The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research recently held the Outer Space Security conference which included a panel on Mapping Space Threats, Risk and Challenges with key participants coming from locations such as the United States and Russia.
While the Ukraine war was not referred to directly, it is clear from the discussion that there are fundamental disagreements between those two countries about how to proceed with space security matters – including disputes about what constitutes appropriate defence and how to move forward. That said, all participants in the panel expressed a willingness to continue listening and discussing, even though many spoke strongly about their positions.
The panel included:
- Brian Weeden – director of program planning, Secure World Foundation
- Rania Toukebri – project manager, Airbus Defence and Space
- Joanne Wheeler – managing partner, Alden Legal
- Andrey Shabalin – counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN Office
- Sarah Erickson (moderator) – research assistant, Space Security and Weapons of Mass Destruction Program, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
Weeden said he sees both positive and negatives to the situation, as there are “counterspace” technologies rapidly emerging for threats. He added that the United Nations and other entities have been proactive in talking about this space threat for a long time, but mostly focusing on larger countries.
That said, four countries have done “destructive space testing” in the last 15 years, which he said is a threat to security. While he didn’t mention this directly, the group includes Russia. Russia did an anti-satellite test in 2021 that briefly threatened the orbit of the International Space Station and which continues to affect the pathways of SpaceX Starlink satellites.
Shabalin, representing Russia, called for clear definitions of security and safety, saying security concerns “the context of presence of military threats and dangers in outer space” while safety is “traffic management of civilian as well as military satellites, and sustainability of peaceful space activities.”
“To our mind, danger is a state of affairs that can lead to creation of threats under certain conditions. If we can control or manage these conditions, we can prevent the evolution of danger into a real threat,” Shabalin said. And he said that the United States’ programs in military space, such as the X-37B spaceplane and the growing missile surveillance shield by U.S. Space Force, represent threats.
“In Russia, we consider the current situation as dangerous when a small number of countries and national organizations have ‘approved’ military space policies with designation of outer space as another warfighting domain, in which counter space operations can be can be conducted,” he said, adding this specifically refers to “US doctrine” about “ensuring military dominance or supremacy in space.”
Shabalin invoked self-defence in Russia’s justification in doing the anti-satellite test. Citing United States activities, he said, “Do you really think that other players will sit idle, doing nothing and waiting for this threat materialize? Of course not. I can tell you that. Now, for many countries, developing a set capabilities is an assurance of their security.”
Toukebri – perhaps speaking to Shabalin’s point about getting more nations involved – said that several African countries are joining space circles. But that itself raises another issue, which is the sheer number of satellites in orbit. This not only creates an inherent collision risk, but vulnerabilities in launching the satellites – in terms of the supply chain specifically – are not talked about enough, she said. The chain not only means shipment, but also ground stations, the satellite and any linkages in between – all of which are vulnerable to disruption.
Airbus, of which Toukebri is a part, is participating in the U.S. Space Force missile monitoring project. It is tasked to provide 42 satellite platforms to Northrop Grumman for the Tranche 1 transport layer, along with assembly, integration, test, launch, and space vehicle commissioning services.
Wheeler, quoting social biologist Edward Wilson, pointed to “hereditary traits” in humanity that points towards destructive, including tendencies to defend our territory and to align in groups. That said, Wilson (and Wheeler said she agrees with that) has said the “rules are changing” as more countries recognize that a global approach is needed to climate change. The challenge is “applying this to the space domain,” where disputes are breaking out in areas like radiofrequency allocations. She called signal blocking “non-kinetic warfare”; while she did not name any instances, Russia has prominently been doing so during the Ukraine war that it instigated in 2022 to international condemnation (so much so that most space links with Russia are now severed.)
“We need to take a holistic view of the threats to space and our space activities, and how to manage them,” she said, calling for an international approach focusing on matters such as rendezvous and proximity missions, and creating international norms in space. (NASA is attempting to do the latter with its Artemis Accords, which is a coalition of nearly 30 nations committing to peaceful work in space and in some cases, moon exploration. And Russia and China are in the early stages of jointly formulating an independent group.)
“We need to consider all these threats, kinetic threats, cyber threats, groundbreaking activities, the security and stable stability of space, and the protection of its environment is vital to the security, stability, and environmental protection of the Earth,” she added. Particular sectors being examined are energy, oil and gas and nuclear energy, she added – and she noted that Indigenous peoples, African countries and other underrepresented areas must be included in the conversation.
Wheeler and Shabalin, speaking across the divide between the U.S. and Russia, agreed that a first step would be to better define categories of threats and activities on the pathway to resolve disagreements. There have been discussions in the past decades, but no real resolution – which Wheeler said might come down to defining better goals, and involving stakeholders. Shabalin suggested that asset protection would be one of those goals, following up with “sustainable growth in outer space” that would involve protecting all sizes of satellites (including smaller ones like CubeSats.)
Wheeler added that regulators also will need to be involved in the conversation in better defining orbital debris risks from smaller satellites – which, to be fair, the Federal Communications Commission has already been working on with recent policy papers. (The FCC is accelerating its timelines for debris deorbiting and asking industry for more solutions for in-space servicing, like fueling, where possible.) However Toukebri, representing Airbus, said regulations around the world are still immature and require more discussions; there are also technical obstacles, as many CubeSats do not have easy access after launch for deorbiting or maneuvering.
The participants (led by Wheeler and Shabalin) spoke about an initiative created in 2014, called the Unified Center for Information on Earth-Space Monitoring, that was supposed to be monitored by the United Nations. However, the initiative fell through because of security concerns in sharing information – and because of a lack of trust on multiple sides. Wheeler suggested that perhaps we could restart with smaller standards, analogous to some of the backbone technologies that form the Internet like TCP/IP. Wheeler noted, however, that an environmental assessment is needed first before moving forward.
There are also emergent threats that the community is watching out for, such as the use of nuclear power in space – which represents immense power for exploration, but which also poses a contamination risk. The participants, as evidenced above, had different ideas about appropriate next steps, but seemed to agree that more discussion and a set of either “binding or voluntary norms” (to quote Wheeler) would be helpful in stopping problems from accelerating too far.
- The panel was made available on YouTube on Oct. 11.