INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Lyon Brad King
Contributor
Lyon Brad King is chief executive and co-founder of Orbion Space Technology and
the Ron and Elaine Starr Professor in Space Systems, Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics, at Michigan Technological University
&Disruption& is a term (over)used in the technology world to describe some development or product that is inherently good
The formal definition of the term, however, is at odds with its casual use: a disruption is a &disturbance or problem that interrupts an
event, activity, or process.& Right now, space tech is currently experiencing both flavors of disruption.
Reliable estimates indicate that
within the next 5-7 years, the inhabitants of the Earth will launch more satellites into space than have been launched in the history of our
This is a disruption in the best sense; however, there a serious problem: we&re at a very real risk of crushing our own excitement and
stalling our progress toward the stars
Space policy hasn&t been high on our government to-do list, and this unfortunate regulatory neglect means that today most innovative
companies& plans are being disrupted by stuffy, antiquated rules and regulations.
Image: Bryce Durbin/TechCrunch
Existing space policy
For
those who haven&t recently brushed up on existing space policy, a widely adopted international agreement called the &Treaty on Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies& was negotiated,
signed and drafted in 1967 by the United Nations
Commonly referred to as The Outer Space Treaty, the agreement dictates that each nation be responsible for all and any of the space
activities originating from their nation —whether they&re conducted by citizens, companies or the government itself
Each must also maintain full jurisdiction and control over all space objects originating from their country.
It is noteworthy that, at the
time the treaty was signed, nobody could fathom that commercial companies might want anything to do with outer space, let alone launch their
own satellites
Permits… and the FCC
OK, so the U.S
government is responsible for our space activity and space objects, right That means it somehow needs to know — and track — anyone and
anything that goes up, and this is no small task
It not like we can perform mandatory vehicle inspections when satellites cross the Karman Line, marking the border between atmosphere and
So how do we track them By issuing permits before they launch
And while we&re talking about word definitions, &permit& loosely translates to &huge government bureaucratic morass.&
The current system in
place involves getting permission from the FCC, which is strange because when you think &satellites& I highly doubt that the FCC comes to
top-of-mind as the appropriate expert agency
The logic goes that if you&re planning to launch an object into space, then surely you&re planning to communicate with it somehow —
whether by beaming up commands or beaming down data — and this requires the use of radio frequencies, which are coordinated by the FCC
If you&re going to be making a call to the FCC anyway, then this might be an appropriate place to conduct a &vehicle inspection& and put a
permit sticker on the back of your satellite.
The problem is that the FCC now becomes the gatekeeper for all things related to satellites,
extending to many checkboxes that have nothing to do with radio frequencies
For instance, the FCC requires all permit applicants to prove that their satellite won&t cause injury or harm when/if it re-enters the Earth
You may not be surprised to learn that such a calculation involves more than a couple of dubious assumptions and some fuzzy math, and
perhaps another agency (ahem, NASA) might be better suited to checking this.
Among the many checkboxes, the FCC also requires launch permit
applicants to prove that their satellites will be &trackable& in space so that they can be monitored, ostensibly to foresee potential
collisions with other satellites
It was this requirement that disrupted satellite manufacturer Swarm Technologies, which applied for FCC permission to launch their tiny
SpaceBee satellites to disrupt the Internet of Things from space (see what I did there with disruption)
Now, these satellites are smaller than pretty much anything ever put into orbit — an enviable innovation! — and so the FCC determined
that they might not show up on the usual radars used to track satellites
Which is confusing, because smaller satellites have been permitted and launched by the same agency.
Consequences for startups
The logical
path forward is to appear before the FCC with hat in hand and appeal for a legitimate permit
This is the way things have been done in the past, when it took 10 years for giant aerospace companies to build a satellite; there was
plenty of time to wait for bureaucracy
But put yourself in the seat of a disruptive startup that is building an entire small satellite in a few months: your company is consuming
venture cash at a steady burn rate toward zero and you need to demonstrate your tech in space to get your next pile of cash
If you take a number in the FCC lobby and wait your turn, then the likely outcome is that your permit will be delivered to the address of a
bankrupt company.
Faced with the prospect of this, there no doubt that ambitious and bold startups will be tempted to push the boundaries
and see just how severe the penalties will be for operating sans permit (and in fact, that seems to be the path taken by the Swarm team)
At this point, nobody really knows what the real consequences are
In the worst case, they will destroy the entire business of the startup that dares, but then bankruptcy might have been pretty much
guaranteed anyway, based on the undetermined time of the FCC appeal process.
An interesting alternative exists: a company can try to export
their satellite to another country and try their hand in that country space permitting process
Needless to say, federal regulations that encourage U.S
companies to take their tech offshore are not how we want to do business, and oh-by-the-way, satellite export laws are such a mess they make
the launch-permitting process look like buying an entrance pass to a national park in comparison.
Archinaut, a robotic system developed by
Made in Space, can manufacture, assemble and repair satellites, spacecraft or other large equipment in zero gravity.
Fixing a broken system
for the new space era
How do we fix a broken system You can bet we won&t alter international treaties any time soon, so it safe to assume
we&re stuck with what set forth by The Outer Space Treaty
One foreseeable option by the government would be to put stronger teeth into existing policies and laws, so that devastating penalties are
issued to any renegade companies
The effect of this would be predictable: emerging startups with exciting new ideas will be stifled, while the corporate giants of the space
industry old guard will remain untouched
On the other hand, the government could choose to look the other way and merely slap wrists, but this could invite even more dangerous and
egregious violations down the line that would prove hazardous to the responsible space actors.
Because of The Outer Space Treaty, the U.S
will always be required to monitor and track all satellites from our nation
Concepts like the space-equivalent of the FAA have been proposed, as have mandatory radio-beacons on each satellite, self-identifying them
So far, this is all just chatter and nothing has been enacted
In the meantime, the New Space renegades will continue to explore the boundaries by pushing them, while the old guard will express outrage
over the insolence of the disrespectful youngsters
It may be that the only solution is for the new explorers to self-organize and self-police to bring order to the chaos.
In any case, we are
in dire need of a forward-thinking approach to space policy and regulation that includes and goes beyond just Earth-orbiting satellites
If our government continues to ignore the need for comprehensive space policy that is expandable to pervasive commercial activity, it just a
matter of time before a major civil, commercial or international dispute occurs in space that could prove legally catastrophic.
