416 Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies Núm. 12 / 2018 waste, much has been written about the so-called “second generation waste”, that is, the small particles generated as a result of impact between space objects.90 While 5,400 pieces of space junk of over 10 centimetres were tracked in 1980, their number has now increased to more than 21,000.91 In addition, there are around 500,000 pieces between 1 and 10 centimetres in diameter and more than 100 million particles of less than one centimetre estimated to be in orbit. Current technology permits the recording of par-ticles of up to 3 millimetres in LEO.92 The principal monitor for tracking, cataloguing and identifying space debris is the US Space Surveillance Network (SSN). According to David Wright,93 there are two main sources of space debris. The first is “routine space activity”. This includes debris released in the process of launching sate-llites and debris created by the break-up of defunct satellites or booster stages in orbit, either due to explosions from leftover fuel or collisions with a second object. The se-cond source of debris is the intentional destruction of satellites in orbit by the testing or use of kinetic-energy ASAT weapons, which are intended to destroy satellites by physically colliding with them at high speed.94 Wright argues that a satellite of up to 8 tons such as the Envisat European satellite95 would be completely destroyed if hit by a 20-kilogram kinetic weapon which can travel at 7.5 km per second. The danger posed by debris arising from routine activities or intentional collisions is the potential des-truction of other satellites and manned missions as they are pieces that at the moment of impact reach 10 km per second in LEO. Depending on size, the damage caused by waste can range from faults in satellite sensors and panels to the complete destruction of the satellite thus unleashing a “cloud of debris”. Currently, there is a widely-shared recognition among the major space powers of the fragility of the space environment. The reason for this is that the aforementioned IADC has designated both the LEO and GEO in their guidelines under the umbrella term of “protected regions”.96 LEO, which extends up to 2,000 kilometres, is the most congested region with the highest concentration of space objects, and is the area in which manned missions are developed. GEO protection is not reduced to its circular 90 Williams, M., “Safeguarding Outer Space: on the road to debris mitigation”, in United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (ed.), Security in Space: the Next Generation, Geneva: United Nations, 2008, pp. 84. 91 Pelton, J. N., op. cit., note 85, p. 5. 92 NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. Orbital Debris Frequently Asked Questions. <https:// www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html> consulted: 15-9-2018. 93 Wright, D., “Orbital Debris Produced by Kinetic-Energy Anti-Satellite Weapons”, in United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (ed.), Celebrating the Space Age. 50 Years of Space Technology, 40 Years of the Outer Space Treaty, Geneva: United Nations, 2007, pp. 155-156. 94 NASA, op. cit., note 82, p. 2. 95 Wright, D., op. cit., note 93, p. 159. 96 IADC, Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 2007, p. 6. Revista del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos n.º 12 - Año: 2018 - Págs.: 397 a 431
Revista_IEEE_12
To see the actual publication please follow the link above