NationStates

Hello. I was looking through Morover's GA ideas thread because I needed a GA project to work on. I would highly appreciate feedback.

The General Assembly,

Thanking [resolution=GA#349]GA#349 To Prevent Dangerous Debris[/resolution] for both its efforts to reduce the amount of debris unsustainably launched into space and its groundbreaking definition of debris,

Deeming that despite dedicated developments, dilapidated and dangerous debris still drift in space and that GA#349 self-admittedly does not cover active reduction of space debris,

Believing that space debris can have severe consequences if left unchecked and that it is in nations' best interests to protect the world from space debris declining into a catastrophic cascading chain reaction of collisions, hereby:

1. Defines, for this resolution:
   
   1. "debris" as debris; and
   2. "space debris" as in-orbit debris of sufficient size that de-orbiting does not prove wasteful that is located in outer space, whether that means dead satellites, random junk, or decommissioned Cyber-Gnome 3000s.
2. Directs member states to cooperate with the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to develop platforms designed to de-orbit debris that remain in-orbit via methods not limited to increasing the surface-area-to-mass ratio of the target debris for atmospheric drag or stellar radiation pressure to decelerate the target in a passive manner, actively descending decaying debris to disintegrate in the atmosphere or to a designated crash site, all without endangering populations below, or any future, more efficient methods of space debris removal that the WASP may discover and utilize,
3. Declares that, until more efficient methods are deployed:
   
   1. the passive manner shall be the application of material to the target debris that shall expand upon or around it, thus significantly increasing the target's surface-area-to-mass ratio;
   2. the active manner shall be a guided velocity change applied directly to the target debris by a powered system; and
   3. both measures must reach the point where the target will de-orbit within five years or less, based on WASP calculations.
4. Instructs member states and WASP to decide all relevant specifications for de-orbiting debris of different classes and orbit types, with the specifications including but not limited to:
   
   1. changes to orbital characteristics and debris cross-sections to minimize deorbiting time and impact probability;
   2. the ejection or attachment system for the material in the passive manner and attachment mechanism in the active manner; optimally, containing as few moving parts as necessary;
   3. platform design and configuration, particularly with regard to utilizing low-risk materials and propellants, fuels and oxidizers;
   4. optimal materials for realizing both initial and later methods of de-orbiting space-borne debris; and
   5. economical methods for eliminating orbital debris where atmospheric destruction is difficult or impossible.
5. Mandates that member states and WASP develop strategies to further lower de-orbiting time and target debris in graveyard or junk orbits while maintaining a sufficiently low impact probability to present and future in-orbit assets to safely carry out international space program procedures.
   
   Co-author: Fhaengshia

Small heads up: This phenomenon is called Kessler's Syndrome. I think it would benefit you if you used the real, official scientific term just to increase the legitimacy of the Legislature. Hope this makes it to quorum!

Unified Communist Councils wrote:Small heads up: This phenomenon is called Kessler's Syndrome. I think it would benefit you if you used the real, official scientific term just to increase the legitimacy of the Legislature. Hope this makes it to quorum!

Ooc: That would violate the Real World References rule.

We Fhaengshians believe that environmental protection does indeed extend to our environments situated above in vacuum with active strategies outlined above being desirable for a healthy and ecologically sustainable system.

A hesitation on our behalf exists for the promotion of polymeric foam as an atmospheric drag agent due to the high thermal insulation properties involved in such material. Our practice of de-orbiting is to allow the satellite to "burn-up" on re-entry so as not to cause undue impacts on (and subsequent damage to) our surfaces.

We also note the delivery of such platforms to their intended targets has considerable leeway in fuel or propellant use, with some propellants used in this industry being highly toxic and environmentally dangerous. Although that may be beyond the scope of this particular proposal.

Otherwise we are supportive of this endeavour.

Minskiev wrote:[*]"in orbit" as the state of having revolved around a celestial body without unbalanced forces acting on it, excepting gravity.

Unbalanced forces other than gravity exist on most orbiting satellite, including air resistance, light pressure, outgassing and magnetic field torque. On this definition an airliner in stable cruise flight would also qualify as being "in orbit".

I believe a better definition would be:

"in orbit" as the state of orbit around a celestial body, on a trajectory sufficiently stable for the object to achieve at least one full orbit without active support

[*]Directs member states to cooperate with the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to develop platforms capable of realizing spheres of sufficiently sticky, low-mass material that expands isotropically- equally in all directions (polymeric foam is suitable), in vacuums or gravity around target debris to increase the surface-area-to-mass ratio of the target debris for atmospheric drag to decelerate the target debris,

Why this measure in particular? There are many different proposed methods for orbital debris removal, including laser brooms, capture-and-return vehicles, light sails and electrodynamic tethers. Some of these methods may prove superior given the specific context and available technology, and there is no reason to specifically promote one method rather than releasing a more general directive to develop orbital debris removal technology. This would also direct member states that lack the technology to build such platforms, or even achieve orbit at all, as well as member state (such as ours) that developed such technology centuries ago and have no difficulty cleaning orbital debris from orbit.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Unified Communist Councils wrote:Small heads up: This phenomenon is called Kessler's Syndrome. I think it would benefit you if you used the real, official scientific term just to increase the legitimacy of the Legislature. Hope this makes it to quorum!

Ooc: That would violate the Real World References rule.

OOC: I was under the impression referencing scientific terminology named after real people was fine? Banning references to "newtons", "joules" or "kelvin" would be overly cumbersome.

Qhevak wrote:

Minskiev wrote:[*]"in orbit" as the state of having revolved around a celestial body without unbalanced forces acting on it, excepting gravity.

Unbalanced forces other than gravity exist on most orbiting satellite, including air resistance, light pressure, outgassing and magnetic field torque. On this definition an airliner in stable cruise flight would also qualify as being "in orbit".

I believe a better definition would be:

"in orbit" as the state of orbit around a celestial body, on a trajectory sufficiently stable for the object to achieve at least one full orbit without active support

[*]Directs member states to cooperate with the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to develop platforms capable of realizing spheres of sufficiently sticky, low-mass material that expands isotropically- equally in all directions (polymeric foam is suitable), in vacuums or gravity around target debris to increase the surface-area-to-mass ratio of the target debris for atmospheric drag to decelerate the target debris,

Why this measure in particular? There are many different proposed methods for orbital debris removal, including laser brooms, capture-and-return vehicles, light sails and electrodynamic tethers. Some of these methods may prove superior given the specific context and available technology, and there is no reason to specifically promote one method rather than releasing a more general directive to develop orbital debris removal technology. This would also direct member states that lack the technology to build such platforms, or even achieve orbit at all, as well as member state (such as ours) that developed such technology centuries ago and have no difficulty cleaning orbital debris from orbit.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: That would violate the Real World References rule.

OOC: I was under the impression referencing scientific terminology named after real people was fine? Banning references to "newtons", "joules" or "kelvin" would be overly cumbersome.

Ooc: the rule of thumb is any term involving a proper noun, like the Kessler effect or Boyle's law, as opposed to pasteurization or newtons, is a violation. Anything used so commonly as to merit a lowercase reference is acceptable.

"We echo the Qhevaki ambassador's disappointment with the proposal's limited imagination for debris clearing and removal methods, though not with their proposed redefinition of 'orbit.' In fact it's not clear to me that defining an orbit is even necessary; surely both WASP and member nation space agencies are capable of determining what is in orbit, and compliance shenanigans are hardly possible in that area?"

I got around to making some suggestions as this is an area where I have some [limited] knowledge irl. I wanted to make sure this is technology agnostic, it is my belief that the current favoured technology is using solar sails however. Apologies for any error spellings as I don't use American-English, but tried to keep its spelling in my edits for consistency (which are in red).
Thanks to SL and GA#349 for some wording in this.

The General Assembly,

Thanking [resolution=GA#349]GA#349 To Prevent Dangerous Debris[/resolution] for both its efforts to reduce the amount of debris unsustainably launched into space and its groundbreaking definition of debris,

Deeming that despite dedicated developments, dilapidated and dangerous debris still drift in space and that GA#349 self-admittedly does not cover active reduction of space debris,

Believing that space debris can have severe consequences if left unchecked and that it is in nations' best interests to protect the world from space debris declining into a catastrophic cascading chain reaction of collisions, hereby:

1. Defines, for this resolution:
   
   1. "debris" as debris;
   2. "space debris" as debris in orbit, whether that means dead satellites, random junk, or decommissioned Cyber-Gnome 3000s, and of being a sufficient size that de-orbiting does not prove wasteful; and
   3. "in-orbit" as the state of having an object circuit a celestial body without propulsion and outside assistance (excepting gravity) at least once.
2. Directs member states to cooperate with the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to develop platforms designed to de-orbit debris that remain in-orbit via methods not limited to increasing the surface-area-to-mass ratio of the target debris for atmospheric or stellar drag to decelerate the target in a passive manner, or to actively descend decaying debris to disintegrate in atmosphere or to a designated crash site, all without endangering populations below.
3. Declares that:
   
   1. the passive manner shall realize this by the platform first ejecting or attaching a material to the target debris, second expanding upon or around the target, and third presenting a significantly greater surface-area-to-mass ratio; and
   2. the active manner shall realize this by first the platform coming into contact or vicinity with the target debris, second attaching itself to or containing the target, and third initiating a guided change in velocity; and
   3. both measures must reach the point where the target will de-orbit within five years or less, based on WASP calculations.
4. Instructs member states and WASP to decide all relevant specifications for de-orbiting debris of different classes and orbit types, with the specifications not limited to:
   
   1. changes to orbital characteristics and debris cross-sections to minimize deorbiting time;
   2. the ejection or attachment system for the material in the passive manner and attachment mechanism in the active manner; optimally, containing as few moving parts as necessary;
   3. the platform design and configuration, particularly with regard to utilizing low risk materials and propellants, fuels and oxidizers; and
   4. all research into optimal materials for realizing these methods of de-orbiting space-borne debris.
5. Mandates that member states and WASP develop strategies to further lower de-orbiting time and targeting debris in graveyard or junk orbits while maintaining a sufficiently low impact probability to present and future in-orbit assets to safely carry out international space program procedures.

Why do we have to use the sticky balloon method?

Thank you to all the feedback, especially Fhaeng's - I've gone ahead and added them as a co-author.

Bump, and I may be submitting this soon.

One more bump!

"Is there a reason why the proposed resolution mandates these specific methods of debris elimination? What if more efficient means are discovered - for example, vaporizing the smallest debris particles using lasers? Why limit the program to the two methods prescribed?"

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Is there a reason why the proposed resolution mandates these specific methods of debris elimination? What if more efficient means are discovered - for example, vaporizing the smallest debris particles using lasers? Why limit the program to the two methods prescribed?"

Hm, maybe fixed.

"Hmm. Ambassador..."

Leo makes several grunts, and some hemming and hawing noises, as though he is still intending to speak his thoughts aloud. He does not, rather he jots down a few notes on a hard copy of the proposal. Handing it to an intern, he points at Ambassador Russell and jerks his head slightly, indicating a delivery order. The intern quickly runs the paper across and leaves it on the Minskievian desk. At this point Leo resumes speaking... finally.

"Ambassador, I've made a few comments on the draft. Please consider them. While we appreciate the small addition made in response to my and others' prior comments, the fact is that the whole resolution must take account of future methods, not just one itty bitty part of it."

Minskiev wrote:

The General Assembly,

Thanking [resolution=GA#349]GA#349 To Prevent Dangerous Debris[/resolution] for both its efforts to reduce the amount of debris unsustainably launched into space and its groundbreaking definition of debris,

Deeming that despite dedicated developments, dilapidated and dangerous debris still drift in space and that GA#349 self-admittedly does not cover active reduction of space debris,

Believing that space debris can have severe consequences if left unchecked and that it is in nations' best interests to protect the world from space debris declining into a catastrophic cascading chain reaction of collisions, hereby:

1. Defines, for this resolution:
   
   1. "debris" as debris;
   2. "space debris" as in-orbit debris of sufficient size that de-orbiting does not prove wasteful that is located in outer space, whether that means dead satellites, random junk, or decommissioned Cyber-Gnome 3000s; and
   3. "in-orbit" as the state of an object having circuited a celestial body without propulsion and outside assistance (excepting gravity) at least once. We still do not see the need for this definition.
2. Directs member states to cooperate with the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to develop platforms designed to de-orbit debris that remain in-orbit via methods not limited to increasing the surface-area-to-mass ratio of the target debris for atmospheric or stellar drag to decelerate the target in a passive manner, actively descending decaying debris to disintegrate in the atmosphere or to a designated crash site, all without endangering populations below, or any future, more efficient methods of space debris removal that the WASP may discover and utilize,
   
   If you insist on keeping this section despite the changes to §2, consider the following alterations:
3. Declares that, until more efficient methods are deployed:
   
   1. the passive manner shall realize this by the platform first ejecting or attaching a material to the target debris, second expanding upon or around the target, and third presenting a significantly greater surface-area-to-mass ratio be the application of material to the target debris that shall expand upon or around it, thus significantly increasing the target's surface-area-to-mass ratio;
   2. the active manner shall realize this by first the platform coming into contact or vicinity with the target debris, second attaching itself to or containing the target, and third initiating a guided change in velocity be a guided velocity change applied directly to the target debris by a powered system; and
   3. both measures must reach the point where the target will de-orbit within five years or less, based on WASP calculations.
4. Instructs member states and WASP to decide all relevant specifications for de-orbiting debris of different classes and orbit types, with the specifications including but not limited to:
   
   1. changes to orbital characteristics and debris cross-sections to minimize deorbiting time and impact probability;
   2. the ejection or attachment system for the material in the passive manner and attachment mechanism in the active manner; optimally, containing as few moving parts as necessary;
   3. the platform design and configuration, particularly with regard to utilizing low-risk materials and propellants, fuels and oxidizers; and
   4. all research into optimal materials for realizing these both initial and later methods of de-orbiting space-borne debris.
5. Mandates that member states and WASP develop strategies to further lower de-orbiting time and target debris in graveyard or junk orbits while maintaining a sufficiently low impact probability to present and future in-orbit assets to safely carry out international space program procedures.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:text

"Arf....*snort* arf arf!" Wallace smacks the paper, imprinting drops of water into the surface of the text, much to the disapproval of the delivering intern. "Arf arf arf arf, arf arf arf." Indeed, Leo's edits were sensical. Wallace may have flipped his plumbers off when they came to fix his toilet but forgot how to (albeit a walrus flipping someone off might as well be a hello), but he's an alright guy and thanks Leo. At least, he thinks he is. Those two stools at the Strangers' Bar may tell another story.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:quality advice snipped for brevity

The ambassador strokes his beard nodding to the above
"This does have good points, 'Arf' indeed!"

no objections from me!

Bump, will submit soon.

"My apologies, ambassador, but I was a poli-sci major and my physics lessons stopped sometime when I was a teenager, the gods alone know how many decades ago now. What exactly is 'stellar drag' as referenced in Paragraph 2? Stars, to my knowledge, do not create a unique form of drag all their own? To the extent that debris can orbit a star without disintegrating in a reasonable timeframe due to solar wind, heat, radiation, and other hazards, it must either be far enough away, and sparse enough, not to pose a threat to other orbiting objects; or it is subject to the same atmospheric drag as if it orbited a habitable planet. I ask merely for clarification; if my understanding is correct but you feel better keeping the reference, I have no objection."

Leo clears his throat briefly. "But this does bring up another concern: debris in orbit of an airless body could pose a hazard just as debris orbiting one's natural homeworld does. I think it would be sufficient to add a very short subclause, say to Paragraph 4:

e. economical methods for eliminating orbital debris where atmospheric destruction is difficult or impossible

"It would then be based solely on need to keep such bodies clear of hazards, rather than imposing that whole regime upon all member states."

"Otherwise, we see no further issues here, and welcome the opportunity to vote for these measures."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"My apologies, ambassador, but I was a poli-sci major and my physics lessons stopped sometime when I was a teenager, the gods alone know how many decades ago now. What exactly is 'stellar drag' as referenced in Paragraph 2? Stars, to my knowledge, do not create a unique form of drag all their own? To the extent that debris can orbit a star without disintegrating in a reasonable timeframe due to solar wind, heat, radiation, and other hazards, it must either be far enough away, and sparse enough, not to pose a threat to other orbiting objects; or it is subject to the same atmospheric drag as if it orbited a habitable planet. I ask merely for clarification; if my understanding is correct but you feel better keeping the reference, I have no objection."

OOC: I have no idea, my co-author is an NS friend who has an IRL friend who wrote on this and got some knowledge from them. The first draft was from an ESA report and its findings, which mentioned nothing of stellar drag. I'll ask them.

Leo clears his throat briefly. "But this does bring up another concern: debris in orbit of an airless body could pose a hazard just as debris orbiting one's natural homeworld does. I think it would be sufficient to add a very short subclause, say to Paragraph 4:

e. economical methods for eliminating orbital debris where atmospheric destruction is difficult or impossible

"It would then be based solely on need to keep such bodies clear of hazards, rather than imposing that whole regime upon all member states."

"Otherwise, we see no further issues here, and welcome the opportunity to vote for these measures."

IC: "Arf, arf arf arf arf." Hints of excitement slip out of Wallace's tone. Hooray, saving money. "Arf arf arf, arf arf arf arf." He points to the Fhaengshian ambassador. "Arf arf arf, arf arf arf arf." Wallace would need to pay a visit to his local stellar body to explore stellar drag for himself to give Leo an answer currently.

Given the technical nature of this resolution, an explainer of sorts would likely be of assistance to other representatives. All up to section 2 shouldn’t need further explanation however.

---

2. Directs member states to cooperate with the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to develop platforms designed to de-orbit debris that remain in-orbit via methods not limited to increasing the surface-area-to-mass ratio of the target debris for atmospheric or stellar drag to decelerate the target in a passive manner, actively descending decaying debris to disintegrate in the atmosphere or to a designated crash site, all without endangering populations below, or any future, more efficient methods of space debris removal that the WASP may discover and utilize.

Section 2 is crafted to introduce methods for achieving the goal of the resolution. WASP will assist member states in the design of the specifics, but in general increasing the size of debris without changing the mass will increase the drag on the debris, which is a key way to change the orbit (thus allowing de-orbit). The atmosphere, when present on a planetary body, extends much higher than one might think, hundreds of kilometres above a standard planet. When debris is beyond this however, light from the parent star can be used on a “solar sail” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail), this would also function when there is no atmosphere present. The section goes on to describe that the debris may either break up in an atmosphere or to descend to a designated crash site, with the latter being necessary on airless bodies (typically moons) but also for larger debris which may survive atmospheric entry. Section 2 also specifies that this is to be done without endangering populations on the surface. Lastly section 2 allows for new advancements to be recommended by WASP.

---

3. Declares that, until more efficient methods are deployed:

1. the passive manner shall be the application of material to the target debris that shall expand upon or around it, thus significantly increasing the target's surface-area-to-mass ratio;
2. the active manner shall be a guided velocity change applied directly to the target debris by a powered system; and
3. both measures must reach the point where the target will de-orbit within five years or less, based on WASP calculations.

Section 3 goes on to further specify the methods introduced in section 2, with passive meaning no rockets or impulse is needed to de-orbit, and active meaning rockets or impulse is used to de-orbit. With subsection c imposing a time frame that ensures member states are actively compliant without being arduous.

---

4. Instructs member states and WASP to decide all relevant specifications for de-orbiting debris of different classes and orbit types, with the specifications including but not limited to:

1. changes to orbital characteristics and debris cross-sections to minimize deorbiting time and impact probability;
2. the ejection or attachment system for the material in the passive manner and attachment mechanism in the active manner; optimally, containing as few moving parts as necessary;
3. platform design and configuration, particularly with regard to utilizing low-risk materials and propellants, fuels and oxidizers;
4. optimal materials for realizing both initial and later methods of de-orbiting space-borne debris; and
5. economical methods for eliminating orbital debris where atmospheric destruction is difficult or impossible.

Section 4 allows for the variance of debris to allow member states to receive tailored advice on the best-suited method available to them for compliance while maintaining safety and efficiency.

---

5. Mandates that member states and WASP develop strategies to further lower de-orbiting time and target debris in graveyard or junk orbits while maintaining a sufficiently low impact probability to present and future in-orbit assets to safely carry out international space program procedures.

Section 5 states that member states and WASP must seek to improve the initial efficiency of compliance as section 2 allows for use of these efficiencies, and further mandates that even debris that has been moved into a graveyard or junk orbit (an area of space deemed unsuitable for regular operations) is still to be eventually de-orbited. This is all while accounting for existing and future satellites and space stations so as not to increase the risk of these by compliance of this resolution.

---

If there is anything that needs clarification, please don't hesitate asking

Final bump, will submit soon

Is this proposal compatible with GA 451 International Aerospace Administration's blocker clause?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Is this proposal compatible with GA 451 International Aerospace Administration's blocker clause?

Err. Maybe? Would these ventures be considered part of a space program? I would say it’s compatible.

Relevant clause:
The World Assembly renounces any direct authority over domestic space programs or their operations, and reserves them entirely to their respective national jurisdictions.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Is this proposal compatible with GA 451 International Aerospace Administration's blocker clause?

OOC: There was a discussion about how much the WA can still direct policy and some action by member space agencies given that clause. TL;dr two members of GenSec believe the WA may still issue broad directives and enforce compliance with international law without actually assuming "direct control" of such agencies. I believe the R&D mandates herein are just indirect enough to slide by, but I wouldn't think someone an idiot for disagreeing.