PRE2019 1 Group1

Autonomous systems for space traffic management

Group Members

Name	Study	Student ID
Stijn Eeltink	Mechanical Engineering	1004290
Laura Kulter	Psychology & Technology	0851512
Annelies Severens	Biomedical Engineering	1232787

Planning

Each week will consist of two meetings. Prior to each meeting the team will work individually on the tasks they have been assigned for that meeting. During the meetings the results of these tasks will be discussed and finalized. L = Laura, S = Stijn, A = Annelies.

Week	Monday (morning)	Wednesday (afternoon)
1	ALL : choose topic	ALL : literary research problem definition make the planning define structure of the report
2	L : introduction/problem statement L : wiki page A : state of the art	ALL : PCR A: state of the art S : stakeholders L : introduction/problem statement L : edit planning in wiki
3	political aspects economical aspects technical aspects (state of the art) PCR	A: state of the art on wiki S: edit stakeholders L: RPC’s and update wiki A: air traffic management ALL: 2 questions for stakeholders (more is allowed)
4	S: questionnaire with information S: stakeholders in googledocs L: autonomous mining, how does the system work? A: Structure of the system. Would a peer-to-peer system work? Which systems does NASA or ESA use? ALL: work on questionnaire: --> Friday deadline 15:00 What requirements would the user have for the system; What tasks should the system be able to fulfill; Privacy concerns; Possible users: NASA/ESA; House of Representatives ; The larger public; ALL: comment each other’s work	political aspects economical aspects technical aspects (effects of the solution) Intermediate evaluation (peer review)
5	concept discussion conclusion first draft	Hand in first version for feedback
6	discuss feedback	implement feedback
7	finalize report and wiki	Final evaluation (peer review) finalize report and wiki
8	Presentation Deadline : report and wiki

Introduction

Space debris often gets the most attention when one talks about threats that exist to active satellites and other spacecraft (previous 0LAUK0 groups have done extensive research on that topic before: PRE2016_3_Group19 , PRE2018_3_Group1 , PRE2018_4_Group9). However recent developments in the space industry present a ‘new’ threat to active satellites.

On Monday morning September 2nd the European Space Agency had to fire the thrusters of its Aeolus satellite to avoid a collision with satellite Starlink44.^[9]

Where traditionally space travel was government-driven, the privatization and commercialization of space activities have gained momentum and have developed different interests like faster and cheaper access to space. Currently there are several organizations that plan to launch thousands of satellites up into earth’s orbit in the next several years. These range from governments like the UK planning to launch 2000 satellites by 2030^[10] to large companies like SpaceX planning to launch 12000 satellites for its Starlink constellation.^[10] If we compare this to the currently 4987^[10] satellites in orbit, of which only 1957^[10] are still active and functional, one quickly sees how ‘full’ the currently quite ‘empty’ low orbit space around earth will become in the near future.

This could overwhelm current space flight safety processes. However, there are encouraging signs that the government, industry, and the space community are acting to address these issues. This project will look at a possible solution for managing these many thousands of satellites by using an autonomous system for space traffic management(STM).

Problem Statement

As stated on the introduction this project will focus on the need for an Autonomous Space Traffic Management System (henceforth called ASTM). The main reason for the need of such a system is the ever increasing presence of active satellites in low earth orbit, which will make it no longer feasible in the near future to avoid collisions by depending on human input. There are however a lot of aspects that will need to be analysed and discussed before a proper concept for an ASTM system can be proposed. First the current state of the art will need to be analysed to see how STM is handled right now and where there is room for improvement. Next the individual stake holders will be looked at to find what are the wants and needs for each stake holder. These things will be summarized in the RPC (requirements, preferences, constraints) and work as a framework for designing a proper ASTM system.

The main reason for the end goal being a concept instead of a fully-fledged system is the fact that right now STM is still quite in its infancy. Even large organizations like NASA have only started to fairly recently look into autonomous systems for STM.[8] This means that there are many unexplored factors in regards to creating and deploying an ASTM system and so it is beyond the scope of this project to analyse all these factors in only eight weeks.

The concept will mostly be a recommendation for what type of autonomous system would be most suited to handle STM. Therefor this project will mostly ignore the technical aspects(radio communication in space, the inner workings of satellites, deploying an ASTM system on earth vs in low orbit etc.) and instead focus on analysing what an ASTM system could(and should) offer compared to doing STM by hand. This will also include a recommendation which kind of Rational Agent Model (RAM) would be best suited to control an ASTM system.

“In economics, game theory, decision theory, and artificial intelligence, a rational agent is an agent that has clear preferences, models uncertainty via expected values, and always chooses to perform the action with the optimal expected outcome for itself from among all feasible actions.”^[14]

State of the art

Legal

At the moment, there are no international or even national Space Traffic Management systems. However, because of the increasing amount of non-governmental organizations executing space activities, rules are needed to ensure safety in air space. Generally speaking, Space Traffic Management can be defined by the safety insurance of: 1. Safe access to outer space, 2. The conduction of operations in outer space, and 3. The return of space objects from outer space free from interference of any form.^[1]

Currently, the Outer Space Treaty forms a basis of international space law.^[2] The treaty was opened in 1967, when the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union signed the treaty. More countries followed in the coming years. As of 2019, 109 countries are parties of the treaty. This treaty focuses on the limitation of the use of celestial bodies and restricts nations from claiming sovereignty of outer space. It does not include any legal regulation of a Space Traffic Management. At the time that the treaty was set up, the STM concept was not considered a priority. In 2015, the UNCOPUOS committee had received approval to add STM as an agenda item in 2016.^[3]

The Cosmic Study from IAA created a definition for STM. It was the first step, but too premature to implement any regulations limiting freedom.^[4]

“The set of technical and regulatory provisions for promoting safe access into outer space, operations in outer space and return from outer space to Earth free from physical or radio-frequency interference” – Cosmic Study (IAA)

The 2016 “Orbital Traffic Management Study – Final Report” does not contain a definition for space traffic management. Instead, it provides a definition for Space Traffic Safety. Management would imply centralized command and control, which was seen as problematic.^[5]

“Freedom from those conditions in orbital space that may lead to incidents resulting in harm (death or injury to astronauts and spaceflight participants, damage to public welfare ,damage or loss of spacecraft, interference to spacecraft). Incidents of specific concern are collisions or orbital breakups.” – NASA

The 2017 German Aerospace Center (DLB) White paper on the “Implementation of a European Space Traffic Management System” defines STM as:^[6]

“Execution of all necessary managing and Monitoring and Control Operations (including routine and contingency scenarios) to ensure safe ballistic travel of manned and unmanned Suborbital Space Vehicles (SSVs) and spaceplanes through Near-Earth space and airspace under consideration of the existing European Air Traffic Management System and Infrastructure.”

Over the years, there have been different definitions and approaches to STM from the United States, European Space Agency (ESA) and the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA). However, they have some similar key operations, one of which is collision avoidance. This focuses on point 2. of Space Traffic Management: the conduction of operations in outer space.[1] Recently, the European Space Agency (ESA) has performed a collision avoidance manoeuvre for the first time. The satellite was moved off a potential collision course with a SpaceX satellite in the Starlink constellation. At the moment, ground operators make decisions, which might not always be optimal. The avoidance process between two satellites is largely manual and will be no longer practical if the number of satellites and other space vehicles increases. According to Holger Krag, Head of Space Safety at ESA:[13]

“This example shows that in the absence of traffic rules and communication protocols, collision avoidance depends entirely on the pragmatism of the operators involved. … Today, this negotiation is done through exchanging emails – an archaic process that is no longer viable as increasing numbers of satellites in space mean more space traffic.”

The use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, is being explored to support ground operators when planning and implementing collision avoidance.[7] This is one application that artificial intelligence can be used for. In [8] an initial architecture for a Space Traffic Management system is proposed, based on open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). The use of machine learning incomplete STM systems is being explored at the moment, a great step towards complete autonomous STMs. According to [1] a national system will be most probably implemented before an international regime. This mainly has to do with the fact that having a good, working STM system, data must be shared between governmental and non-governmental organizations, which remains a difficult topic.

Stake Holders

The last years have seen rapid growth and change in the space industry. Where traditionally space travel was government-driven and solely focused on security, political or scientific activities. The privatization and commercialization of space activities have gained momentum and have developed different interests like faster and cheaper access to space. This easier access to space has opened participation to many more participants than was historically possible. Private companies have proposed, funded and begun deployment of very large constellations of satellites.

These new activities could overwhelm current space flight safety processes. However, there are encouraging signs that the government, industry, and the space community are acting to address these issues. But is their effort enough, and is there a need for an Autonomous Space Traffic Management System?

Political

While space activity has democratized with many new players, the U.S. government is still the single largest actor and stakeholder in the lower earth orbit (LEO) operations environment. The U.S. government re-established the National Space Council in the summer of 2017. One of its first actions was to establish a working group to recommend a way forward on space traffic management. “National Space Traffic Management Policy” was issued on June 18, 2018, and outlines several steps changing how space traffic is managed and regulated. This paper addresses the need for improved space situational awareness (SSA), data sharing with other organizations, and space traffic management (STM).

The Department of Commerce wants to simplify the regulatory structure for licensing for commercial companies, which the industry has needed for a long time. It will also take the function of STM and SSA for the U.S. Air Force. By creating an open-architecture space data repository they will actively share information with and between operators, and encourage new technologies for SSA.

The Federal Communications Commission has been regulating practical orbital debris for commercial companies that operate in the U.S. market. The new rules would explicitly address the issue of large constellations and post-mission disposal reliability. These new rules also contemplate active SSA data sharing, transponders, enhanced signatures, and shared maneuver plans, which would greatly decrease the amount of space debris.

Space is however fundamentally an international concern since no nation owns or controls the environment. The foundational document for international space law is the Outer Space Treaty. Though this treaty is not enough. The United Nations Committee is considering new rules for topics like space debris management and creating guidelines for the long-term sustainability of space.

While these combined actions have mitigated some of the risks in the transition, further action is recommended. The best source of innovation and solutions are the organizations that are building new systems. Industry-driven norms and standards of behavior are among the most effective methods for preventing the new activity from contributing to space debris. The government should encourage these industry-driven, voluntary approaches.

Economics

This change in space activities, especially the very large LEO constellations, represents major investments by commercial companies like SpaceX. Every U.S. operator proposing a large constellation has stated the intention of following best practices and being ‘’good citizens’’ of space. These operators have a significant vested interest in maintaining the space environment, and in protecting their investments that will run into the billions of dollars. Some of the new operators are among the strongest proponents advocating for increased regulation and scrutiny. They intend to build in high reliability for post-mission disposals, like their intent to deploy satellites at a low altitude, and then raising the orbit once checkout is complete. While there are some disadvantages to this approach, when a satellite fails, drag can bring it down much earlier.

They are building in the capability of high-precision orbit knowledge and are actively willing, even seeking, to share position and maneuver data. Also, a high level of automated collision avoidance and automated deorbit of failed systems are being developed, much like the ASTM proposed by our group. To make sure the post-mission disposal plans are successful, companies are planning to deorbit on a fixed schedule, rather than maximizing mission life as is commonly done. Also, operators are adding grappling fixtures, reflectors, and other retrieval aids, even if they have no intent for on-orbit servicing or retrieval.

Requirements, Preferences, Constraints (RPC)

With the state of the art and stake holders taken into consideration it is time to set down the framework by defining the requirements, preferences and constraints. With these it will be possible to analyse rational agent models and to begin constructing a proper concept for an ASTM system.

Requirements

The system should be able to do the following:

• Autonomous space flight and collision avoidance for all participating members in low earth orbit;

• The group of members can run into the thousands, meaning that the system should be able to take into account and handle large 3D flight models;

• Because there can be many non-participating members like space debris or active satellites not part of the ASTM control the system should be able to detect these non-participating members and keep participating members from colliding with them;

• Be able to work with incomplete, inaccurate or slightly false information. Especially military organizations will be unwilling to disclose full or any information regarding strategic satellites. There is also the chance of inaccurate sensor information. In each case the system should try to use the combined data of sensors and satellites in its group to make an as accurate guess as possible;

• Fully autonomous operation. Human interference should only be needed in situations the system cannot solve (like an approaching collision with no ‘no loss’ solution);
  

Preferences

The following items, while not absolute requirements, would still be desired for a good ASTM system:

• Easy compatibility. To make the system as accessible to as many organizations as possible the system should be able to easily connect with different kinds of satellites, including different messaging systems and/or operating systems. This could be achieved by centralizing the system, instead of it needing to be installed on satellites it would just require to be able to listen and talk to satellites in their ‘language’;

• Find least cost solutions to avoid an approaching collisions (making a group of 10 satellites move out of the way instead of the group of 1000 for example); (MAYBE REQUIREMENT?)
• Ability to assist in coordinating spacecraft back to earth when end of life has been reached;

• The ability to not just react to collisions when they are about to happen, but to also use 3D models and learning algorithms to predict possible collisions early on and take preventative measures if predicted collision risk reaches a certain threshold;
  

Constraints

The constraints should never be violated, this also has mostly to do with international space treaties. So a system that can not meet one of these constraints will automatically not be an option:

• Original owners/operators (o/o) should always be able to regain control of satellites. The system is a service, not an owner;

• System should in no way violate the international space treaties(for instance nobody is the boss in space, so the system will have no influence on satellites that aren’t participating);

• The system should be impartial in its judgement and only use a cost-benefit analysis to make decisions;

• Like any other form of robots or artificial intelligence the system has to follow Asimov’s three laws of robotics;^[15]
  

References

[1] (https://iislweb.org/docs/Diederiks2017.pdf)

[2] http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf

[3] UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/82, “International cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space”, 21 December 2015 Online: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/oosadoc/data/resolutio ns/2015/general_assembly_70th_session/ares7082. html, (accessed 06.09.2017);

[4] K.U. Schrogl, “Space Traffic Management: The new comprehensive approach for regulating the use of outer space – Results from the 2006 IAA cosmic study”, Acta Astronautica 62, 2008, pp. 272-276

[5] O.Brown et al.: “Orbital Traffic Management Study – Final Report”, prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters, prepared by Science applications InternationalCorporation(SAIC),21November 2016.

[6] R. Tüllmann et al.: “On the Implementation of a European Space Traffic Management System – Volume I. A White Paper; Volume II. The Safety and Reliability Strategy; Volume III. Technical Requirements”, conducted on behalf of European Space Agency (ESA) by German Aerospace Center (DLR) and partner Institutes and Companies, 27 April 2017.

[7] file:///C:/Users/20166004/Downloads/artificial-intelligence-support1.pdf : more explanation about collision maneuvers

[8] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20180007349.pdf

[9] http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Safety/ESA_spacecraft_dodges_large_constellation

[10] https://www.pixalytics.com/satellites-orbiting-earth-2019/

[11] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-launch-just-beginning.html

[12] https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/Satellites/LaunchesandOrbits/SatelliteOrbits/Satellitemanoeuvres/index.html

[13]http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Safety/ESA_spacecraft_dodges_large_constellation

[14]https://www.definitions.net/definition/rational+agent

[15]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/asimovs-laws-wont-stop-robots-from-harming-humans-so-weve-developed-a-better-solution/

[…] file:///C:/Users/20166004/Downloads/PREPRINT-DASC2011-AutomaticCollisionAvoidanceSystemDesignDevelopmentandFlighttests.pdf : automatic collision avoidance system