NEW YORK — The World Economic Forum (WEF) has released a brand new set of guidelines intended to cut back the creation of orbital debris with the support of some, but not all, major satellite operators.
The Space Industry Debris Mitigation Recommendations document, released by the WEF June 13, outlines recommendations to avoid collisions that may create debris by limiting the lifetime of satellites in orbit after they’ve accomplished their missions and improving coordination amongst satellite operators.
Amongst those recommendations is to ascertain a hit rate for “post-mission disposal,” or removal of satellites from orbit after the top of their missions, to 95% to 99%. That disposal ought to be accomplished not more than five years after the top of every satellite’s mission.
Current international guidelines, often incorporated into national law, set a post-mission disposal timeline of as much as 25 years, although the U.S. Federal Communications Commission adopted a brand new rule last September that may reduce it to 5 years for satellites which are licensed or obtain market access from the agency. Even with the 25-year guideline, compliance has been below 50% by some metrics.
“We desired to push the envelope a bit bit on a few of these concrete, specific targets,” said Nikolai Khlystov, lead for the WEF’s Way forward for Space initiative, during a panel on the Secure World Foundation’s Summit for Space Sustainability here June 13. It was intended, he said, to construct on past work by the WEF, notably the event of the Space Sustainability Rating that assesses how satellite systems meet best practices for protected and sustainable space operations.
Other recommendations within the document call for satellites to be maneuverable, preferably though onboard propulsion, when operating at altitudes above 375 kilometers. Satellite operators should answer “all reasonable and bonafide requests” for space traffic coordination from other operators and share orbital data.
The document calls on governments to adopt the brand new post-mission disposal guidelines and mandate the usage of energetic debris removal systems for space objects that can’t comply with them, once such systems are “practical and commercially inexpensive.” It also recommends increased investments in space situational awareness capabilities and encourages sharing of knowledge on orbits of space objects.
The audience for the document, Khlystov said, is as much stakeholders outside the industry because it is satellite operators. “You may take this document to policymakers, investors and other stakeholders and say that is where a big a part of the industry is at.”
Twenty-seven corporations endorsed the document on the time of its release. They include corporations that operate large satellite constellations, corresponding to OneWeb, Planet and Spire, in addition to a combination of other established and emerging space corporations.
Amongst them is GHGSat, a Canadian company that has nine smallsats in orbit to watch greenhouse gas emissions. “Even before engaging on this discussion, we wanted to provide you with latest practices” on space sustainability, said Bryn Orth-Lashley, technical operations and repair delivery manager at GHGSat, throughout the panel. “It wasn’t that much of an uphill climb.”
He noted the corporate’s satellites should not have onboard propulsion but are in a position to maneuver by alternative means, corresponding to differential drag, to comply with the rules. The corporate will proceed to operate satellites after the top of their business missions, including performing avoidance maneuvers, until reentry.
Some major corporations, though, haven’t signed on. They include SpaceX, which operates by far the biggest satellite constellation with its Starlink system, and Amazon, which is developing its Project Kuiper constellation. Even some satellite operators which have espoused the importance of space sustainability, like Viasat, aren’t included.
Khlystov said the WEF undertook a “pretty comprehensive effort” to have interaction with as many satellite operators as possible. “If some actors didn’t sign on, I don’t think it’s an indication that they’re against these standards,” he said, noting there was some “pretty significant input” from operators not included among the many 27 signatories.
“I used to be very encouraged by the method,” he continued. “We had superb discussions. Not everybody who was a part of the discussions got here on board, but they were all very engaged.”
