In this SpaceX handout image, a Falcon 9 rocket carrying the company’s Crew Dragon spacecraft launches on the Demo-2 mission to the International Space Station. (Photo by SpaceX via Getty Images)

WASHINGTON: Commercial satellite and launch firms attempting to operate in space have found themselves in a wilderness of regulatory policy gaps, overlaps and contradictions, especially regarding the use of small satellites, according to a new study.

For some types of commercial activities — such as the use of laser communications links, operations on other planets, and rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) — there is little policy at all and/or no existing regulations, says the study released Thursday by the Aerospace Corporation. Further, for experimental and teeny Cubesats, regulatory policy across the board remains muddled.

“The policy picture for today’s rapidly evolving space enterprise is complex and confusing, particularly to non-traditional entrants and missions that occupy policy ‘gray areas’,” the study, Policy Compliance Roadmap For Small Satellites, concludes.

The in-depth dive into the Byzantine pathways of US regulatory policy for space activities provides a detailed, and critical, look at a number different areas where there are particularly confounding issues: roles and responsibilities of launchers versus satellite owners; orbital debris mitigation; Earth and non-Earth imaging; spectrum usage; cybersecurity requirements for satellites; optical communications links; beyond Earth orbiting missions; and RPO.

Authors Eleni Sims, Barbara Braun, and Aaron Zucherman of the Center for Space Policy and Strategy also make recommendations for both where US policy-makers and regulators should take action, as well as provide advice for companies trying to figure out how to comply with current rules.

Orbital Debris

For example, in the area of orbital debris mitigation there are relatively clear guidelines for government actors enshrined in the US Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP), approved by the National Space Council in 2019. However, Aerospace finds, there are serious policy gaps “in an area where clarity is badly needed.”

“One of the biggest open questions is whether the FCC, whose mission typically has little to do with space, should be the agency to enforce orbital debris mitigation policy on the burgeoning commercial and private satellite business,” the study says. The independent Federal Communications Commission does license commercial satellite use of radio frequency spectrum — and in 2018 raised an interagency ruckus when it issued new draft rules on debris mitigation that other agency officials and industry charged conflicted with the ODMSP.

Another issue, the study finds, is that there are no rules governing the safe disposal of orbiting upper stages for non-DOD or NASA launches, “a gap that policymakers must ultimately address.”

Laser Links

“Laser communications are becoming increasingly popular for space-to-ground and space-to-space communications links, and many proliferated LEO constellations are implementing or considering laser communications links,” the study notes.

It explains that there are essentially two US government entities that have some power over how laser communications links are used: The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), which governs terrestrial use and can object if a space laser might harm air traffic; and the DoD Laser Clearinghouse (LCH) that was set up “to ensure orbital assets are not negatively impacted by lasers,” the study says. “Policy guidelines may need to be negotiated between the FAA and LCH as space-to-ground communications systems become more common,” the study says.

Further, the study finds: “The paradigm where each laser shot is individually coordinated and cleared with either the FAA or the LCH is unlikely to be scalable to proliferated laser communications. Owners may need to ensure their lasers are low enough power to be exempt or the coordination process may need to be automated. Future satellite systems may also need to ensure they are unlikely to be damaged by lasers beneath a certain power, as deconfliction will be cumbersome.”

Proximity Operations: The Rules For Getting Close

The study also found a “patchwork of policy and guidance” when it examined proximity operations, which involve either orbiting very closely to another satellite or actually docking to undertake missions such as inspection (or spying), re-fueling and servicing.

The military has clear processes it must follow for RPO activities, but the study says civil and commercial efforts “are currently not required to comply with any process specific to proximity operations objectives,” even if they do have to comply with frequency and imaging requirements.

And while the ODMSP in 2019 for the first time mentions RPO and satellite servicing missions, calling upon operators to limit the chance of accidental explosions resulting from collisions, the study explains little detail is provided for operators to understand what they should actually do and not do. “Specific numeric thresholds for these guidelines, and definitions of what constitutes ‘proximity operations,’ however, have not yet appeared in lower-level guidance,” it says.

To Infinity, And Beyond

DoD is increasingly interested in space activities in the vast orbital region between the Earth’s outer orbit and that of the Moon, known as cislunar space. However, the study finds, there is no policy or regulatory authority for dealing with the inevitable fact that debris creation in new orbits will need to be kept down to ensure mission safety. This is particularly true in the high-value Lagrange points where spacecraft can in effect hover in a certain orbital region.

Further, commercial operators — led by billionaires Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, and Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Blue Origin — are expanding human presence beyond our Pale Blue Dot.

Article IX of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the framework international treaty governing space activity,  states that signatories must conduct exploration of 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.” The United Nations Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) maintains and promulgates the internationally accepted approaches to planetary protection on behalf of Article IX.

In the US, however, NASA is currently “the only agency with any significant planetary protection expertise, and it does not regulate commercial activity,” the Aerospace study finds. “Agencies such as the FCC, FAA or the Department of Commerce may ultimately need to regulate planetary protection for commercial missions.”

And neither has the Pentagon issued any guidance on how it intends to comply with Article IX, the study adds.