Filling the Regulatory Void for Launch and Reentry Safety Resulting from the Commercialization of Space Operations

VOL. 3 NO. 2 - SEPTEMBER 2016

Editors: Michael T. Kezirian, Ph.D. Joseph Pelton, Ph.D. Tommaso Sgobba Journal of Space Safety Engineering – Vol. 3 No. 2 - September 2016 JOURNAL of SPACE SAFETY ENGINEERING Volume 3 No. 2 – September 2016

EDITORS Michael T. Kezirian, Ph.D. Tommaso Sgobba Joseph Pelton, Ph.D. The Boeing Company European Space Agency (ret.) George Washington University (ret.) University of Southern California Senior Editor Senior Editor Editor-in-Chief EDITORIAL BOARD George W. S. Abbey Joe H. Engle Isabelle Rongier National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ret.) Maj Gen. USAF (ret.) Airbus Safran Launchers Sayavur Bakhtiyarov, Ph.D. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Ph.D. University of New Mexico Herve Gilibert European Space Agency Kenneth Cameron Airbus Space & Defense Zhumabek Zhantayev Science Applications International Corporation Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Ph.D. National Center of Space Researches and Luigi De Luca, Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Technologies (NCSRT)- Kazakhstan Politecnico di Milano Ernst Messerschmid, Ph.D. University of Stuttgart (ret.) FIELD EDITORS William Ailor, Ph.D. Gary Johnson Erwin Mooij, Ph.D. The Aerospace Corporation Science Application International Corporation Delft University of Technology Christophe Bonnal Barbara Kanki John D. Olivas, PhD, PE Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ret.) University of Texas El Paso Jonathan B. Clark, M.D., M.P.H Bruno Lazare Nobuo Takeuchi Baylor College of Medicine Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Victor Chang Carine Leveau Brian Weeden Canadian Space Agency Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales Secure World Foundation Paul J. Coleman, Jr., Ph.D. Tobias Lips Paul D. Wilde, Ph.D., P.E. University of California at Los Angeles (Emeritus) Hypersonic Technology Goettingen Federal Aviation Administration Natalie Costedoat Michael Lutomski Uwe Wirt Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales Space Exploration Technologies German Aerospace Center (DLR) MANAGING EDITOR Arif Göktuğ Karacalıoğlu, International Space University AIMS and SCOPE The Journal of Space Safety Engineering (JSSE) provides an authoritative source of information in the field of space safety design, research and development. It serves applied scientists, engineers, policy makers and safety advocates with a platform to develop, promote and coordinate the science, technology and practice of space safety. JSSE seeks to establish channels of communication between industry, academy and government in the field of space safety and sustainability. MAIN JSSE TOPICS • Safety by design • Human factors and performance • Space Situational Awareness • Safety on long duration missions • Safety critical software design • Space traffic control • Launch and re-entry safety • Safety risk assessment • Space traffic and air traffic interfaces • Space hazards (debris, NEO objects) • Safety risk management • Space materials safety • Space weather and radiation • Organizational culture and safety • Safe & Rescue • Environmental impacts • Regulations and standards for safety • Safety lessons learned • Nuclear safety for space systems • Space-based safety critical systems Publication information: The Journal of Space Safety Engineering (ISSN Pending) is a quarterly publication of the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS). You can read about IAASS mission, goals, organization, membership and activities at: http://iaass.space-safety. org/. The JSSE is published using an open access publication model, meaning that all interested readers are able to freely access the journal online without the need for a subscription, and authors are not charged. Authors inquiries: For inquiries relating to the submission of articles please contact the Editor-in-Chief at: [email protected]. For all information about the journal, please visit the journal web page http://iaass.space-safety.org/publications/journal/. Authors instructions on preparation and submittal at: http://iaass.space-safety.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2013/07/JSSE-authors_instructions.pdf. Advertising information: if you are interested in advertising or other commercial opportunities please e-mail [email protected] and your inquiry will be passed to the correct person who will respond to you within 48 hours. Copyright and photocopying: Authors retain the copyright of their work. The IAASS maintains the copyright of the Journal as a whole. Single photocopies or electronic scans of single articles may be made for personal use as allowed by national copyright laws. Authors or IAASS permission and the payment of a fee is required for all other photocopying, including multiple or systematic copying, copying for advertising purposes, resale, and all forms of document delivery. For information on how to seek permission please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. Notice: No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher IAASS and by Editors and Editorial Board for any injury and/or damage to persons or property from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the journal. Although all advertising material is expected to conform to ethical professional conduct of IAASS, inclusion in this publication does not represent an endorsement of the quality or value of such product or service. Credits: Kristhian Mason, IAASS graphic designer, for graphic work, layout and paginations. Cover picture: Drem Chaser, Sierra Nevada Corporation/ NASA KSC Media Archive

International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Journal of Space Safety Engineering – Vol. 3 No. 2 - September 2016

FILLING THE REGULATORY VOID FOR LAUNCH AND REENTRY SAFETY RESULTING FROM THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE OPERATIONS

Ruth Stilwell, DPA

Adjunct Faculty, Norwich University College of Graduate and Continuing Studies, 158 Harmon Drive, Northfield, VT 05663 USA, Email:[email protected]

ABSTRACT The new commercial space industry is expanding rapidly into launch operations as private companies continue to The commercial use of space is not a new concept. Satel- develop not only new rocket technologies, but also new lites have provided commercial services since the 1960s. concepts of launch operations. These include horizon- However, the launch and recovery of space vehicles was tal take off, launch from aircraft or balloon, and launch dominated by State operators or under State Contract un- from mobile and fixed sea platforms. Notably, the recent til the end of the last century. While commercial launches SpaceX Falcon 9 vertical landing illustrated a fundamen- continue to increase, the international regulatory frame- tally new concept in re-entry operations.4 The regulatory works related to launch and reentry are fundamentally challenge is twofold, technology and policy. These dis- unchanged and are not structured to support a competi- tinct categories should be viewed and addressed inde- tive commercial launch industry. pendent from one another. This approach is necessary to ensure the policy issues are not disregarded in the regula- This paper examines the regulatory gaps in the existing tory process, which tends to have a natural focus on the frameworks, particularly in the international domain. technical side of safety regulation. Recent experience in While there remain unresolved questions with regard the regulatory development for unmanned aircraft illus- to ICAO as it applies to suborbital flight, the ability of trates this difficulty, as rapid developments in -technol ICAO to develop standards and recommended practices ogy have driven the debate, leaving many critical policy for the portion of the operation that takes place in civil questions, particularly with regard to the right to regulate airspace is clear. These standards are necessary to ensure at very low altitudes, unanswered. the safety of civil airspace for both traditional airspace users and launch operators, and the interaction of space- 1.1 Policy ports with civil airspace. In the policy dimension, the transition from government operation to a regulated competitive industry presents 1. DEFINING THE REGULATORY GAP a set of challenges, but is not without precedent. In the aviation industry, national airlines were privatized, air Commercial applications for space technology are not navigation service providers (ANSP) became corpora- new, there have been commercial satellites in operation tized and airports around the world have gone from State for decades and the provision of commercial services to private operation. In making the transition, each State utilizing satellite technology is pervasive in our society. needed to evaluate whether the appropriate regulatory re- The United States opened launch activities to private gimes were in place. Both safety and economic consider- operators through the Commercial Space Launch Act of ations were addressed. As we examine the case of many 1984, but the operational treatment of private launches ANSPs in the late 1990’s, we see that the separation of remained identical to that of State sponsored launches.1 the regulators from service providers either placed new The US has continued to advance the legal frameworks burdens on existing regulators or required the creation to allow expanded commercialization of space launch of entirely new regulatory authorities. In addition, it be- activities over the last three decades.2 Similarly, the came apparent that international civil aviation standards, European Space Agency supported the development that had long been in place for airline operators, did not of Arianespace to provide commercial launch services necessarily exist for ANSPs and had to be created. ICAO for the European market.3 However no new interna- continues to identify and fill these gaps. While we can tional treaties have been negotiated or advanced by look to these examples to help identify regulatory gaps, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses there are significant differences between the privatization of Outer Space in the commercial space era, creating of elements of a national transportation infrastructure and new gaps between domestic policy and international the development of a competitive commercial industry in frameworks. a field once populated only by public operators.

International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Journal of Space Safety Engineering – Vol. 3 No. 2 - September 2016

In the commercial space question, we are not looking at The discussion of the International Commission for Air the transition from public to private ownership, but rather Navigation (ICAN) in 1929, found: “Any freedom that is to the introduction of new commercial operators, which will be exercised in the interests of all entitled to enjoy it must be likely co-exist with State operators. In addition, commer- regulated. Hence, the law of the high seas contains certain cial space operators are unlikely to comprise a critical part rules, most of them already recognized in positive interna- of a State’s national transportation infrastructure, alleviat- tional law, which are designed, not to limit or restrict the ing the need for certain economic regulation that may have freedom of the high seas, but to safeguard its exercise in the been considered necessary in the privatization of elements interests of the entire international community.” 6 in traditional aviation. However, with regard to safety regulation, not only is there a need for States to consider the The concept that flight over the high seas is free, does not development of regulatory authorities, or assign the regu- imply that it is without restriction, rather that the respon- latory function for commercial space operators to existing sibility and authority to make rules regarding flight over regulatory authorities, but the international component is the high seas, does not lie with an individual State but also of critical importance. rests with International Civil Aviation Organization. For airspace over land or territorial water, States have the au- The policy questions regarding the operation of com- thority to vary from ICAO standards and recommended mercial space activities are not limited to the commercial practices. This is not the case for airspace over the high space industry itself. Both the launch and recovery phases seas. As referenced in Annex 2 to the ICAO Conven- of commercial space operations occur in airspace that is tion, Flight over the high seas, “It should be noted that shared with civil aviation. As these phases either disrupt, or the Council resolved, in adopting Annex 2 in April 1948 pose as safety hazard to civil aviation, it is necessary to en- and Amendment 1 to the said Annex in November 1951, sure that regulations include the civil aviation components. that the Annex constitutes Rules relating to the flight and While there may be continued debate as to the need to dis- manoeuvre of aircraft within the meaning of Article 12 of tinguish between aviation and space, the authority to regu- the Convention. Over the high seas, therefore, these rules late, and other jurisdictional questions, there is no question apply without exception.” 7 that international civil aviation is affected by the activities of commercial space operators in civil airspace. At a mini- The Annex 2 provisions are of critical consideration with mum, regulations to prevent collision between civil avia- regard to launch from a sea platform. As a launch neces- tion and commercial space operations are warranted. sarily requires the restriction of flight through a volume of airspace, ICAO must provide provisions that would al- In examining the international policy and regulatory is- low for the closure of such airspace to civil aviation for a sues, it is necessary to determine whether current defini- specified period to ensure safety. The Annex 2 definitions tions are appropriate. Launch operations themselves may of both restricted area and prohibited area, the airspace cat- not necessarily constitute international transport. It is tra- egories routinely used to protect launch areas, specify that ditionally accepted that air transport involves the transit applies to the airspace over land areas or territorial wa- portation of people or goods between two points on the ters of a State. As a consequence of these definitions, there earth and that international air service involves the transit are no provisions for an air navigation service provider to through the airspace or territory of more than one State. create a restricted or prohibited area in high seas airspace. The only available option is the use of a danger area, de- For commercial space operations, the launch and recovery fined in Annex 2 as “An airspace of defined dimensions may occur within a single State and the transport of goods, within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft i.e. satellites, is from the earth to space rather than between may exist at specified times.” This designation does not two points on the earth. However, new launch sites can preclude flight through that area and as a result does not create a circumstance where the trajectory of the launch provide the same level of protection for either aircraft or may cross an international border.5 The issue becomes launch vehicles as is provided by the use of restricted or clouded when the path of the trajectory crosses over the prohibited areas in sovereign airspace. territory of another State at an altitude above that which is considered airspace, but below that which is regarded as From a policy standpoint, a danger area is not the high outer space. In addition, launch operations from sea launch seas equivalent of a restricted or prohibited area. In the platforms located on the high seas are necessarily interna- ICAO Air Traffic Services Planning Manual (ICAO doc tional operations as it is established that the high seas and 9426) paragraph 3.3.2.2 states, “According to their defini- the overlying airspace is de facto international. Thus, it is tions, a danger area implies the least degree of restriction, subject to long recognized international principles in avia- while the prohibited area constitutes its most stringent tion including the principle that regulation is necessary. form. It should also be noted, however, that this definition is applied only with respect to airspace which is situated

International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Journal of Space Safety Engineering – Vol. 3 No. 2 - September 2016

over the territory of a State. In areas where no sovereign tion operators that may constitute an unreasonable restric- rights are exercised (e.g. over the high seas) only danger tion to the freedom of over flight of the high seas. areas may be established by that body responsible for the activities causing their establishment.” 1.2 Technology

While the danger area provides the least degree of re- In developing proper regulatory frameworks to address the striction, it is solely designed for safety purposes, and as safety regulation, the rapid development of commercial such does not provide a means by which the competing space technology presents unusual, but not unprecedented demands for the civil use of the airspace are managed. In challenges. The move in ICAO to shift from prescriptive general, danger areas are used when unusual activities oc- to performance-based standards allows for the develop- cur that pose a hazard to flight, it is not designed for rou- ment of early requirements that are sufficiently flexible tine civil operations. These areas are generally used to pro- to accommodate technological developments. This ap- tect civil aircraft from military activity or other activities proach allows for alternative means of compliance when outside air traffic control where it is unlikely that a civil compared to prescriptive standards that may hinder tech- authority would be able to take steps to prevent or sus- nological development. In the case of protected airspace pend the activity for the purpose of allowing civil aircraft for launch operations, the models used, generally adapt to safety transit the area. Using the US example, there is special use airspace designed for military aircraft opera- a strong civil-military cooperation, wherein the schedul- tions and utilize it for a launch operation. While this may ing and release of airspace, including restricted areas can be adequate to provide a safety buffer, the approach may be adjusted to accommodate demands of civil users, par- not take advantage of developments in space technology ticularly in the case of weather conditions that may pose a and could result in greater disruption to civil aviation than hazard to flight. The European concept of Flexible Use of necessary. Developing new airspace models that not only Airspace, is to consider airspace as neither civil nor mili- consider the specific risk models of the intended launch tary and is allocated or segregated on a temporary and real vehicle, but also take advantage of modern risk modeling time basis. Airspace allocation is increasingly dynamic on tools, provide an opportunity to reduce the operational a global basis. In order to have this flexibility, there must disruption needed to accommodate commercial space be an underlying policy basis that allows for the establish- launches. This is an important step for the commercial ment of protocols and agreements with the airspace users. space industry. If commercial space launches are too dis- This basis is not available in the construct of danger areas. ruptive to other users, their access to airspace may be lim- While the use of danger areas is appropriate for falling de- ited, restricting growth in the industry. bris or re-entry where planning and maneuver may not be possible, the same conditions do not exist for launch ac- The development of specific technical standards for com- tivity. Airspace planning should consider launch require- mercial space launch operations has additional difficulties ments as part of an airspace planning model. due to the diversity in technology and operational type. Un- like aviation, where a new standard is designed to apply to The ICAO Separation and Airspace Safety Panel consid- hundreds of aircraft with thousands of operations a year, ered several papers on the development of safety standards, commercial space operations may require standards for a separation standards, and the designation of aircraft haz- launch vehicle type with only a few in existence and just a ard areas specifically related to space launch and recovery handful of operations. In addition, the amount of data avail- activities. In 2015, the United States member specifically able from testing may be considerably less than the aviation requested that the Panel consider the creation of a new cat- community is accustomed to. Consider the example of de- egory of special use airspace designed for space activities. veloping wake turbulence separation standards. Rather than Without an airspace category that can be applied in high a standard limiting the amount of wake an aircraft design seas airspace, there is a significant regulatory gap that must can produce, the standard was to determine how far another be filled to permit the maximum safety benefit from a sea aircraft had to remain from the wake generating aircraft to platform launch. The ability to create a launch facility far ensure safety of flight. This is the same concept that will be from populated land areas decreases the risk to life and applied in creating a standard for protected airspace around property and while the technological barriers have been a launch. That is, how far does an aircraft need to remain overcome, the policy barrier remains. Unlike other aviation from a launch to ensure safety of flight? provisions, where individual States can consider modifi- cations to allow for specific operations, the provisions for For the development of wake turbulence separation stan- operation over the high seas must be addressed by ICAO. dards, research has been ongoing since the late 1960’s us- Current provisions are limited to the coordination of activi- ing data from airport sensors, aircraft manufacturers, and ties and promulgation of information by the ATS authority.8 governments contributing to the process.9 This provides This language provides a de facto priority over civil avia- large amounts of data to support the development of wake

International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Journal of Space Safety Engineering – Vol. 3 No. 2 - September 2016

turbulence separation standards. For example, by 2013 re-entry vehicle failure. In developing aircraft hazard ar- there were over 100,000 wake measurements per year. eas using a variety of modeling tools, the FAA determines While wake turbulence separation is a standard to protect which airspace or airways will be closed to accommodate the safety of other aircraft (specifically, those following), the launch. The FAA has extensive experience using Tem- if that standard is larger than necessary, it reduces system porary Flight Restrictions (TFR) for various purposes. Air capacity and places an undue burden on other system us- traffic control is able to support the enforcement of these ers. In order to reduce the separation requirements, exten- dynamic areas with the ability to depict areas defined by sive testing and modeling is necessary to make a proper geographic points on a radar map. For procedural airspace, safety case. Similarly, the air traffic control separation airways that traverse an aircraft hazard area are closed to required from a space launch or recovery operation is pri- traffic for the affected period. However, even with the- ex marily to protect the safety of uninvolved aircraft operat- tensive experience and modeling tools, the disruption in ing in the vicinity. However, the amount of available data civil traffic may be greater than necessary to prevent trans- from the commercial space manufacturing community gression into the aircraft hazard areas. may not be comparable to that used in developing other aviation standards. The reliance by the FAA on intervention by air traffic control to ensure that aircraft do not enter a launch hazard area Designing a protected airspace volume tailored to meet may not be a suitable model in all conditions. In areas with the needs of, or more precisely to mitigate the risk im- limited communications coverage, or those susceptible to posed by, a specific launch or recovery operation, requires communications disruption, it is important for the detailed sufficient data about the operation itself. The rapid techno- information on the hazard area to be known in the cock- logical innovation in this field will make it difficult, if not pit. In addition to competition for airspace under planned impossible for many government regulators to develop conditions, there is increased competition for airspace the models necessary. It will require significant and active when weather deviations are necessary. While the launch input from industry to create timely airspace models. This airspace may be free of convective activity, the surround- is not to say that process standards cannot be developed ing airspace may contain a weather hazard, requiring civil that will facilitate the development of these models. The aircraft to deviate. Considering that both are a hazard to handful of States with launch experience can offer exper- safety of flight, how launch airspace will be managed in tise to identify the elements that need to be considered these circumstances must be included in the airspace plan- and evaluated in building models for protected launch and ning process. recovery airspace.

The intersection of technology and policy occurs when 2. THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL launch specific modeling becomes sufficiently robust to STANDARDS create detailed boundaries for each launch type. The com- mon models for restricted or prohibited airspace involve As the number of commercial spaceports and private static boundaries and the airspace is active or inactive, but launch facilities increase, there is a corresponding need the boundaries themselves do not change. These bound- for globally harmonized safety standards. There has aries are published in airspace charts that are known and been considerable debate as to whether the ICAO Chi- available through well established means. In a scenario cago Convention allows for the regulation of space ac- where dynamic airspace modeling could be used, it will tivities. While there remain some unresolved questions be necessary to determine the means by which airspace with regard to ICAO, particularly as it applies to sub- users will be notified of the airspace boundaries and how orbital flight, the ability of ICAO to develop standards that information will be made available to flight planners and recommended practices for the portion of the opera- and pilots. The publication requirements for danger areas tion that takes place in civil airspace is clear. Article 37 can provide a foundation, but may need to be expanded as of the Chicago Convention grants ICAO the ability to commercial space launches increase in frequency. develop standards and recommended practices for “all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and im- For organization structural purposes, the US example prove air navigation.” As the transit of civil airspace by can be instructive. While there are specific legal restric- spacecraft and other vehicles affect the safety, regularity, tions on promulgating regulations on some elements of and efficiency of air navigation, the role of ICAOin commercial space activity to allow the development of developing these standards falls clearly within its exist- the industry, the Federal Aviation Administration has the ing mandate. In addition, considering that the work cur- oversight responsibility over launch and re-entry opera- rently proposed in ICAO would address the requirements tions in order to protect the public. Its authority extends for aircraft to avoid hazard areas created by commercial to protect aircraft from the threat of potential launch or space operations, the standards will apply more directly

International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Journal of Space Safety Engineering – Vol. 3 No. 2 - September 2016

to civil aviation than to the space operators in the near approach allows for the linkage of airport and airspace term. However, these standards cannot be developed policy in developing a comprehensive commercial space without substantial inputs from the space industry. As an policy. In addition, by considering the transit user as a cat- integrated policy approach evolves, the standards should egory, the mission type does not create a new regulatory seek to balance the interests of the competing industries of or jurisdictional question. The methods by which airspace aviation and space operators as airspace users, rather than is allocated, hazard areas are determined and aviation op- treating space operators solely as a hazard. erators are notified can be harmonized whether the mission purpose is launching satellites, commercial cargo, 2.1 New Space Faring States commercial crew, commercial space stations, satellite servicing, suborbital space tourism, research or other ap- Commercial development of space launch operations will plications. Like aviation, questions of priority are deter- allow for States that do not currently have launch capacity mined by policy and operational limitations. Operational to participate in the space launch economy. We are seeing priority is a well-established principle in aviation, and new States enter the space launch community now and we policies can be adopted to consider the specific needs of can expect that to expand rapidly in the near future. Like different transit users. other technical developments, there is value in building structures where new entrants can benefit from the lessons learned from States that have been engaged in launch ac- 3. INDUSTRY DEMANDS tivities for decades. This premise is engrained in the ICAO processes, specifically in the development of guidance Existing global launch capacity is not adequate to meet material to facilitate the implementation of new technolo- the projected growth in the commercial space sector. New gies and procedures. ICAO, working with the UN Office launch facilities are planned and more will be developed. of Outer Space Affairs, can utilize this model to facilitate In order for a new launch site to provide optimal capacity, the safe expansion of launch capacity around the world. it is important to mitigate the amount of disruption a launch causes to other civil airspace users. Considering the loca- 2.2 The Transit User tion of launch facilities in the context of an overall airspace plan allows decision makers to optimize the investment If instead of instead of treating commercial space activi- decisions. Failure to do so can result in operational restric- ties as a separate and distinct industry, the aviation com- tions to new launch facilities, creating a need for additional munity and ICAO in particular, regard it as a transit user facilities, delaying growth in the industry. To draw a com- of civil airspace, the regulatory processes become more parison with aviation, an airport cannot take full advantage clear. The requirement to determine either a functional or of its runway capacity if it has inadequate parking for air- vertical demarcation between space activity and aviation craft once they have landed. Spaceports with inadequate activity is nullified. Rather, the regulatory questions align access to airspace would be similarly limited. with the airspace and would apply to all actors within it. That is not to say that the type of operation does not war- In addition to the need for adequate launch capacity, inter- rant special considerations, but rather that there those con- nationally harmonized standards are necessary to support siderations would fall into the myriad of different types industry growth and technological development. In a pre- and considerations required for comprehensive airspace sentation to ICAO, the FAA summed up the issue clearly, design and planning. This approach is consistent with the “International standards for launch and reentry operations current US federal model as well as the emerging Euro- will ensure clarity and fairness for all stakeholders.” 10 pean model for functional use of airspace.

By adopting the concept of transit user to apply to those 4. CURRENT ICAO ACTIVITIES operations that transit the airspace but do not operate in it, the regulatory framework is adaptable to accommo- In June of 2014, ICAO initiated steps to form a Space date new technologies and operational concepts as they Learning Group, which may lead to the establishment of emerge. To draw a parallel with traditional aviation, the a formal ICAO work program on space activities. The regulatory frameworks accommodate a variety of opera- first joint symposium between ICAO and UN OOSA, the tional types as diverse as helicopters and supersonic jets. ICAO/ UNOOSA AeroSPACE Symposium was held in It is by virtue of the fact that they all operate in civil air- Montreal, Canada in March 2015 and the second held in space and not the technical capabilities of the aircraft that Abu Dhabi, UAE in March 2016, with the theme, Emerg- dictate the regulatory jurisdiction. If commercial space ing Space Activities and Civil Aviation – Challenges and operators are regarded as civil airspace users the juris- Opportunities. These joint ICAO/ UN OOSA symposia dictional issues become equally clear. This multimodal serve to begin a process to build a relationship between

International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Journal of Space Safety Engineering – Vol. 3 No. 2 - September 2016

the space and aviation communities. is available to regulators and international bodies where the standards will be developed. Adopting the concept of Looking beyond the ICAO work that is specifically orga- airspace transit user can facilitate this process. nized for space activities, within the ICAO Panel structure questions are emerging regarding specific applications. These include the potential creation of a new airspace 6. REFERENCES category to separate launch and recovery operations, the need for separation standards between aircraft and launch 1. The Act allowed for private operation of expendable vehicles or protected airspace and civil aircraft, and the launch vehicles, the operations occurred at federal introduction of risk modeling tools specific to space opera- launch facilities utilizing special use airspace desig- tions. The ICAO Separation and Airspace Safety Panel has nated for State operations. been in consideration of these topics for the last few years. 2. Several Acts, including the Commercial Space 4.1 Industry Engagement Launch act of 1984, the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, the Commercial Space Act, the Com- The ICAO model is one of State and industry engagement mercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, to ensure that expert groups have access to complete and and the SPACE Act of 2015, sought to expand the up to date information on the topics under discussion. commercial space industry in the US. As the ICAO structure is specific with regard to industry participation, the Panel members are comprised of those 3. Company Profile, Arianespace Services and - Solu appointed by invited States and recognized international tions. 5 February 2016. Accessed March 2016 [On- organizations. Currently there are no organizations rep- line: www.arianespace.com] resenting the interest of commercial space operators on the List of International Organizations That May Be In- 4. Davis, Jason, (2015) SpaceX Falcon 9 Returns to vited to Attend Suitable ICAO Meetings.11 Without a rec- Flight, Sticks Landing at Cape Canaveral. The Plan- ognized International Organization, the industry engage- etary Society. Accessed March 2016 [Online: www. ment in the development of standards is limited. ICAO planetary.org] has been actively working to bring in space industry expertise through various outreach efforts, including infor- 5. For example, Space X has broken ground on a pri- mal groups and the symposia. However, the formal work vate spaceport in Boca Chica Beach, within a few of the agency will be dominated by the inputs from States miles of the USA-Mexico Border. and recognized International Organizations. 6. The Law of the Air and the Draft Articles Concern- The ICAO Assembly to be held in 2016 will set the formal ing the Law of the Sea Adopted by the International work programme and budget for the coming triennium. Law Commission at Its Eighth Session, United Na- Whether and how much of ICAO resources will be dedi- tions Conference on the Law of the Sea. Geneva, cated to these activities will be determined. As there are no Switzerland. 24 February to 27 April, 1958 formally recognized International Organizations representing the operational needs of transit users in civil airspace, 7. Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil the commercial space launch industry will have to rely on Aviation: Rules of the Air (tenth edition) Interna- the States with an interest in advancing this work on the tional Civil Aviation Organization, July 2005. ICAO work programme and the International Organization representing the aerospace manufacturing community. 8. ICAO Annex 11, paragraph 2.18, Coordination of activities potentially hazardous to civil aviation.

5. CONCULSION 9. Wake Turbulence Separation Standards for Aircraft. Volpe: The National Transportation Systems Cen- Commercial space launch operators are rapidly evolv- ter. Cambridge, MA Accessed March 2016 [online: ing technologies that will place specific demands on civil www.volpe.dot.gov] airspace, both domestic and international. As these operations increase, the regulatory gaps in both policy and 10. Launch and Reentry Operation International Stan- technical regulation must be closed to support a growing dards. Federal Aviation Administration Presentation industry that provides high value services to the global to ICAO, 9 November 2015. population. In order to develop standards to fill these regulatory gaps, it is critical to ensure that industry expertise 11 As of 7 March 2014.

International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety SPACE APPLICATIONS FUELING BUSINESS INNOVATION

ULT ERG ARITIM MANUF RIC UR MEDICAL EN Y M E D AC G E E T A C U N R A I V N

D G

Business executives are looking for a competitive advantage. Find yours at SpaceCom.

IN COLLABORATION WITH NOVEMBER 15–17, 2016 GEORGE R. BROWN CONVENTION CENTER HOUSTON, TX

WWW.SPACECOMEXPO.COM

ALSO AVAILABLE IN BOOKSTORES

Safety Design for Space Safety Design for Space Space Safety Regulations Safety Design for Space Systems Systems, Chinese Edition and Standards Operations Elsevier 2009 2011 Elsevier 2011 Elsevier 2013

Progress in space safety lies in the Progress in space safety lies in the Space Safety Regulations and Safety Design for Space Operations acceptance of safety design and acceptance of safety design and Standards is the definitive book on provides the practical how-to engineering as an integral part of the engineering as an integral part of the regulatory initiatives involving space guidance and knowledge base design and implementation process design and implementation process safety, new space safety standards, needed to facilitate safe and for new space systems. Safety must for new space systems. Safety must and safety related to new space effective operations safety in line be seen as the principle design be seen as the principle design technologies under development. with current regulations. driver of utmost importance from the driver of utmost importance from the More than 30 world experts come With information on space outset of the design process, which outset of the design process, which together in this book to share their operations safety design currently is only achieved through a culture is only achieved through a culture detailed knowledge of regulatory and disparate and difficult to find in one change that moves all stakeholders change that moves all stakeholders standard making processes in the place, this unique reference brings toward front-end loaded safety toward front-end loaded safety area, combining otherwise disparate together essential material on: concepts. Superb quality information concepts. Superb quality information information into one essential safety design practices, for engineers, programme for engineers, programme reference and providing case studies advanced analysis methods, and managers, suppliers and aerospace managers, suppliers and aerospace to illustrate applications throughout implementation procedures. technologists. technologists. space programs internationally.