Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Rise of the LEO: Is There a Need to Create a Distinct Legal Regime for Constellations of Satellites?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Aspects Around Satellite Constellations

Part of the book series: Studies in Space Policy ((STUDSPACE,volume 19))

Abstract

Recently, various entrepreneurs have revived the idea of constellations of hundreds and even thousands of satellites orbiting in the low-earth orbit (LEO), which would lead to a dramatic increase in the number of satellites deployed in this orbit. The main issue arising out of those massive projects is the congestion of the LEO and its legal consequence: the question of spectrum management and regulation and radio frequency allocation in the LEO and the potential need to adapt a legal frame for the specificity of the LEO.

By analyzing the elements that led to the creation of a distinct legal regime for the geostationary orbit (GEO), we shall determine whether there is a need to create such a distinct legal regime for the LEO.

The views and opinions expressed in this essay are the ones of its author and do not reflect the views of Airbus Defence and Space.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Martine Rothblatt, “Lex Americana: The New International Legal Regime For Low Earth Orbit Satellite Communications Systems”, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1995), p. 140.

  2. 2.

    Martine Rothblatt, Lex Americana: The New International Legal Regime For Low Earth Orbit Satellite Communications Systems, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1995), p. 140.

  3. 3.

    ITU Press Archiv WRC97, What Are the New Mobile Satellite Systems?, available at: https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/WRC97/What-are-new-mss.html (accessed on September 30, 2018).

  4. 4.

    Martine Rothblatt, Lex Americana: The New International Legal Regime For Low Earth Orbit Satellite Communications Systems, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1995), p. 125.

  5. 5.

    See Article 1.188 ITU Radio Regulations and C. Brandon Halstead, Promethues Unbound – Proposal for a New Legal Paradigm for Air Law and Space Law: Orbit Law, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 36, 2010, p. 172.

  6. 6.

    S. Hobe, Geostationary Orbit, in: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2007, para. 2: “Operating in the GEO, satellites orbit the earth in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.2 seconds, revolving at a rate that is synchronous to the rotation of the earth.”

  7. 7.

    R. Jakhu, The Legal Status of the Geostationary Orbit, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, p. 333.

  8. 8.

    S. Hobe, Geostationary Orbit, in: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2007, para. 3.

  9. 9.

    E. DuCharme, R. Bowen, M. Irwin, The Genesis of the 1985/87 ITU World Administrative Radio Conference on the Use of the Geostationary-Satellite Orbit and the Planning (1) of Spaces Services Utilizing It, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, p. 262.

  10. 10.

    The first MARISAT mobile communications satellite was launched into a GEO over the Pacific Ocean in 1976 to provide communications between ships and shore stations. See G. Comparetto, N, Hulkower, Global Mobile Satellite Communications: a review of three contenders, originally presented at the 15th International Communication Satellite Systems Conference of San Diego, 1994, p. 2.

  11. 11.

    G. Comparetto, N, Hulkower, Global Mobile Satellite Communications: a review of three contenders, originally presented at the 15th International Communication Satellite Systems Conference of San Diego, 1994, p. 1.

  12. 12.

    The proposal for a LEO satellites constellation where initiated by several companies. In 1998, Orbcomm became the first commercial provider of global LEO satellite date and messaging communications services, after deploying a constellation of 28 satellites in LEO. The Motorola Corporation planned a constellation named “Iridium” containing 66 satellites to establish a satellite based phone system that was eventually deployed in 1998. The Teledesic Corporation initially developed a plan for a global satellite communications network using 840 small satellites with in-orbit spares at an altitude of 700 km which was scaled back in 1997 to 288 active satellites at 1400 km. Globalstar had a similar idea in nature and deployed a constellation of 48 satellites at 1414 km in the LEO between 1998 and 2000. SkyBridge, Alcatel’s satellite-based broadband access system, planned a constellation of 64 LEO satellites at an altitude of 1457 km.

  13. 13.

    P. Sourisse, D. Rouffet and H. Sorre, SkyBridge: a broadband access system using a constellation of LEO satellites, ITU Press Archiv WRC97, available at: https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/WRC97/SkyBridge.html (accessed on September 30, 2018).

  14. 14.

    See LEO Vantage 1 (Telesat LEO Phase 1) Satellite Presentation, available at: http://spaceflight101.com/pslv-c40/leo-vantage-1/ (link accessed on September 30, 2018).

  15. 15.

    By the beginning of 2000, OrbComm, Iridium, and Globalstar had all gone bankrupt and filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. while Teledesic suspended its activities in 2002, see R. Goodwins, Teledesic backs away from satellite push, 2002, available at: https://www.zdnet.com/article/teledesic-backs-away-from-satellite-push/ (link accessed on September 30, 2018).

  16. 16.

    C. Melow, The Rise and Fall and Rise of Iridium, Air & Space Magazine, September 2014, p. 3.

  17. 17.

    W. Ailor, G. Peterson, J. Womack, M. Youngs, Effect of large constellations on lifetime of satellites in low earth orbits, p. 119.

  18. 18.

    Elon Musk’s SpaceX was the first US-based entity authorized by the American Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to launch and operate Starlink, a massive broadband internet satellite constellation of 4425 broadband satellites orbiting approximately between 1100 and 1325 km in LEO; its concurrent OneWeb petitioned the FCC to access the US market with thousands of satellites authorized by the UK; Canadian satellite communication service provider Telesat also has a satellite internet project and plans deploy a constellation of 117 satellites in the LEO which was approved by the FCC in November 2017; Boeing and Leosat have also announced ambitious plans to put thousands of Internet-service satellites in the LEO.

  19. 19.

    See e.g. OneWeb’s plan to cover remote regions such as Alaska and other Artic region as emphasized in a letter from Bill walker, Governor, State of Alaska, to the Honorable Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC, filed August 3. 2016: “I am particularly enthused about the fact that OneWeb’s network of satellites will be in a pole to pole direction, such that Alaska and other Artic regions will receive tremendous coverage.”

  20. 20.

    B. Trevdic, Satellites: la bataille des orbites divise le secteur, Les Echos, March 19, 2015, p. 1.

  21. 21.

    See e.g. Iridium CEO Matt Desch’s announcement on October 18, 2018 that the last mission needed to complete Iridium’s second-generation satellite constellation was scheduled for December 30, 2018.

  22. 22.

    S. Le May, S. Gehly, B. Carter, S. Flegel, Space debris collision probability analysis for proposed global broadband constellations, Acta Astronotica, Vol. 151, 2018, p. 445.

  23. 23.

    W. Ailor, G. Peterson, J. Womack, M. Youngs, Effect of large constellations on lifetime of satellites in low earth orbits, p. 119. In addition to the tracked objects, there are estimates that as many as 8000–10,000 additional debris objects larger than 10 cm also reside in LEOs as well as an estimated 500,000 objects in the range 1–10 cm in size and millions of still smaller objects, see W. Ailor, G. Peterson, J. Womack, M. Youngs, Effect of large constellations on lifetime of satellites in low earth orbits, p. 117.

  24. 24.

    ITU News Archive WRC97; What are the New Mobile Satellite Systems, available at: https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/WRC97/What-are-new-mss.html (accessed on September 30; 2018).

  25. 25.

    P. Arnopoulos, The International Politics of the Orbit-Spectrum Issue, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, p. 217.

  26. 26.

    The U.S. National Radio Astronomy Observatory expressed concerns about possible interference to radio astronomy facilities before the FCC in the context of the licence to access the U.S. market applications of the satellites constellations.

  27. 27.

    See e.g. “An “in-line” event occurs when satellites of different NGSO FSS systems are physically aligned with an operating earth station of one of those systems, such that the topocentric angle between the satellites is less than 10 degrees as measured from the earth station.”, FCC, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, December 15, 2016, para. 22.

  28. 28.

    D. J. Kessler, Collisional cascading: the limits of population growth in low Earth orbit, Advance Space Research, Volume II, 1991, pp. 3–6.

  29. 29.

    D. St. John, The Trouble with Westphalia in Space: The State-Centric Liability Regime, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 40, 2012, p. 688.

  30. 30.

    At 16:56 UTC on February 10, 2009, Iridium 33 collided with the defunct Russian satellite Kosmos 2251, see S. Le May, S. Gehly, B. Carter, S. Flegel, Space debris collision probability analysis for proposed global broadband constellations, Acta Astronotica, Vol. 151, 2018, p. 445.

  31. 31.

    S. Le May, S. Gehly, B: Carter, S. Flegel, Space debris collision probability analysis for proposed global broadband constellations, Acta Astronotica 151 (2018), 453.

  32. 32.

    R. Jakhu, The Legal Status of the Geostationary Orbit, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, p. 344.

  33. 33.

    F. Lyall, The International Telecommunication Union and Development, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 22, 1994, p. 24.

  34. 34.

    P. De Man, Rights over Areas vs Resources in outer Space: What’s the Use of Orbital Slots, Journal of Outer Space, Vol. 38, 2012, p. 43.

  35. 35.

    ITU News Archive WRC97, What are the New Mobile Satellite Systems, available at: https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/WRC97/What-are-new-mss.html (accessed on September 30; 2018).

  36. 36.

    See U.N. General Assembly Resolutions 1721 (XVI) part D and 1802 (XVII) part IV; See also E. DuCharme, R. Bowen, M. Irwin, The Genesis of the 1985/87 ITU World Administrative Radio Conference on the Use of the Geostationary-Satellite Orbit and the Planning (1) of Spaces Services Utilizing It, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, p. 265. It was at that occasion that the backbone principle of the ITU registration, i.e. the priority principle, oftentimes labelled the principle of first come, first served, was first introduced.

  37. 37.

    R. Jakhu, The Legal Status of the Geostationary Orbit, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, p. 349.

  38. 38.

    Article 33(2) of the ITU Convention provides that: “In using frequency bands for the space radio services Members shall bear in mind that radio frequencies and the geostationary orbit are limited natural resources, that they must be used efficiently and economically so that countries or group of countries may have equitable access to both in conformity with the provisions of the Radio Regulations according to their needs and the technical facilities at their disposal.”

  39. 39.

    P. Arnopoulos, The International Politics of the Orbit-Spectrum Issue, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, pp. 219 and 232.

  40. 40.

    R. Jakhu, The Legal Status of the Geostationary Orbit, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, p. 335.

  41. 41.

    See B. Brittingham, Does the World Really Need New Space Law, Oregon Review of International Law, Vol. 12, 2010, p. 46. In particular, the Bogota Declaration was not discussed during any of the next ITU conferences, the ITU considering that the question concerned the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

  42. 42.

    Such as Canada, Sweden, Spain, and the Netherlands. See R. Jakhu, The Legal Status of the Geostationary Orbit, Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol. 7, 1982, p. 342.

  43. 43.

    See Article 9A of the Radio Regulations implementing a procedure of advance publication of information on planned geostationary satellite systems via the ITU’s International Frequency Registration Board.

  44. 44.

    S. Doyle, Space Law and the Geostationary orbit : the ITU’s Warc-Orb 85-88 Concluded, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 17, 1989, p. 13.

  45. 45.

    Doyle, Space Law and the Geostationary orbit: the ITU’s Warc-Orb 85-88 Concluded, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 17, 1989, p. 14.

  46. 46.

    S. Doyle, Space Law and the Geostationary Orbit: the ITU’s Warc-Orb 85-88 Concluded, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 17, 1989, p. 15. Those rules have later been integrated into the ITU Convention and Constitution from December 22, 1992.

  47. 47.

    F. Lyall, The International Telecommunication Union and Development, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 22, p. 30.

  48. 48.

    Article 44 of the ITU Constitution (Use of the Radio-Frequency Spectrum and of the Geostationary-Satellite and Other Satellite Orbits) reads as follows:

    1. 1.

      Member States shall endeavour to limit the number of frequencies and the spectrum used to the minimum essential to provide in a satisfactory manner the necessary services. To that end, they shall endeavour to apply the latest technical advances as soon as possible.

    2. 2.

      In using frequency bands for radio services, Member States shall bear in mind that radio frequencies and any associated orbits, including the geostationary-satellite orbit, are limited natural resources and that they must be used rationally, efficiently and economically, in conformity with the provisions of the Radio Regulations, so that countries or groups of countries may have equitable access to those orbits and frequencies, taking into account the special needs of the developing countries and the geographical situation of particular countries.

  49. 49.

    J. Zoller, Improving the International Satellite Regulatory Framework.

  50. 50.

    P. De Man, Rights over Areas vs Resources in outer Space: What’s the Use of Orbital Slots, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 38, 2012, p. 47.

  51. 51.

    B. Brittingham, Does the World Really Need New Space Law, Oregon Review of International Law, Vol. 12, 2010, p. 31.

  52. 52.

    UCS’ data based updated on April 30, 2018, available at https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/satellite-database#.W7AFTi_pM1I (accessed on September 30, 2018).

  53. 53.

    It is considered that Space Services Inc. changed the status quo of the state-centric international regime applicable for space law in 1989 when it became the first private company to launch a satellite into orbit, see D. St. John, The Trouble with Westphalia in Space: The State-Centric Liability Regime, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 40, 2012, p. 687.

  54. 54.

    S. Shackelford, Governing the final frontier: A polycentric approach to managing space weaponization and debris, American Business Law Journal, Vol. 51, Issue 2, 2014, p. 432.

  55. 55.

    S. Shackelford, Governing the final frontier: A polycentric approach to managing space weaponization and debris, American Business Law Journal, Vol. 51, Issue 2, 2014, p. 433.

  56. 56.

    Under international space law system, any outer space activity performed by a non-governmental entity must occur pursuant to the jurisdiction and control of a State. In the U.S., because federal law provides that no one may construct radio transmitting equipment except pursuant to a construction permit granted by the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) and because LEO satellites are specifically considered radio transmitting equipment, such national authorization comes from the FCC: See Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 and Martine Rothblatt, Lex Americana: The New International Legal Regime For Low Earth Orbit Satellite Communications Systems, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1995), p. 140.

  57. 57.

    See In re Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands, 9 F.C.C. Rcd. 6020-21 (1994).

  58. 58.

    K. Coale, Teledesic Mounts Lead in New Space Race, Wired Magazine, 1997, available at: https://www.wired.com/1997/10/teledesic-mounts-lead-in-new-space-race/ (link accessed on September 30, 2018).

  59. 59.

    K. Coale, Teledesic Mounts Lead in New Space Race, Wired Magazine, 1997, available at: https://www.wired.com/1997/10/teledesic-mounts-lead-in-new-space-race/ (link accessed on September 30, 2018).

  60. 60.

    In re Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands, FCC Rcd. 5936, at 5954–5975.

  61. 61.

    P. De Man, Right over Areas vs Resources in outer Space: What’s the Use of Orbital Slots, Journal of Outer Space, Vol. 38, 2012, p. 44.

  62. 62.

    P. De Man, Rights over Areas vs Resources in outer Space: What’s the Use of Orbital Slots, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 38, 2012, p. 45.

  63. 63.

    P. De Man, Rights over Areas vs Resources in outer Space: What’s the Use of Orbital Slots, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 38, 2012, p. 48.

  64. 64.

    M. Williams, Little LEO spectrum allocations: the Final Analysis case, WRC/97, ITU News Archive, available at: https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/WRC97/little-leo.html (link lastly check on September 30, 2018).

  65. 65.

    S. Courteix, Droit de l’espace, in: Répertoire de droit international Dalloz, 2017, para. 38.

  66. 66.

    See WRC-00, Resolution 46: Protection of geostationary fixed-satellite service and geostationary broadcasting-satellite service networks from the maximum aggregate equivalent power flux-density produced by multiple non-geostationary fixed- satellite service systems in frequency bands where equivalent power flux-density limits have been adopted.

  67. 67.

    T. Kadyrov, World Radiocommunication Seminar 2016 Equivalent power flux density limits (EPFD), available at: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/WRS16space/WRS-16_EPFD.pdf (link accessed on September 30, 2018).

  68. 68.

    See Article 21 of the Radio Regulations.

  69. 69.

    WRC-15, Report of the Director on the Activities of the Radiocommunication Sector, Part 2, 2015, para.3.2.2.4.3.

  70. 70.

    WRC-15, Report of the Director on the Activities of the Radiocommunication Sector, Part 2, 2015, para.3.2.2.4.3.

  71. 71.

    D. St. John, The Trouble with Westphalia in Space: The State-Centric Liability Regime, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 40, 2012, p. 688.

  72. 72.

    J. Zoller, Improving the international satellite regulatory framework, 2011.

  73. 73.

    Consolidated Reply of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC before the FCC, July 14, 2017, p. 4.

  74. 74.

    Opposition and Response of Worlvu Satellites Limited before the FCC, August 25, 2016, para. E, p. 11.

  75. 75.

    See P. de Selding, OneWeb, Boeing settle constellation orbit issue; SpaceX questions OneWeb ownership, Space Intel Report blog entry, Apr 25, 2017, available at: https://www.spaceintelreport.com/oneweb-boeing-settle-constellation-orbit-issue-spacex-questions-oneweb-ownership/ (link accessed on September 30, 2018).

  76. 76.

    Opposition and Response of Worlvu Satellites Limited before the FCC, August 25, 2016, Annex A-1; See also L. Press, Inevitability of global standards for non-terrestrial spectrum sharing, Blog entry, 2017, available at: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171inevitability_of_global_standards_for_non_terrestrial_spectrum_sharing/ (lastly checked September 30, 2018).

  77. 77.

    P. Sourisse, D. Rouffet and H. Sorre, SkyBridge: a broadband access system using a constellation of LEO satellites, ITU Press Archiv WRC97, available at: https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/WRC97/SkyBridge.html (accessed on September 30, 2018).

  78. 78.

    C. Anderson and K. Taffelson, SpaceX, STARLINK and the battle for satellite broadband development, Space Angels blog post, 2017, available at: https://www.spaceangels.com/post/spacex-starlink-and-the-battle-for-satellite-broadband-deployment (lastly check on September 30, 2018).

  79. 79.

    Judge Manfred Lachs, Additional Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, A/5549/Add:1, Verbatim record of the Twenty-fourth Meeting, Annex, p. 4.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Airbus Defence and Space in Munich, Taufkirchen, Germany

    Alice Rivière

Authors
  1. Alice Rivière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Space Policy Institute, Vienna, Austria

    Annette Froehlich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rivière, A. (2019). The Rise of the LEO: Is There a Need to Create a Distinct Legal Regime for Constellations of Satellites?. In: Froehlich, A. (eds) Legal Aspects Around Satellite Constellations. Studies in Space Policy, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06028-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06028-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06027-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06028-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation