. Economies of scale that enable small, inexpensive payloads are driving investment in inexpensive and economically expendable satellites. When the cost of space access is high, self-interest motivates high standards of care because the cost of failure is high. The term “space-qualified” once meant the industry’s highest standards for quality and reliability, even in the harsh conditions of space. Those high costs once fostered a safe space ecosystem: the number of objects in space was limited, and the rules to manage the risks were adequate. With economic barriers gone, self-interest and the public good are quickly diverging. The cost of failure to an individual actor is far, far less than the collective risk of multiple individual failures — a long-anticipated “tragedy of the commons” in space.
Not at all. Many different advances in satellite technology over the past several years are providing significant increases in both broadband speeds and capacity for consumers. Satellite operators have proposed systems with fewer, more reliable satellites that can achieve the same objectives as mega-constellations, and without high levels of negative environmental impacts.
Professor Andy Lawrence, author of Losing the Sky, recently said it best: “Giving people better Internet, and keeping Capitalism healthy and competitive, is quite possible without thousands of low orbit satellites. Why should we accept arbitrary degradation and pollution when it’s not even necessary?”13 Particularly when experts, including the FCC, recognize that many satellite operators do not have a natural incentive to protect common natural resources (space, the atmosphere, Earth) for the benefit of others, it is essential to adopt regulations and licensing approaches that ensure we can both have access to the most advanced technology and also maintain a safe and clean environment. Many options exist, and the number and reliability of satellites in a LEO constellation is a design choice that companies can make to ensure that consumers have both better broadband and assurances of a safe and clean environment.
There is no direct correlation between the altitude at which a LEO satellite system operates and the risk of collision involving that system. A number of factors come into play in assessing safety, including the density of objects in a given orbit. Some orbits are denser than others, meaning that satellites and space junk are less dispersed. In fact, “the most crowded section is between 500 and 1000 km up. It’s the densest region, it’s the Highway 401 of space.”12 Then you have to consider the defunct satellites and space junk in higher orbits that will naturally deorbit through lower orbits and create collision risks. The scale of a given constellation (number of satellites) and its design are also major factors in assessing collision risk.
Satellites that cannot maneuver cannot avoid collisions. And when they do collide, even collisions at 550 km would pollute orbits many hundreds of kilometers above and below, with large fields of fast-moving shrapnel-like space junk that would traverse other orbits for decades or a century, as well as impair use of those orbits and harm many other users of space. Furthermore, having satellites in lower orbits does not solve the atmospheric pollution issue. And as leading experts explain, mega-constellation satellites in low orbits are most visible when most ordinary people are looking at the sky, as well as when key optical astronomical observations need to take place.12 These satellites also can be visible all night in summer because of the relationship of the Sun to the Earth at that time of year.12 Moreover, interference with radio astronomy does not depend on the time of day because the glare of the interfering signals beams down all of the time.12
To be sure, there is a role for international cooperation to ensure a clean atmosphere, safe and shared access to space, and a dark and quiet night sky. But only national regulators can ensure that actually occurs in how they fulfill their obligations regarding shared use of space in national licensing and policy-making decisions. Recent reports from OECD and the UN’s COPUOS working group emphasize the need for a national-level focus on the environmental threats created by mega-constellations.
America’s leadership in space exploration and utilization could greatly accelerate by using a fundamentally different approach to in-space operations than that which exists today. Most of today’s spacecraft are locked into their launch configurations, with little or no ability to be updated or serviced once in space. But by leveraging recent and emerging capabilities to manufacture, assemble, and service spacecraft in space, we can dramatically improve the cost-effectiveness, productivity, and resiliency of our space systems.
To achieve this, the Biden-Harris Administration should launch a new Advanced Space Architectures Program (ASAP) to enable a new generation of in-space operations. ASAP would operate under a public-private consortium model to leverage government investment, engage a broad community, and bring in the support of international partners. In this memo, we propose two specific missions that the next administration could undertake early to initiate the ASAP program and demonstrate its efficacy. Initiating ASAP as soon as possible will help the new administration’s mission to build back better: for our economy, for science and exploration, for international leadership in mitigating the climate crisis, and for the security of our nation.