Cooperative use of space is essential for a sustainable future on Earth.
Often compared to ocean shipping lanes, Earth’s orbital layers act as channels to almost 14,000 satellites moving at around 7 km/second. These orbital pathways are becoming increasingly congested as a rapidly growing number of commercial actors enter what was once a predominantly state-run domain. Can the 1967 Outer Space Treaty hold up against this space revolution? Can international structures quickly modernize and work together to ensure all players in the space race are committed to a safe and sustainable future?
Join hosts Vass Bednar and Paul Samson as they speak with guests Esther Brimmer and Jessica West about a comprehensive and collaborative approach to space governance. Esther is a senior fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations, a former US assistant secretary of state and an expert in international institutions. Jessica is a CIGI senior fellow and a senior researcher at Project Ploughshares, a Canadian peace and security research institute, where she focuses on technology, security and governance in outer space.
In-Show Clips:
Mentioned:
Further Reading:
Credits:
Policy Prompt is produced by Vass Bednar and Paul Samson. Our supervising producer is Tim Lewis, with technical production by Henry Daemen and Luke McKee. Show notes are prepared by Lynn Schellenberg, social media engagement by Isabel Neufeld, brand design and episode artwork by Abhilasha Dewan and Sami Chouhdary, with creative direction from Som Tsoi.
Original music by Joshua Snethlage.
Sound mix and mastering by François Goudreault.
Be sure to follow us on social media.
Listen to new episodes of Policy Prompt on all major podcast platforms. Questions, comments or suggestions? Reach out to CIGI’s Policy Prompt team at info@policyprompt.io
Jessica West:
I like to say we have space in our pocket. It feels far away and it feels remote, and yet it's literally in our pockets pretty much every day. At the same time, it's turning into a battleground as it becomes so important to everything we do on earth.
Esther Brimmer:
The key document is the Outer Space Treaty, and the parties are national governments, governments who are the ones who make the rules, but it applies to companies. And so, we don't yet have a good way to use the international structures to then manage private companies.
Paul Samson:
From defense investments to satellite internet, many countries are making big moves in orbit. Canada, we're talking about 1.2 billion for Telesat's light speed network, there's growing reliance on SpaceX, Starlink, and other technologies. New military spending is aimed squarely at securing our presence in space. But it's just coming at us everywhere. Just last week, I was on a remote hiking trail and my iPhone kept asking me if I wanted to use the new satellite service, which I thought was actually kind of handy, but I didn't even know it was an option. So, change is coming at us from all directions and really fast.
Vass Bednar:
When you were telling me about using your cell phone on a hike, it was making me think of the season two ending of Yellow Jackets, but that's kind of a spoiler.
As our skies fill up with commercial satellites and geopolitical tensions spill into orbit, it also just raises this bigger question, which is, who governs space and how? And I realized it's something I don't know enough about and feel really curious because it also made me wonder what something like space sovereignty could even mean now in 2025.
Paul Samson:
So today on Policy Prompt, we're digging into the global rules and sometimes a lack thereof, that shape outer space. We're going to talk about orbital debris, digital and rocket monopolies, anti-satellite weapons. Space governance is definitely not science fiction, it's infrastructure, it's diplomacy, it's economic competition, it's security. It's pretty much everything.
Vass Bednar:
And joining us are two incredible guests who have been thinking deeply about how to make space safer, more sustainable, and more cooperative. Esther Brimmer is a senior fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations and a former US Assistant Secretary of State, and expert in international institutions. She's the recent author of the book Securing Space: A Plan for US Action. Very Concrete, very useful. And Jessica West, Senior Researcher at Project Ploughshares, whose work focuses on space security and demilitarization. She's the leading expert or a leading expert for the United Nations and other international bodies responsible for space safety and security.
Paul Samson:
So we're going to talk about the US and Canada and other countries and the role of the private sector and what it's going to take to keep space governance on some kind of track going forward.
Vass Bednar:
Because as it turns out, space isn't a lawless frontier, but the laws that do exist might be showing their age a little bit.
Paul Samson:
Esther and Jessica, delighted to have you here. Welcome to Policy Prompt.
Esther Brimmer:
Thank you very much, delighted to be here.
Jessica West:
Yeah, this is terrific that you're turning the policy eye to outer space.
Vass Bednar:
Maybe to kick off, I can just sort of ask you both, why is space governance such a hot issue today? What's changed in the last maybe five to 10 years or even the last year to raise the stakes in orbit?
Esther Brimmer:
One of the things we see is that there's been an extraordinary expansion of the use of space by the average citizen. Every day, all of us who are part of modern society are benefiting from assets in space. We are either checking our watches to know what time it is, we are checking our phones to check our maps, those maps rely on information that comes from space. We're checking on the weather, we're saying, "Oh my gosh, it's too hot, it's too cold, but will it rain this afternoon?" It's probably a weather satellite that is providing the information that helps you make that decision about when you're going to walk outside and because you are able to have information about the world around us that comes from space. So, daily life is affected by space.
In addition to national security and outstanding scientific contributions, but it's this importance to the average person worldwide that is really extraordinary. And that's happened because there's been a huge launch in the number of satellites that have gone up just in the past five years.
Jessica West:
Yeah, I agree. I love that. The emphasis on daily life, Esther, I like to say we have space in our pocket. And so Paul, you were talking about the fact that you kept getting asked if your phone wanted to use satellite capabilities, where it feels far away and it feels remote, and yet it's literally in our pockets pretty much every day. And I think that change is phenomenal.
At the same time, it's turning into a battleground, or at least we're preparing in many ways for it to become a battleground. So, I think the last five years we've also seen this warfighting turn in outer space as it becomes so important to everything we do on earth. How do we secure it? And without agreements on that, states have a lot of fears about losing their capabilities, not having shared access, and we haven't solved that equation yet.
Esther Brimmer:
Jessica, I just think that point is so interesting, because indeed for a whole generation, we've benefited from a relatively peaceful space environment. In other words, we think about from the period of the end of the Cold War to the 2020s, that by and large that space was not seen necessarily as conflictual. And that one of the important things about the end of the Cold War was a reduction in tensions, but this is changing dramatically as you indicate. So we have this communications revolution, but we also have these renewed strategic challenges.
Paul Samson:
Right, and so maybe just to situate for listeners here a little bit, when we talk about outer space, we're talking about all kinds of layers, right? There's the low earth orbit, which you just referred to, a lot of the new satellites are launched there, quick communications. As you go up, you've got higher orbiting satellites and other things, and then eventually you leave the orbit and you've actually got, you're heading to the moon or you're heading to Mars. So, we're talking about all of that, but a lot of the focus right now is on those really critical orbiting zones, let's say, around the earth. And maybe you could just say a word or two about that to help people situate in their heads what we're talking about here, right? Where you can actually see those satellites now often with the human eye because so many up there at the lower earth orbit. But can you help situate just what we're talking about here a tiny bit more?
Esther Brimmer:
Certainly, if you're standing on the ground looking up in the sky, you can almost think about layers of space. Your first one, of course is just the atmosphere around you, and that actually from ground up to 18,000 feet, you actually have civil airspace and sovereign airspace so that when an aircraft takes off from the airport in Ottawa, it is taking off in Canadian airspace. So then you have international airspace. Space itself, there's some debate about it, but generally is considered to be at what's called the Karman Line, which is a lot, an area above earth where you basically say the atmosphere has ended, in a short way. It's basically a way of thinking about that, where the atmosphere ends. Beyond that, then we think about space. So low earth orbit goes up to about 2,000 kilometers, and then you have middle earth orbit, and then you have the geostationary or beyond that.
What's really interesting is that you have traditionally, you had in low earth orbit, you had important vehicles like the International Space Station. At these very high orbits, you had the big strategic satellites that were doing the global strategic surveillance. What's I think is interesting is then the arrival of commercial satellites in low earth orbit. As you say Paul, you can see them, but it also means that you have much greater congestion in the area in low earth orbit.
Paul Samson:
We can see them and they can see us. And so Jessica, you're focusing on all of this in a way, and some of the questions are around, what are the rules that apply? What are the basic regimes right now? Are there different rules for different levels of the orbit? What's the status quo right now of the framework around how things are managed or governed? Is there anything to set up there?
Jessica West:
I mean, we have an Outer Space Treaty, which provides foundational principles to how we conduct ourselves, how we use outer space, but those are broad principles that we haven't put a lot of flesh on. So, not contaminating space, having due regard for others. But when it comes to the day-to-day operations, we really don't have a lot of rules.
So, I like the way Esther was describing orbits. They're sort of like shipping lanes, if you will, but becoming very crowded shipping lanes moving at seven kilometers a second, and we don't have great tools for knowing what is where. We don't have rules of the road for, how do you avoid an accident? How do you communicate with nearby operators? What if you need to maneuver to avoid a piece of junk in space but you don't want to hit another satellite that's also moving very quickly? Those rules don't really exist. We talk about it, we have some tools that are developing related to space situational awareness. We still use things like phone numbers. Who do I call to orchestrate my maneuver? Now, that worked when there were maybe 20 countries with satellites, but we're up to more than 80 and we're up to, I think now more than 14,000 satellites, most of them in these very congested orbital lanes close to earth because that gives you fast communications, no latency. And also as you said, Paul, you can see the earth from there and you can cover earth every day.
So, this prime real estate is heavily crowded, we're building everywhere and things are moving quickly, and we haven't really sorted out who gets access how and how do we prevent bad things from happening? How do we make sure this is sustainable?
Vass Bednar:
But why have we not sorted that out? Is it just because of the complexity of that governance? Is it the mix of public and private actors that are up there? Is there resistance to those regimes being imposed? I'm asking for a friend because I'm new to all this, and I think it's fascinating.
Paul Samson:
It's a tough question.
Vass Bednar:
I think people would expect, if we've done it on earth, we would be quickly applying some of these lessons. So, I just think it's interesting to discover that we're still trying to set better parameters, I guess. I'm saying we, I don't even know who all the actors are.
Esther Brimmer:
I would say there are at least two factors. There's what I would call both novelty and complexity. And once this has happened relatively fast, as we've said, that the expansion increase in the number of satellites in low earth orbit has been very quick. Now, companies like SpaceX do have to apply to their national governments to get a license, and they do have to apply to the International Telecommunications Union in order to get a frequency to be able to transmit. But the numbers have increased very, very quickly. The other aspect is that this expansion has largely been driven by a dynamic expansion in private sector activity.
The rules for space apply to national governments. As Jessica has pointed out, the key document is the Outer Space Treaty, and the parties are national governments. Now, under that treaty, national governments are responsible for their activities of their companies. But that said, that you have governments who are the ones who would make the rules, but it applies to companies. And so, we don't yet have a good way to abuse the international structures to then manage private companies.
Paul Samson:
So, one thing that occurred to me as you were both speaking is the law of the sea and the way that evolved. You both mentioned ocean transportation and things like sometimes people describe outer space as a giant sea. Much more complex, many more layers, like we're talking about the surface of the ocean for the most part. But a very sophisticated regime has taken decades and even centuries to evolve there, about transportation safety, liabilities, rules of the area, the high seas and different kind of regimes around different issues. It's taken a long time to develop, and there was a battle there between the private sector and the public sector over many years, right?
So, do we have things that we can learn from and get it right, that law of the sea and other things may be being one of them? Do we have things we can work with here that show a way forward? And is that kind of the vibe of how things are proceeding or is it more competition and let's ignore those precedents?
Esther Brimmer:
I would suggest that there are some helpful models from which we can draw examples to apply to space. We can look at the other domains such as oceans, as you indicate. Antarctica, which also is covered by a treaty system. We can look at the undersea work, which is also in play at the moment, but that there are models we can borrow.
So, two I would flag but there are others, but just for the sake of our conversation. The first one as you indicate comes from the International Maritime Organization. Again, rules about the oceans are some of our oldest rules. Several centuries have tried to create rules to manage navigation and other aspects of use of the oceans. But one of the things that the International Maritime Organization did was create something called the Polar Code, which is intended for shipping companies to set good standards for sailing through the Arctic region. That's an example of a international organization where the members are national governments, and Canada, the United States and others are all members, but the private companies also have a role within this particular organization. And they were able to help create useful rules that are beneficial to places like insurance companies who are insuring those who are sailing. So, it's an interesting model. It says, you're going through this precarious zone, here are some rules, and here are some parties, like insurance companies, that want to help you enforce it through the actual private sector action. So it's an interesting case.
Another is the International Civil Aviation Organization, of course headquartered in Montreal. And it also has some interesting ideas and some interesting structures about its relationship with the International Air Transport Association, a group of airlines that where they try to work together on governance issues. So, there are some places where we can borrow models to help us grapple with the governance of space.
Jessica West:
Yeah, I agree, Esther. I think the oceans come up quite a bit in space governance discussions for analogies. I'll point out that maritime is often used as a model for space power, so naval power, space power, is an analogy. But on the safety and conflict prevention side at the United Nations where there's work happening on norms of behavior to try to prevent misperceptions, accidental escalation, leading to tensions or conflicts that are unintended and no one wants. Incidents at Sea Agreement is one example, which in many ways operationalizes the concept we have in space of due regard. And how do you operate in a way that doesn't unintentionally make others around you feel that they're under attack, feel as though they are insecure? So, do you give prior notice before a close approach? Do you give prior notice before a military exercise on the high seas? These are all examples of activities that we can learn from and borrow.
At the same time, I think one area where space really stands out and is proving more challenging than both the seas and aviation is the dual use nature of a lot of our satellites, and so having capabilities that are both civil or commercial and military in nature. In the skies, we don't often have that with airplanes. We've separated out the commercial and the military, and same with the high seas, but we haven't done that in space. I don't see that happening, just because of the way we've evolved and the way that different users share data. It's the data that is so valuable in space, but also, space is a finite resource. Those prime real estate sections are limited. So we can't necessarily have a different satellite for every single user and application. But I think the dual use and the dual purpose nature of the technology is really a prickly and challenging issue in space that is almost unlike any other domain.
Paul Samson:
Yeah, that's a great point because dual use is coming at us in many domains right now through the advanced technologies. But as you say, outer space is set up into be inherently dual use in a way that maybe some other areas are not. Have we just seen that in Ukraine with the use of Starlink? Especially at the beginning of the conflict, providing a major tactical advantage on the battlefield, quicker communication because of the low orbit, the latency. And blurring the line between civilian and military, including as treated under international law, whether that is a civilian tool or a military tool, right? And so, does that further underline your point, Jessica, that we've actually seen the reality of just blurring these lines in conflicts and we should expect that to continue?
Jessica West:
Yeah, and it shows that we need a comprehensive approach to governance. We can't necessarily separate military and commercial governance when we have so many overlaps. And I think really, a need for norms of behavior. How do we differentiate how something's being used in space? So, it's both the user side. Starlink, we saw when Russia used cyber capabilities to interfere with Viasat as sort of the kickoff to the invasion of Ukraine, that had rippling effects all across European civil and commercial users. It took wind turbines offline, the effects were felt right across the continent. If you're thinking about more and more targeting of these dual-use capabilities, then we have to start thinking very clearly about, how do we protect civilians? What are the obligations of commercial operators engaging in military activities to their civilian users?
But it's deeper than that. We're doing things in space in a way that we've never done. We're servicing satellites, we're removing debris, we're doing these phenomenal, sustainable things that can also be phenomenally harmful activities. So, robotics, rendezvous and proximity operations. How do I know that your debris removal capability won't be repurposed at some point to harm my satellite? And so, that's where we need greater rules that provide transparency agreement on behaviors that signal, hey, this is what I'm doing. You know that this is debris removal because I've communicated to you. I have shared some basic parameters of my system with you. I've given you prior notice. I've designed it in a way that makes it very difficult to repurpose it for a harmful use and I've made that open and transparent.
So, I'm excited because I think there's fascinating things before us in space. We're going to do things that we never imagined possible even 10 years ago. And for those of us, like Esther and I on the governance side, there is such an opportunity to get it right in ways that quite frankly, we haven't when it comes to Earth's climate. I mean, our seas are not exactly a pillar of sustainability and security these days. So, I think we have a real opportunity ahead of us.
Vass Bednar:
I want to pivot a tiny bit because I wanted to actually pick up a little bit on Paul's question about Starlink just now. And going back, Esther to you, talking about the kind of explosion or exponential growth of activity and what we're launching into space. Private actors like SpaceX, Blue Origin and others have been reshaping the space landscape in the US and elsewhere for everyone. Do we have the right regulatory tools or approaches to hold private actors accountable maybe for some of what you were saying, in terms of the benefits and drawbacks and dangers?
Esther Brimmer:
So, thank you for the question. Indeed, as I said, that this dramatic change has in many ways been driven by commercial actors. But I would suggest that while they have followed the existing rules, that there are gaps in the existing rules, that the overall larger question of, is it wise to launch a very large number of satellites without necessarily clear coordination with everybody else who's thinking of launching a very large amount of satellites? One would suggest that there was not a way of having that conversation internationally. And there may not have been an interest, but there also was not really a mechanism that said, "If you're going to launch 1,000 satellites, 2,000 satellites, 10,000 satellites, there's no, at this point, let's say threshold, where there needs to be another level of conversation where it clearly impacts with others. So I say it shows the big gaps in governance. And so, one of the questions going forward is, how do we measure?
Now to some extent, we are already a situation where we have certainly from the United States and from China, multiple operators cleared and already launching additional satellites. So, I think sometimes my concern is that that's already happening and the diplomatic process is will not catch up in time. And so, that this concern about collisions will be very increasingly difficult to solve, and that is one of my ongoing concerns.
Jessica West:
I think there's also concerns about who gets left out. We had this issue a long time ago when Esther pointed out that geostationary orbit was the prime real estate, where all the big powerful communications and early warning satellites were. And there was a concern that emerging states, states that didn't yet have space programs would be left out of those benefits. And so there was an effort to regulate, to govern access to those critical orbital slots. We haven't done that in low earth orbit, that new prime real estate really close to earth. But at what point does your massive constellation retire? Does it ever? Do you have access to that spectrum and that positioning in space in perpetuity?
These are questions we're not really thinking about, and I think that by not answering some of them, we drive a bit of a race to grab up key orbital positions, sort of of a race for space mentality that's not always helpful. I think it can be powerful for innovation. It can do amazing things for all of the users on earth, but we also know there's downsides to that, we've seen it with earth's climate, we've seen it with other global commons. And so, I worry in the future about who's left out.
And you mentioned space sovereignty. It's an odd, it's kind of a no-go word in outer space, sovereignty, but I know you mean something different. You mean sovereign access and use of space. Ideally, we'd be able to share a lot of these capabilities. As Esther said, ideally, we'd be able to coordinate and not have to have our own capabilities all the time, but that's not the geopolitical world we live in. And going forward, I think these will be important questions to answer, especially for the global south.
Paul Samson:
Maybe just drilling into that a little bit more. You mentioned earlier 50 plus countries have satellites up there. I'm not sure exactly what the number is, but it's over 50. They didn't necessarily have the means to get the satellite up there, right? So they have a satellite, but they don't have the rockets, like the ability to deliver the payload. So it's not just about having the satellite, there's a capability question of not only who has access and has the satellites, but who has the ability to get them up there? That's a critical issue. How many countries can do that beyond China, US, Europe, Russia? Who can get stuff up there? There aren't many, are there?
Jessica West:
I'm wanting to say nine, but that's a gut instinct, and it depends how you count them, right? And so New Zealand has space launch, but Rocket Lab is a mostly American company. Canada is actually developing a spaceport in Nova Scotia near where I am right now. Newfoundland is also developing one now. I think the interest in space is expanding, the UK, Scotland. But in terms of main launch providers, yeah, Russia, somewhat, it's declining for sure. United States, first and foremost. European Space Agency, and that includes France and UK, and Japan, North Korea.
Paul Samson:
But it's a sovereign capability potentially, right? If you lost access to that, if you had an arrangement now let's say with Russia, which some countries did, suddenly that disappeared, you don't have an ability to get stuff up, you want that sovereign capability. Presumably, there's even more focus on this.
Jessica West:
Yeah, I think this is an issue for Canada as well and part of the thinking. But also, you reach different orbits depending on where your launch capability is. So the value of having something on Canada's east coast is that you can reach polar orbit quite easily, and you're not flying over necessarily some of the densest airline traffic. Actually, maybe you are. I'd have to have this discussion with someone else, but it's also a geographic issue, not just a political issue.
Esther Brimmer:
Which is why Djibouti is in this picture as well. One would otherwise think of a developing country, but they have some prime real estate, actually both for space and for maritime issues. And that of course shapes their diplomacy and their relationship with the United States, China, and others.
Paul Samson:
Super interesting. Yeah. So the launch point matters, is what you're saying, very significantly.
Clip:
Today, a new moon is in the sky, a 23-inch metal sphere placed in orbit by a Russian rocket. You are hearing the actual signals transmitted by the earth circling satellite, one of the great scientific feats of the age.
Vass Bednar:
Of course, there's been growing concern about the weaponization of space. How real is the threat of an arms race in orbit, or is this something that may already be underway? Could you help us make sense of that?
Jessica West:
Sure, I'll jump in there. I would point that space has always been militarized. And so, military activities were the first human activities in outer space. And they have been part of what we call peaceful uses of outer space, which generally have come to mean passive use of space, having an orbit or having a satellite in orbit and making use of the data and the capabilities that it provides. Even if those capabilities are linked to military technology on earth, that's been counted as peaceful.
And so, the intensity of militarization might be something that's changing. The military value of space, I think is something that has shifted quite recently from an enabling capability on earth, to a domain where militaries are actively doing things. They're maneuvering, they're potentially in the future building capabilities, they're defending other capabilities in space. So, this more active military use I think is the key difference from now and then. And with that, those security concerns and the growing security dilemma that we have where everyone's efforts to make themselves more secure make others feel less secure, is certainly driving this open shift towards weapons in space, and that's also not new.
I think militaries have dreamed of space as the ultimate high ground since we first were able to launch rockets there. Certainly, we've had experiments with nuclear weapons capabilities in space. We learned that was an incredibly bad idea and banned it because it ruined space for everyone, including the owner of the nuclear capability. But it's not until recently where these more active weapons capabilities have served a purpose within military objectives in space, which include defending themselves from others, protecting themselves. And in the absence of rules that allow us to feel secure together, you can see how there's an arms race that is rapidly developing. I'd say it's underway as well. It's been underway for a long time, especially if you include the ability to harm things in space from earth. So ground-based anti-satellite weapons. We saw the first major test of the current era in 2007 when China demonstrated its capability to intercept satellites in orbit, and that's been since repeated by the United States, India and Russia. Now, we're moving more to orbital capabilities.
But what we mean by weapon is so broad, and I think that's part of our governance challenge. We know that there's capabilities to interfere with space systems using non-kinetic means. Jamming is as old as satellite signals. Cyber is also quite well established. The use of directed energy is also something that is trickling up. And so, part of the challenge we have is there's not just one space weapon, it's sort of like talking about an earth weapon. What do you mean? There's many different capabilities we have on earth.
Vass Bednar:
Paper.
Jessica West:
Yeah, and so I think we've reached an era where we have to start thinking about specific risks and threats in space and not sort of a broad weapons label because, what do you mean? What are you including? And I have a book chapter that argues that nothing counts as a weapon in space, everything is peaceful use. One state's debris removal capability is another state's anti-satellite capability. And we try to paint everything with this peaceful use that's sort of a hangover from the early space age. And so I think some of our origin story makes it hard to do the space arms control and peace efforts that we need to do today.
Esther Brimmer:
I would just add that this issue is also adding to the congestion in LEO. Traditionally, the intelligence satellites were up in geostationary orbit. They were much higher, and the concern about their vulnerability and the need to proliferate in other areas to reduce vulnerabilities has also led to an increased use of LEO as well. So, just among the other things that are changing, I would just add that.
Paul Samson:
Right. Let's go into the issue of weapons of mass destruction in space, which is the ultimate question that goes back to the 1950s, perhaps even the late 1940s, I guess. When we had the Cold War, you had the Americans and you had the Soviets saying, "We got this. Where space is our domain, we'll set a few rules around it in our own interest." We're now in a multipolar world that same kind of bipolar agreement is not going to hold.
Is there a higher risk now for proliferation in very unwanted ways? Maybe it's more the anti-satellite, like if you wipe out a country's satellite capability, it's almost like an equivalent of a naval blockade 200 years ago where you cut them off from food. Cut people off from satellite data right now, it's not all that different. So, perhaps that's where the focus is more than nuclear weapons or bioweapons or something. But all those issues are in play, sadly, and we don't have the neatness of a bilateral conversation that in a way we had decades ago. How's that evolving?
Jessica West:
I like how you considered thinking differently about weapons of mass destruction in space. And so, I'm not going to use that term because it has a very specific legal connotation with the most horrendous weapons we've used on one another on earth, biological, chemical, nuclear. Not having those in space is one of the only arms control measures we have agreed to. That is a clear red line, and almost every state has agreed. That said, nuclear is back in the news. There's concerns that, as you said, it could be a capability that could cut others off at the knees, that could destroy daily life for people. And so this ultimate weapon, if you will, the idea of that has come back into the news.
But what's different about space is there's no military part of space. There's no American part of space. You can't ruin space for others and not ruin it for everyone. And I think that is where we have to focus our attention on prevention. It's not just a military issue, and it could include things like debris. We can ruin space for everyone through debris. We don't have to use so-called weapons of mass destruction to take out all of the benefits that we enjoy every single day.
Vass Bednar:
So, why are there no planeteers in space, right? We're talking about, I am only half joking, but we're talking about the debris and keeping space, I don't want to say clean, but sustainable and protecting. I don't know, it just strikes me. I know that would be so expensive, but who is doing the work of picking up some of that and dealing with debris, or are we just letting it collect and orbit?
Esther Brimmer:
There are both companies and others who are looking at ways to gather debris, and indeed, that the idea if you're creating a spacecraft with the robotic arm, but as Jessica indicates, the robotic arm could grab the piece of debris if it's a large piece of debris and one could imagine it being either then retained to be placed in higher orbit or to be thrust back through the atmosphere. But that could also be dual use, it's a classic dual use, and so that's one of the concerns.
I would also flag that what I would look out for is also what other advocates for other parts of our global space have to say, because sending more and more spacecraft through the atmosphere is not good either. In fact, the chemicals are then they're still there, they're just in our atmosphere. If you work on oceans, you're not really thrilled about the idea of the International Space Station being crashed back into the Pacific Ocean. So, that's not good idea. So we don't yet, I would say we actually really don't have any really good solutions on debris because even the ones being put forward have environmental impacts.
Jessica West:
Yeah, I think debris is one of the actual bright spots in space governance where there is attention on it. Everyone does agree we don't want more debris, it unites us in space because we need a sustainable space environment. So you have the Zero Debris Charter, you have debris mitigation rules at the United Nations. You do have agreements on this, but debris's challenging. You can de-orbit a big chunk like a dead satellite, but you can't sweep up all of the little pieces of debris that get left back in the event of a collision or a weapons test, and those can take out satellites as well. Remember, things are traveling at incredible speeds. And so you don't need to take a large hit in space to have your power supply affected, your communication capability with your satellite affected.
But I fully agree with Esther, we've done a great job I think of, okay, debris, that's the environmental issue in space. I think Earth is that other environmental issue, and so the re-entries also affect our upper stratosphere. We're burning thousands of tons of heavy metals in the atmosphere as these thousands of satellites go up and then re-enter and burn up. And the ones that don't burn up often end up, as Esther was alluding to, to the satellite graveyard in the ocean and we're seeing that there's effects on Antarctica because of this. And so, it points to the fact that space is not separate from Earth. It is very much integrated with Earth, not just in our uses, but environmentally.
I was blown away to hear that Earth's atmosphere, it doesn't just stop at the Karman Line, it goes up for tens of thousands of kilometers, it just gets thinner and thinner. And so in many ways, we don't really leave earth for a very long time when we go to space, and we certainly don't leave behind the effects on earth when we go to space.
Paul Samson:
Yeah, that's super important. Let's try to visualize that even a little bit more, right? So I'm hearing you describe it as the ultimate global commons, in the sense that pollution in outer space cannot be compartmentalized. If you imagine in an ocean you've got an oil spill, it's devastating for that coast right there, but it may not actually affect the broader ocean very much, right? It probably, it certainly does if there's too many of them, but not like the point source is controllable potentially. But you're describing debris that continue to circulate and even at a very small scale can have a huge impact because of the power of their mass hitting something at the speed they're traveling.
So, maybe just describe that even a little bit more of a relatively small piece of debris, as you say, taking out a satellite, destroying something like that. We're talking about actually relatively minute things in terms of debris size, and then you're talking about the stuff that falls back to earth. So, it's got it all on the pollution side that we should be able to rally around.
Jessica West:
Yeah, I like to think of, Paul, you and I are from Ontario, and Vass as well.
Paul Samson:
I'm from BC actually, just to clarify.
Jessica West:
Okay, but-
Paul Samson:
But I live in Ontario.
Vass Bednar:
We're in Ontario. Yeah, I was like, I'm born in Quebec, Jessica.
Jessica West:
Okay, I'm so sorry. Well, I'm born in Ontario. So in Ontario we have the Highway 401, it's one of the busiest highways in the world. And so you can think of that as low earth orbit, if you will. Things are moving pretty quickly. It's our, in many cases, our most important transportation corridor, bringing goods all across the country and across the US American border as well. When you have an accident, imagine if you couldn't clear the debris off of Highway 401. You might dodge some of it, but there's also other trucks in those lanes, and so your ability to move around it is very limited by the congestion around you. And even if you avoid the big bumper left on the side of the road or the tire, small pieces can puncture your tire and put you in a tailspin.
And so to me, that's what we're dealing with, is these very busy highways that are so essential to our daily life, so heavily used, and we can't clean them up when stuff goes wrong. It's on us to keep it clean. It's on us to have good drivers, good rules, shared understandings of how to behave on that road. And we know that those exist because when I go to Quebec, I know I have to slow down a bit, whereas when I'm in Ontario, I know I can go 20, 30 kilometers over the speed limit. Those are norms, but we don't have those shared understandings yet in space.
Vass Bednar:
Love that.
Paul Samson:
Great analogy, great analogy. That's super helpful.
Vass Bednar:
Yeah, I'm like, no right on reds in space.
Jessica West:
Nope.
Vass Bednar:
I'll pick up on that to ask you, Esther, what do you think the biggest blind spot in the current space conversation might be?
Esther Brimmer:
That's an interesting question, because there's both the immediate and then the longer term. I think the blind spots are opportunities that are not being seized. And I think the most obvious one to me of an opportunity that's not being seized is creating a hotline between the United States and China. We were able to create a hotline to the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and people realized that to have a high fidelity way of saying, "Our satellites are about to crash into each other and we really should be aware of that," because that is one of the situations where, yeah, sometimes it's by phone, sometimes it's not clear who should be contacted. It's extraordinary, between two countries with space programs of the size of the US and China. So that's one of those, with the right political, that could be done, that's not a technical problem, but it's so clearly needed. So, that's an obvious opportunity that could be seized now.
Paul Samson:
Super point, and we saw that with the balloon incident, right? Is that your balloon? What is it? What's it doing over? And there was no number to call or to text.
Esther Brimmer:
Exactly.
Paul Samson:
Right?
Esther Brimmer:
Exactly, exactly.
Jessica West:
And you need someone to pick up the phone.
Esther Brimmer:
Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You need to listen to that. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Jessica West:
Yeah, in peacetime so that if it's not peacetime, we have that situation [inaudible 00:44:45]-
Esther Brimmer:
A phone with satellite boost, maybe if somebody's on a hike like Paul.
Paul Samson:
Yeah, yeah.
Jessica West:
Yeah. I am most excited about clearing up the idea that space is just technology, just hardware, just things in space. I like to tell the human story, and so I really appreciate Esther's reminder right at the beginning of our conversation about how central space is to daily life. Space is a human domain, it's not just machines and hardware, and I think that story gets lost.
So, I still hear military people say things like, "Well, satellites don't have mothers. So, it's less of an issue when it comes to war fighting in space." I'm like mothers, and indeed all people, use outer space, and it's not just people from countries that have the most things in space. The research I've been doing shows that there's a huge vulnerability paradox when it comes to human security and space assets. People everywhere depend on space, and those that have the fewer assets in many ways are the most vulnerable. They don't have the redundant systems that I have in the Toronto and Waterloo area of Ontario. A system goes down, I've got backups, I've got multiple options to get online. That doesn't exist in many parts of the world. In many parts of the world, space is it, and one satellite might be it, or one system might be it. And so, we have to protect space for everybody and the most vulnerable aren't necessarily those with the most capabilities. It's everyone, and we don't have the same voices. We don't have the same power to affect governance.
So, I think it behooves us to speak for everyone and think about the people that get overlooked when we talk about space and people in general. So, space is a human domain. I urge everyone, when you draw a space system, draw people into that picture because that humanizes our conversation and that reminds us of why we're doing this. It's not just about what we imagine to be a vast area with endless space and hardware. It's really about the people in our communities.
Esther Brimmer:
Jessica, that's just so powerful to hear you express this this way because indeed, we have the importance of the scientific discovery aspect that we think about the understanding of both our planet, our neighbors, our universe. There are profound issues that are part of our understanding of space. And so of course, the role of scientific discovery, I think is one.
The other is the enormous cultural significance. And particularly as we think about our engagement on lunar issues, that every society, people all over the globe can see the moon. Every society thinks about, has views about, understandings of the largest entity in our skies at night. And so, there's some really powerful aspects of human society that are caught up that are part of our understanding of space around us. So, I really appreciate the point that you made.
Paul Samson:
So, maybe linking to another aspect which is, how are countries going to play together in this space moving forward? We talked about just before the podcast started about which countries are doing what, and some countries are specializing so that they have a role in the international space future. I think you mentioned the United Arab Emirates, because they're not going to be a big player on space but they could be a niche player on space. Is that going to be essential for countries to do that to find their way? Because they're not going to have full capacity, necessarily a handful of good, right? But is there a way to carve out spaces for these countries? Is that one future paradigm that might be emerging?
Esther Brimmer:
Indeed, there are ways of carving out a role in space and space governance. And I'll mention too, as I had mentioned earlier, there's one having a particular capacity. And it might be geographical, a great spot on the globe from which to launch. For some countries, and actually UAE falls in this category, as does Luxembourg, which is your aviation/space law. And again, for those who are lawyers will be more qualified than I to comment, but I would say what you are seeing are countries which are interested in let's say being the headquarters or the regional office for space companies. And they're finding a way to be part of the space ecosystem perhaps by changing some of their domestic rules or adapting some of the domestic rules and make it desirable to have an office in those countries. So, that's one set of areas.
The other I would say is that when we think about our formal international organizations, and I'll take a moment to mention that within the United Nations system, there are aspects of space which are picked up. And particularly, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which is based in Vienna. That some of this discussion about governance issues is occurring there. That again, in the United Nations system, every member state can play a role if they want. So sometimes, good diplomacy helps. The individuals who are creative and thoughtful and whose interests are not as direct can sometimes play a real leadership role, an intellectual, diplomatic, leadership role. So I'd say again, the countries that invest intellectually in thinking about this and thinking about policy roles can sometimes play the role of bringing together the big and powerful states with big stakes who precisely need someone to serve that diplomatic role. So, there are lots of ways to contribute to space governance.
Jessica West:
Yeah, if you want to look on the security side, I have been so in awe of the role the Philippines has played on discussions about the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Philippines has one satellite, they do have a space agency, but they took the lead on raising the issue of due regard in outer space as a core principle that can help us prevent conflict and keep space peaceful. And from the first statement they made to the last session we had on this discussion, they ended up being part of a group called The Friends of the Chair and it was a of 37 cross-regional states that were agreeing on core principles and approaches. And that is tremendous leadership from a state that knows it has one satellite, but in many ways, that makes its stake bigger in space because that one satellite has an outsized role in its society.
And I think we're sitting here, not all of us, but some of us in Canada. Canada does both of these. Canada's carved out a niche on the robotic side and the lunar side and the space medicine side as well, on the peaceful use. And I think Canada has had a lot of influence on the diplomatic aspects of space governance. So at the committee on the peaceful use, Canada played a big role in helping to have the group by consensus adopt long-term sustainability guidelines. And now, it's helping to pave the way for states to be reporting on how those are implemented, so going from paper to practice, which is so important. And on the security side as well, I think we have a lot of technical and historical diplomatic expertise that can really shape the conversation in helpful ways.
Vass Bednar:
Well, as we pick up on that conversation but wrap this one, I'll turn to both of you for something. You've mentioned, those glimmers of inspiration or appreciation already, but maybe either something that is energizing you and giving you hope related to space governance as we go forward, or just a topic to keep your eyes on or ears out for that's worth more attention and thinking about. Either one of you can take a stab first.
Esther Brimmer:
I may suggest maybe three things.
Vass Bednar:
Sure.
Esther Brimmer:
Oh, one is just better access to information. We started off saying that everybody is benefiting from getting weather or navigation information. So, I think continued access to information for people all over the globe, that's exciting. I think the second thing is the better understanding of our earth, that what we're learning about our planet by our work in space. And finally, it's great, I still see kids who are excited about space, the next generation is excited about space. It looks different than let's say, those of us who can remember the moonshot. But it's exciting to know that yes, this is still exciting to the kids and that's important.
Jessica West:
Yeah, I think we're not leaving it to states and we're not leaving it just to multilateral discussion, which let's face it, these are tough times for multilateralism.
What excites me is seeing that people are getting involved in this issue. We're all looking up and as we see the value of space, you're seeing more engagement by civil society. So you have relatively new NGOs like Open Lunar saying, "Hey, maybe we can help develop a lunar register that might reduce conflict or the race to the same positions on the moon." That is a civil society exercise. We're seeing commercial companies adopting and holding themselves to debris mitigation guidelines and saying, "Hey, we think that to be responsible looks like not leaving your junk and space, or it looks like de-orbiting within a year and not 25 or five years." And we're seeing more countries get involved. And to me, that is hopeful.
So the Philippines again, stands out on this, but there's a bunch of others. Costa Rica, Egypt has been a long-time player, but the sheer number of countries that showed up to the working group meetings at the United Nations, countries with and without satellites, that is hope, because that is showing that as a world we recognize the value of space. And as a world, we recognize our shared responsibility for keeping it useful, keeping it in a way that is recognizable for human culture, and keeping it valuable for the future. And so to me, that gives me hope. The new eyes that are on space, the new appreciation, I think that's something that we should be hopeful for.
Paul Samson:
That's great, and because there's so much commercial interest right now on the communication side, that's got everyone's minds focused on it that weren't even thinking about space. So, it looks like we're heading into a very active period that will hopefully facilitate the kind of governance discussions that you've been talking about here and continue to inspire.
Thank you, both of you today for speaking with us and inspiring us with your ideas about outer space, and it was delightful to have you.
Vass Bednar:
Thank you so much.
Esther Brimmer:
Thank you.
Vass Bednar:
I was fascinated to learn about the deep complexity around governing space. It did seem to me like we would be more maybe proactive about governing that commons, based on all of the different precedents and multilateral progress we've made on earth. But both our guests really brought to life for me what the barriers are to actually achieving that and what some of the noise and risks are. How about you?
Paul Samson:
Big picture for me, outer space is the ultimate inspiration, for sure. It's also the ultimate fear, right? Throughout history and culture, it's like we are in awe of space and we fear it. I think we heard both of those elements to what was being discussed.
In my view, the Cold War froze the outer space picture for many decades, it's opened up again now, we're very much in that multipolar world. The commercial sector has suddenly emerged. We're in a very supercharged environment. China has launched all kinds of low earth orbit satellites now to compete with Starlink, which is now of course where the action is on the communication side and potentially on the military side, back to that dual use question. So, this is not going to slow down anytime soon.
Do we have the right governance regime in place? Absolutely not. Do we have pieces of it? Yes, but a little bit like the small amount of debris can do a lot of damage, the small gaps in governance can probably do quite a bit of damage. So, it should be a focus how to rally the troops in terms of getting states interested to say, look, we got to get this done. I think there's an important question for some leadership there from countries to get some smaller states rallying around this and not just leave it to the big players.
Vass Bednar:
Absolutely. Well, I'm glad we tackled it. I wasn't sure where we'd go in just one hour on such a huge topic, but it was great.
Paul Samson:
Yeah, it's good first start. We didn't talk about issues like the Golden Dome or these kind of related things. We talked about militarization and other elements, but there's so many other ways you could go with the conversation perhaps for another day.
Vass Bednar:
Policy Prompt is produced by me, Vass Bednar and CIGI's Paul Samson. Our Supervising Producer is Tim Lewis, with technical production by Henry Daemen and Luke McKee. Show notes are prepared by Lynn Schellenberg. Social media Engagement by Isabel Neufeld. Brand design and episode artwork by Abhilasha Dewan and Sami Chouhdary, with creative direction from Som Tsoi. The original theme music is by Josh Snethlage. Please subscribe and rate Policy Prompt wherever you listen to podcasts, and stay tuned for future episodes.