Salvage rights

--- In ssi_list@... "Ed Minchau"

> You're pretty good with research, tango, maybe you can come up
> with some better sources.
>
> Ed

Ed, you did some pretty thorough research in your quest. As such I'm
sure that you're now aware that there is no right of salvage in
outer-space. This is most certainly due to the the fact that no one
has challenged ownership of orbiting bodies. However there is a
downside to this - everything that is launched into orbit stays the
property of the launcher even long after serving its purpose. Owners
will be responsible for their space junk and the damage that it
causes. If the junk fragments, the orbital debris cloud is still the
responsibility of the owner and the damage caused by the debris
cloud will also fall onto the owner. This hasn't happened yet but
with things getting more crowded up there, I'm sure a new liability
will soon be tested in the courts or through diplomacy.

Here is a post to Usenet I upped last December but it never spawned
the discussion I hoped.

TangoMan

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&c2coff=1&threadm=WRCDb.722490%246C4.157693%
40pd7tw1no&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dorbital%2Bdebris%2Bliability%
26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%
3DWRCDb.722490%25246C4.157693%2540pd7tw1no%26rnum%3D1

Below is the text of the post:

Lately I've been giving some thought to ownership and liability
issues of orbiting objects and how increased satellite density and
the accidents that follow will necessitate the creation of new legal
remedies.

The prinicple driving issue may be orbital impacts and the liability
that results from these impacts.

I haven't yet seen any references to legal claims caused by orbital
impacts and if a satellite is indeed damaged by orbital debris the
owners of the satellite turn to their insurers for payment.

Currently, the standard operating procedure for satellite deployment
seems to me to involve reducing costs by eliminating, or minimizing,
expensive deorbit and debris minimization procedures.

At some point I believe that an insurance company will begin legal
proceedings in an effort to recoup their loss from the offending
party. I think this scenario to be increasing in likelihood due to
the increasing crowding in orbit and the resultant increase in
probability of collision.

Here's a nice view of orbital debris density viewed from beyond GEO.
http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/graphics/GEO640.jpg

A illustrative movie of the density of satellite debris in orbit.
http://www.aero.org/cords/space-debris.mov

All of these discrete objects pose varying degrees of threats. Some
are satellites that have manoeuvring capability while others are
spent satellites and orbital flotsam. It is these last that pose the
greatest problem.

All of these objects have unique orbits, and often these orbits are
intersecting each other. The chance of collision increases with the
number of objects.

When an impact occurs the debris that is created is not restricted
to just the proximity of the impact zone but spreads across the
orbital band of the impacted satellite and this dispersal can have
consequences for other satellites that either share the same orbit
or intersect it.

Here is a primer on Debris Clouds
http://www.aero.org/cords/deb_clouds.htm

Here is a debris cloud simulation
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~hglewis/research/debris/gto_demo/demo.htm

For the satellites that do maintain manoeuvring capability they can
mitigate against collison risk by responding to data provided by
debris tracking operations.

This is of course not an exhaustive list of such operations, but for
illustrative purposes you may want to look at NASA's Haystack Radar
Facility.
http://sn-callisto.jsc.nasa.gov/measure/radar.html

Ronald Reagon Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site
http://www.smdc.army.mil/RTS.html

Does anyone know how thoroughly such tracking sites determine
provenance of orbital debris?

Now the question that I think is interesting is how to apportion
liability after an orbital impact, and perhaps secondary impacts
that result from the orbital debris cloud.

Looking to existing treaties for guidance yields very little.
Consider:

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies.
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.html

Article VI

"States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international
responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the
moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried
on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, . . ."

By this clause of the Treaty, any claims for damage must be
submitted by a State Party to another State Party and their is no
provision for litigation. The only recourse one could expect would
be through diplomatic negotiation. Of course the results of this
negotiation may include *permission* to initiate legal proceedings
against the offending party.

Article VII

"Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the
launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and
other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or
facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage
to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical
persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air
or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies."

This is an interesting Article for it extends liability to the launch
providers and their State host for liability that may occur in the
future with respect to impacts. My reading of this Article is that
it is primarily concerned with launch accidents and has little
applicability to orbital collisons.

Article VIII

"A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched
into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control
over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer
space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into
outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial
body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their
presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their
return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond
the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they
are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon
request, furnish identifying data prior to their return."

This Article forms the basis for claims of ownership of objects in
orbit. Notably, it doesn't distinguish between ownership of the
designated payload and the debris that is cast off in the launch
process.

So, while the owners are primarily concerned with protecting their
payload asset from damage they are doing very little to mitigate
dangers posed by their debris and they are still the legal owners of
the debris and their responsibility for the debris has not been
erased by the seeming abandonment.

In another Treaty, the "Convention on International Liability for
Damage Caused by Space Objects" the signatories at least try to
recognize liability for damages.
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liabilitytxt.html

Article III

"In the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface
of the earth to a space object of one launching State or to persons
or property on board such a space object by a space object of
another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the
damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is
responsible."

The interesting question for me is whether the casting of debris
into orbit is a form of negligence? If a company, or country, can
minimize the debris that it creates in orbit but chooses not to do
so, then there is a clear choice that was made, irrespective of
economic considerations, and fault can be established.

If provenance of debris can be established and an impact occurs then
there may be an opening for legal proceedings to take place against
the offending party.

Of course establishing provenance may not be a clear cut procedure.
All objects launched into orbit must be registered with the UN, but
adherence to this obligation is sketchy at best. Many military
satellites are never registered, or are registered with deceitful
data. There are many amateur astronomers who track unregistered
satellites. There are also sites that detail unregistered
satellites, one of which is:
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/satreg1.html

If provenance is established, how does one establish fault for
subsequent damages that are caused by the resultant debris cloud
that will spread to occupy the entire orbit?

With this area of law appearing somewhat murky, I think that a treaty
addressing this issue should be negotiated.

Also, the insurance companies should consider some form of debris
removal from orbit as a means of lowering their risk exposure. They
could even do this in a piecemeal fashion by scouring the intended
orbit and intersecting orbits.

Of course many satellites are owned by governments and are thus not
part of the insurable inventory, so it's unlikely that debris
removal will be a privately funded venture. Most likely it will be
the military's cover for implementing the militarization of space
under a benign cover.

Space militarization - using lasers for orbital debris removal
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf

Using space tethers for debris removal.
http://www.tethers.com/TT.html

I'd appreciate any thoughts readers have on this matter.

TangoMan

P.S. - Here are some links on debris damage caused by equipment
falling to Earth.

Boy is hit by satellite debris but the Chinese Gov't paid for his
medical treatment and offering to pay his family some compensation.
http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2002/1107/bz09-2.html

Informative essay and many photos of satellite debris that's fallen
to Earth.
http://www.eclipsetours.com/sat/debris.html