418 Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies Núm. 12 / 2018 number of registered particles and unleashed a cloud of debris that extended from 200 to 3,850 kilometres, encompassing the entire Low Earth Orbit.103 At the beginning of 2014, 90 percent of these pieces of space junk were still in orbit.104 The second was the accidental collision between the Russian satellite Cosmos-2251 and the American satellite Iridum-33 in February 2009 at 790 kilometres. The collision occurred above the Taimyr Peninsula, in the northernmost area of Siberia. This fact is significant given that the greatest risks and collision probabilities are concentrated at the poles.105 These two events alone resulted in 5,500 tracked pieces of space junk and 36 percent of the debris in LEO.106 Of special interest has been the 2007 ASAT trial on account of its implications on space security and international stability. The test caused a huge imbalance in LEO waste records peaking above 890 kilometres.107 The collision caused an amount of debris similar to that accumulated over 50 years. Most of the fragments were con-centrated at the altitude where the collision occurred, representing a serious threat to satellites that share a similar orbital altitude to those belonging to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Defense Meteorological Satellite Programme (DMSP). However, over time, the debris cloud has expanded beyond the original orbital plane, forcing operational satellites to perform manoeuvres should they be exposed to a collision. Thus, during the first six months after the ASAT test, the NASA Terra satellite, which orbits at 705 kilometres, had to manoeuvre to avoid fragments of up to 35 centimetres. Initially, the ISS also received orders to ma-noeuvre108 but these were cancelled once it was established that the distance was accep-table. 109 Even so, it seems that the collision that damaged the Russian micro-satellite Blits in January 2013 was the result of waste scattered after the ASAT test.110 On the 103 David, L., “China’s Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris Cloud Circles Earth”, Space.com, 2 February 2007, <http://www.space.com/3415-china-anti-satellite-test-worrisome-debris-cloud-circles- Earth.html> consulted: 15-9-2018. 104 NASA, “Fengyun-1C Debris Cloud Remains Hazardous”, Orbital Debris, Quarterly News, 2014, vol. 18:1, January, pp. 2-3. 105 European Space Agency, The Space Debris Story 2013, <http://www.esa.int/esatv/ Videos/2013/04/The_Space_Debris_Story_2013/The_Space_Debris_Story_2013_-_English> consulted: 15-9-2018. 106 Bowen, B. E. (2014) “Cascading Crises: Orbital Debris and the Widening of Space Security”, Astropolitics: The International Journal of Space Politics & Policy, 2014, vol. 12:1, p. 49. 107 NASA, óp. cit., note 82, p. 4. 108 Zenko, M., “The danger of space debris”, CNN World, 24 September 2011, <http:// globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/24/the-danger-of-space-debris/> consulted: 15-9-2018. 109 Johnson, N. L.; Stansbery, E.; Liou, J-C.; Horstman, M.; Stokely, C. & Whitlock, D., “The Characteristics and Consequences of the Break-up of the Fengyun- 1C spacecraft”, Acta Astronautica, 2008, vol. 63:1-4, pp. 128; 134. 110 David, L., “Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test”, Space.com, 8 March 2013, <https://www.space.com/20138-russian-satellite-chinese-space-junk.html> consulted: 15-9-2018. 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