[ad_1]
There is much more international consensus to create non-binding norms involving behavior in space than stricter technology-specific policies, Samson said. She says she is “carefully excited” that the UN is finally getting out of the dead end of space diplomacy.
Dozens of countries have already published responses to the UN proposal, mostly in support of it. Non-governmental groups, including Samson’s Safe World Foundation, arms control groups and even the International Committee of the Red Cross, have done the same. The latter states that “the use of weapons in space … can have a significant impact on civilians on Earth.” If, say, a satellite on which people depend for weather information, communications or navigation has been deactivated during an international dispute, this could have long-term consequences.
This is a particular problem with dual-use technology, Samson said, referring to spacecraft that can be used for military and civilian purposes. For example, while some military communications include special military satellites, 80 percent of these communications use various commercial satellites, which can nevertheless be considered military purposes. (The space industry was not invited to comment directly, as individual companies are governed by their national rather than international policies. Representatives of the US space industry often participate in the US delegation.)
The dangers of space debris that can be generated by an orbital collision or attack continue to attract attention, especially given the amount of debris produced by anti-satellite missile tests, such as those in China in 2007 and India in 2019. Even small parts of untraceable space floats can be harmful because they move at high speeds. Bruce McClintock, head of the Rand Corporation Space Enterprise Initiative, a federally funded and focused military research center based in Santa Monica, California, notes that tornado winds can trap pieces of straw in telephone poles on Earth. “Now imagine that you are at orbital speed and have something the size of a paint chip moving at thousands of miles per hour. “These are things that can cause serious damage to satellites,” he said.
That’s why Aaron Bowley, a planetary scientist and co-founder of the Space Institute in Vancouver, British Columbia, is calling for a ban on weapons tests that could destroy satellites. “The ban on anti-satellite tests that generate debris is an area where I think there can be widespread agreement,” he said. His institute published an open letter on September 2, arguing for such a ban, signed by many countries. A ban on tests that generate “long-lived debris” – shrapnel that stays in orbit for years instead of falling and burning in the lower atmosphere – could have a more realistic chance of being accepted, McClintock said, although he was sympathetic to the argument. letter from the Space Institute.
To avoid collisions or attacks between satellites, which could also lead to debris, experts often cite the agreement on maritime incidents between the United States and the former Soviet Union, which was signed in 1972. The agreement required more communications between the two countries and required ships. including those involved in surveillance, to stay away from each other to avoid collisions. “It didn’t change the size and structure of the navy, but it did introduce rules for notifying scientists,” said Jessica West, a senior researcher at the Project Plowshares Research Institute in Waterloo, Ontario. Providing advance warning to satellite owners and asking for consent to approach would be very important, “so that they do not freak out and worry and do not respond to what you are doing in an escalating way, because your intention is simply to do exercise, ”she says.
[ad_2]
Source link