This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

President To Sign Directive Dealing With Space Traffic Management

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
June 18, 2018
President To Sign Directive Dealing With Space Traffic Management

Today the President will sign Space Policy Directive 3 (SPD-3) at the National Space Council meeting being held at the White House. SPD-3 deals principally with space traffic management. This morning in a media call National Space Council Executive Director Scott Pace said the U.S. needs to ave unfettered access and the ability to operate space – but space is becoming congested. The new policy (SPD-3) addresses these challenges.
SPD-3 establishes principles, goals, and guidance on how to achieve these goals. It also establishes responsibility within the U.S, government for taking on the task of implementing these goals: the Department of Defense will take the lead on developing an authoritative catalog of space objects; the Department of Commerce will be responsible for the releasable portions of the catalog for collision avoidance purposes; the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation will lead the development of standards and practices, and the State Department will lead U.S. efforts to conduct these activities internationally with transparency.
Pace says that this is going to be a “bottom-up process” using best practices from industry. As such no treaty-level document is envisioned. Pace said that the U.S. wants to avoid creating an international treaty since that would be complicated and take time to do Instead, Pace says that they will be working to make this happen faster by having recommendations incorporated into various countries’ laws and regulations.
Pace concluded by saying that a next step for the space council will be space debris and proximity operations as it relates to on-orbit servicing.

Update: President Donald J. Trump is Achieving a Safe and Secure Future in Space – Fact Sheet, White House
FURTHER SPACE DEVELOPMENT: President Donald J. Trump signed Space Policy Directive – 3 directing the United States to lead the management of traffic and mitigate the effects of debris in space.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

23 responses to “President To Sign Directive Dealing With Space Traffic Management”

  1. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    So NASA is not a part of this?

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Why would they be? They are a science agency and this is about business. What role does NASA have in the nation’s air traffic control system? Even the USAF would have more on a justification to be part of it as part of national security than NASA.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        And the orbital debris expertise lies with whom?

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          The USAF which has been tracking it all these years. As for NASA, their job for space traffic management will be the same as for aviation, provide basic research as needed, but no actual involvement. Its way past time for NASA being “the space monopoly”, that is why America has been stuck in LEO for decades.

          The great thing about the Trump Administration is that it really supports space development but doesn’t worship NASA as the ‘Only” path to doing it. Of course this angers all the NASA huggers in the beltway who what it to remain the space monopoly and see it as the “only” way.

          • tutiger87 says:
            0
            0

            America has been stuck in Low Earth Orbit because of poor leadership from Congress. But that’s another discussion..

            You keep believing Trump if you want to. It’s nothing but lip service until budget comes with those words. Just like every other President before him.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The difference is there is no need for a trillion dollar program. The regulation framework will be able to be put in place for a few million, a rounding error in NASA terms. Then NASA just buy space for science payloads like it will be doing for the Moon from commercial providers, pennies on the dollar compared to paying for NASA flagship missions. And then buying seats for astronauts as they become available.

          • Bob Mahoney says:
            0
            0

            Its way past time for NASA being “the space monopoly”, that is why America has been stuck in LEO for decades.

            This premise and this conclusion are both cartoon-quality cardboard. The real world is more complicated.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Really? What has been the case for the last forty years? Presidents have made a speech on a new national space policy, or created a commission on national space goals and then made a speech. And who do they focus it on? NASA as NASA is seen as being the “only” way to do space exploration. And what happens? NASA studies it to death, Congress balks at the NASA price tag, and then a new Administration comes into power and the reset button is set and we have a new commission and speech…

            This Administration by contrast is focusing instead on creating a framework for space commerce to take the lead in space exploration. And President Trump stated in his speech he would be very happy if private space beats NASA to Mars.

          • tutiger87 says:
            0
            0

            He would be happy if…..wait, Keith despises politically charged comments…

          • tutiger87 says:
            0
            0

            Aint nobody going to Mars until we get radiation shielding, flawless ECLSS, power, and a host of other problems which really don’t care whose rocket we fly on. Give me your business case for Mars that would make private industry commit millions, no billions of dollars to such an effort? There is none. Right now, the only entity paying for it is the government. And even with private rockets bringing the cost down a little, it’s still going to cost. No bucks, No Buck Rodgers.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            So are you offering to pay me a consulting fee to write a business model for you or do you just expect me to give it away for free? Do you work for free?

          • wwheaton says:
            0
            0

            Shielding against high energy cosmic rays appears to be beyond us, though there are things we can do to ameliorate the problems. Most practical shielding would simply increase the hazards by producing secondary radiations due to inelastic scattering processes. Us older astronomers discovered long ago that “success in gamma-ray astronomy is proportional to the amount of lead left on the ground”.

            Carrying crews in higher-speed vehicles (LOX/LH2 propulsion) in shorter duration orbits, while putting cargo in ion-drive propelled cargo ships, would be one amelioration. Taking max advantage of Nature-provided shielding on Phobos and Mars, for another. Finding effective treatments for cancer, could be yet one more.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            It might be matter of what “basic” research means, but I can see much greater NASA involvement. The time it takes debris’ orbits to decay is not trivial to predict. Atmospheric density, especially given changes in solar UV flux, isn’t too well known. Measuring and modeling all that, plus predicting the decay of debris orbits, strikes me as something NASA would be the right organization for. And I’d call that more applied than basic research. The same would be true of estimating the secondary debris from an hypervelocity impact.

          • Courtney Bailey says:
            0
            0

            Dr. Matula –

            I have been reading your posts both here on NASAWatch and on other sites for some time now. I’ve finally reached a breaking point with this series of comments. With all due respect, sir, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about the great majority of the time.

            Your personal ignorance about NASA’s role in airspace management and safety is an insult to the civil servants and contractors who work the NextGen program in collaboration with the FAA and other ARMD programs focused on integrating non-traditional vehicles (such as drones) safely into the NAS.

            You obviously have no insight into NASA’s collaboration with JSpOC or NASA’s CARA office or that NASA was required to develop significant expertise on conjunction analysis in LEO to keep the ISS safe. The Orbital Debris Office at JSC is world-class and contributes to global understanding in developing and maintaining standards to ensure a safe environment for all space activities. I assure you if you actually looked into it you would appreciate NASA’s contribution to the field.

            It was the Bush Administration that supported COTS and the Obama Administration that initiated commercial crew. The SLS was enacted by Congress in the NASA 2010 Authorization Act after the Obama Administration moved to cancel the Constellation program. So you are rewriting history if you think that this Administration is the first to highlight commercial space as a force multiplier for government investment.

            I would suggest you do the research since there hasn’t been an Administration policy stating that NASA was the “only” path for space development since the late 1970’s. (i.e., the National Space Policy of 1978 expressly supported the domestic commercial exploitation of outer space.) Commercial space has developed in fits and starts since then – I see the current era as the third wave of space commercialization. And I am quite certain that very few of the commercial companies you seem to believe dragged themselves up by their own bootstraps would be where they are today without NASA’s support – whether via funding, access to space or technology transfer. And few would be able to close their business case without counting on NASA as a customer. So in my view, there would be few in-space activities to regulate without NASA’s support.

            So please recognize the difference between the Administration’s goal to establish a “light touch” in-space regulatory environment under SPD-3 (which I assure you, NASA will be a fully engaged participant, as you will see when you have a chance to read the full document) and the reality of enabling a sustainable in-space economy sufficient to close a commercial business case. And right now, when it comes to government support for the latter, NASA *is* the only game in town.

            I just want to note that I’m posting here in my personal capacity outside of work hours – nothing in my above post should be attributed to my employer.

  2. rb1957 says:
    0
    0

    Why does the US need “unfettered access” to space, presumably at the expense of other nations ? Or perhaps all nations want unfettered access (to a limited resource) … and we know where that leads (wars are fought over access to limited resources).

    Perhaps what we really need is some “fair” allocation of the resource ?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      So we do not get what we have in anarctica.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I don’t see anything about doing things at the expense of other nations. In fact, the Directive specifically applies only to the United States. The only international part is having the State Department lobby other countries to make their own laws paralleling whatever regulations we eventually adopt.

      This is about orbital debris, which is essentially a navigation hazard. An analogy would be requiring NOAA to have weather satellite coverage over the whole planet, to assure the United States has access to maritime transport “unfettered” by unpredicted hurricanes.

      • rb1957 says:
        0
        0

        if the purpose of US policy is to give the US “unfettered access” then the inference is this is how the policy will be crafted.

        It is a different policy statement that intends to map space debris (and make this navigation hazard information available to all) to make space more accessible (and safer) for all.

        For example, as stated (to give the US unfettered access) then the US could lay claim to a bunch of orbits and clean them of debris by pushing this danger into orbits that other countries would use. Though I’m not saying this would happen.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          The Directive does specify observing and tracking debris, and making the information available. It even gets into the details of which government agency is responsible for which of those tasks.

          From Dr. Pace’s press statement, the focus on the United States is all about getting near-term results. A presidential directive about what US government agencies should do can take effect almost instantly. An international treaty can take years or decades to negotiate and ratify. So the specified approach is to develop our own standards, practices and regulations, do our part to deal with the problem, and then have the State department encourage other nations to enact similar policies.

          They might do that anyway. Anyone wanting to fly on a US launch vehicle would have to follow US regulations. Having to deal with different sets of regulations for different launch service providers would be a pain.

  3. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    One thing certain is the space program is part of Trump’s overall nationalistic program of the USA. Reading recent article about this it mentions return to the Moon, spacecraft or men on the Moon can give high visibility of US dominance (Mars is too far away to be “seen”). Whether NASA gets more money (or move funds from esoteric programs to high visibility programs, or cut civil servant pay and benefits), or if USAF Space Command gets a huge boost in funding, or ?

  4. Lawrence Wild says:
    0
    0

    So now we need to develop a craft (unmanned) with a high delta-v capability on orbit to go around and start sticking electrostatic tails (for electrostatic braking) on abandoned spacecraft using magnetism or a vacuum compatible adhesive. Wonder how long the proposal will take to study, write and sublet to manufacturing? Years, decades, eons?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Not necessarily. The debris in low Earth will reenter, given a little time. If we just stop producing it, that could be a solution. That could mean things like regulations requiring a deorbit maneuver before the end of a spacecraft’s life. Some people would hate that, since spacecraft typically continue to operate beyond their designed lifetime. But things like that are possibilities.