Space exploration: what goes up, must come down

Background

The space economy is predicted to be worth a staggering $1.4 trillion by 2030.¹ This exponential growth can be largely attributed to the new private “space race” dominated by the world’s billionaires. Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are the forerunners, albeit their approaches and goals differ significantly. SpaceX is predominately focusing on advancing space technology, Virgin Galactic is concentrating on the introduction of “space tourism,” and Blue Origin aims to promote sustainable space development. These companies have undeniably changed the landscape of the space launch industry which was once dominated by state actors such as the USA and Russia. In fact, NASA and other government agencies have become the customers of private space contractors, rather than assuming their traditional role as creators of new space technologies. Similarly, space is also being accessed by other private actors such as universities and industry bodies. This shift has been driven by a multitude of factors including decreases in cost, advances in technology and government subsidies.

Challenges 

Although the privatisation of space activities offers exciting developments for humankind, the resulting impact on Earth must also be considered. Every rocket, satellite, space station (and car!²) that is launched must eventually return, as evidenced by the future deorbit of the most famous manmade object in space – the International Space Station (“ISS”). In 2031 the ISS is due to crash into the most remote part of the Pacific Ocean, in an area beyond national jurisdiction, often referred to as “Point Nemo” or the “Space Graveyard.” The debris path of the ISS is estimated to be huge, stretching several kilometres wide and possibly up to 3,700 miles long.³ According to NASA “once the debris enters the ocean, it is expected to settle on the ocean floor. No substantial long-term impacts are expected”.⁴ However, this stance is not universally accepted. Academics at the Arctic University of Norway argue that falling space debris may contain harmful chemical substances and radioactive materials which could pose significant risks to Earth’s environment.⁵ This was highlighted by the crash of a Soviet nuclear-powered surveillance satellite named COSMOS 954 (“COSMOS”). In January 1978, COSMOS crashed in Northwestern Canada, scattering radioactive materials over a 124,000 square kilometre area.⁶ Contamination levels were soon found to be dangerously high. Had COSMOS crashed over a suburban area, the proven environmental damage would have also highly likely been coupled with fatalities, injuries and property damage.⁷ Separately, knowledge gaps still exist with respect to the ecosystems and ecological dynamics of the deep sea,⁸ so we cannot be certain how these will be affected by the sudden arrival of space debris.

The legal framework that regulates the environmental risks from the re-entry of space debris to Earth has been brought into the spotlight through the spike in private space activities. There are five key international treaties underpinning the regulation of outer space activities, which have been developed and adopted by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. The Outer Space Treaty (“OST”) is regarded as the “Magna Carta” of space law; however, its Cold War era provisions are now considered generic and outdated.⁹ For example, terms such as “space debris” are not included in the OST (nor in any other international instrument for that matter). The closest attempt at addressing the issue is contained within Article IX of the OST which states that parties shall “conduct exploration of [outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies] so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose”. However, the OST fails to define “harmful contamination” and “appropriate measures”, making it unclear how this provision should be construed and applied at a national level going forward. Moreover Guideline 6 of the 2007 UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines states that “due consideration” should be given to ensuring that debris that survives to reach Earth’s surface “does not pose an undue risk to people or property, including through environmental pollution caused by hazardous substances”. However, these guidelines are voluntary and not legally binding, so no enforcement action can be taken in the event of infringements. Consequently, there is no unconditional prohibition against the creation and accumulation of space debris, and no obligation to remove it from Earth’s environment once it eventually returns.

A Global Call for the Environment 

Claire and Corrin from CMS Edinburgh met with Rania Djojosugito, a Law PhD researcher from the University of Edinburgh to discuss the current legal framework and the growing environmental effects of the atmospheric re-entry of space debris. While discussing this, Rania notes that “we are seeing reports creeping in questioning the sustainability of space activities. The world is starting to recognise that practices like the re-entry of debris is posing risks to our Earth environment. Space is vital for human development and flourishing, but it can’t come at the cost of our fragile environments: the ozone/atmosphere, our oceans, and more. Now with the increasing interest in space activities, it’s more important than ever to look at how these practices can impact us long term. Space debris pollution can’t be left as an afterthought as was done with plastics and other harmful wastes, because look where we are now?”.

So far, Rania’s research has led her to discover that the international legal framework and practices currently in place prioritise reducing the risk of harm to people and property, as well as protecting the economic interests of countries. However, this prioritisation may come at the cost of our fragile planet. Re-entry of space objects to Earth's oceans, or letting them vaporise and disintegrate in the air, does not make the problem disappear. Instead, it lingers in our atmosphere, our waters, and perhaps other areas we have yet to discover. She argues that countries must work together to cooperate, coordinate, and communicate on sustainable solutions to address the environmental issues caused by space debris re-entry. She believes further research needs to be encouraged to understand the long-term effects of such space activities. Stricter obligations through environmental impact assessments could potentially assist (although such measures would require to be carefully considered and balanced so as not to overly restrict young space companies). Furthermore, rather than viewing the re-entry of space debris as solely a “space” issue, we need collaboration between space agencies, water authorities and other institutions to combat the problem. Sufficient regulation at both international and national levels can ensure that we limit, monitor and control any harmful effects of re-entry.

Co-authored by Abbie Douglas, Trainee Solicitor

[1] See for example, “The new space race could turn science fiction into reality (ft.com)”.

[2] See Where is Starman? Track Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster in Space! · Where is Starman? (whereisroadster.com).

[3] See A fiery end? How the ISS will end its life in orbit - BBC Future

[4] See “FAQs : The International Space Station Transition Plan - NASA”.

[5] See “From Outer Space to Ocean Depths: The “Spacecraft Cemetery” and the Protection of the Marine Environment in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (cwsl.edu)”   

[6] See Previous nuclear incidents and accidents: COSMOS 954 - Canada.ca

[7] See for example, the damage to property that occurred when a small part of the International Space Station landed on a home in Florida: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68828078.

[8] For example, only 26.1% of the global seafloor is mapped and 95% of the oceans remain unexplored: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/explored.html.

[9] See ARES_21_2222E.pdf (unoosa.org), for the text of the treaty.