[IN QUEUE] Debris Removal

Hello all- I'm here to discuss the sister proposal to debris prevention, which will proactively reduce the amount of dangerous debris in orbit before it can harm your satellites of people on the ground.

Unfortunately, because I did not consider discussing this in the north Pacific prior to submission, I cannot correct any issues you may have- but I can help address your concerns, clear up any confusion there may be, and benefit as voting a future with.

-Angela Landfree
-----
Debris Removal
Social Justice / mild
SEEKING to protect access to space for all nations

RECOGNIZING that a sizeable quantity of debris is incapable of removing itself from orbit

TROUBLED by the lack of accountability for incidents in orbit

RESOLVING to reduce the amount of debris in orbit

DEFINES Debris as any artificial object in space that meets any of the following descriptions:
-has failed to comply with any World Assembly regulation governing the object deployed after said regulation was put in place
-has ceased to be operational or currently serves no purpose
-has no known owner
-poses a danger to objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-poses a danger to developed territory on a celestial body

GUIDES the World Assembly Science Program [WASP] to begin contracting out all duties of rescue, repair, removal, and destruction of debris to entities within the World Assembly in the event no other entity has initiated actions to do so

I- Removal
A- Debris shall be subject to unwarned removal at the determination of WASP
B- Debris will be deorbit in a fashion that avoids damage to other artificial objects in space and the developed surface of any celestial body
C- Destruction of debris will be used as a last resort if deorbiting cannot be performed and must be done in a fashion that minimizes additional debris

II- Rescue
A- Rescue of occupants or repair of debris will be attempted prior to removal or destruction if it is believed that sapient life is present on the debris or at the request of the owner or occupants

III- Reparations
A- Should debris cause damage to the property of others or to developed territory, WASP shall determine reparations to be paid for the full value of the damage and a portion of the cost of replacement as well as for personal injury and loss of life to be paid to all relevant victims by the debris’ owner
B- Fines will be assessed to pay for all costs of rescue, repair, removal, and destruction of debris incurred by WASP during its duties to be paid by the debris’ owner

REQUIRES member nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects into orbit from their territory by entities that have failed to pay fines and reparations charged to them

ALLOWS salvage of any object considered debris without recourse in accordance with WA law

In its operation WASP will:
1- cease to act under this resolution to protect the property of individuals and entities that fail to pay fines and reparations charged to them or objects launched from the territory of nations that have failed to pay
2- hold nations financially and legally accountable for unpaid fines and reparations incurred by objects launched from their territory
3- not interfere with any declared acts of war in its efforts to eliminate harmful debris nor will it assess fines or reparations
4- consider requests for rescue, repair, removal, and destruction of debris by nonmember nations as long as costs are prepaid and said nation is in compliance with all World Assembly legislation they are reasonably capable of complying with
5- deny service to any member nation not in full compliance with all World Assembly legislation

-poses a danger to objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-poses a danger to developed territory on a celestial body

Click to expand...

Doesn't this define any weaponry in outer space as debris?

PROF. OAK:

-poses a danger to objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-poses a danger to developed territory on a celestial body

Click to expand...

Doesn't this define any weaponry in outer space as debris?

Click to expand...

That is in flux and basically up to the determination of WASP.
At best, the weapons platform doesn't actually pose a danger, its the armaments, and even those aren't immediately dangerous either. Once they do pose a danger, it ought to be as an act of war and thus immune completely.
At worst, being considered debris really only means its not protected by WASP but as long as it doesn't give WASP a reason to remove it, it will be left there.

The line "removal at the determination of WASP" is basically my solution to most problems. WASP does not have unlimited resources funds or unlimited people willing to do missions but there's plenty of junk more deserving of attention, so gnome judgement should act only when needed.

Thanks for posting this here Defwa. Note that I just started the voting thread here.

I've been a little busy yesterday (yay, grading), so I have not had the chance to look at this thoroughly. I will do so before it goes to vote.

Good news! Because of a misunderstanding by the mods (in which they believed WASP labeling an object as debris was somehow forcing non WA nations to do something), we now have the opportunity to do a quick draft while we get everything prepared for prime time... again...

So that means that punctuation everyone was talking about and probably some language about weapons in space.
Would anyone be opposed to me just specifically stating that weapons platforms forfeit protection by carrying weapons and I will change the the offending lines to the following:
"-risks imminent collision with objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-risks imminent collision with developed territory on a celestial body"

I'm also interested in your opinions on ways to make this more pro business. Considering it drives a lot of business into WA space programs, I think we are part way there.

Good news!

Click to expand...

OK Professor Farnsworth .

Because of a misunderstanding by the mods (in which they believed WASP labeling an object as debris was somehow forcing non WA nations to do something), we now have the opportunity to do a quick draft while we get everything prepared for prime time... again...

Click to expand...

On a side note to this, I realize now that the acronym WASP is used but not defined in Debris Prevention. It is actually defined for the first time in Debris Removal. Did you originally intend to submit Removal first?

So that means that punctuation everyone was talking about and probably some language about weapons in space.

Click to expand...

Excellent to hear, as you know punctiation was one of my issues with the other proposal. I'd also suggest adding a "The World Assembly" at the beginning, to make everything read a little smoother.

Would anyone be opposed to me just specifically stating that weapons platforms forfeit protection by carrying weapons and I will change the the offending lines to the following:
"-risks imminent collision with objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-risks imminent collision with developed territory on a celestial body"

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "protection" here. Do you mean you are gong to explicitly exclude them from the definition of debris? If yes, then I would welcome that change.

Like Prof. Oak, I think the definition of debris needs to be edited to exclude functioning weaponry. While it is up to the WASP to determine removal, that is hardly a satisfactory solution. What if one nation has armed satellites orbiting the planet of another nation, while the two still nominally remain in peace? There are also the same issues with the "declared act of war" protection that I had in Debris Prevention.

I am also uncertain about the following part of the definition:

-has failed to comply with any World Assembly regulation governing the object deployed after said regulation was put in place

Click to expand...

This seems to basically replace the word "illegal" with "debris", which seems like a very large overreach. What if some satellite is otherwise perfect, but uses an incorrect or illegal frequency for communications? The issue could be simply resolved by changing that satellite's transeiver (something that very likely would not involve any hardware change and could even be done remotely). Yet, under this definition, the WASP can choose to remove it as debris. And while ideally the WASP would have the good sense not to do so, there is always the chance that they may make an erroneous decision, or even worse that they will be manipulated into making such a decision.

B- Fines will be assessed to pay for all costs of rescue, repair, removal, and destruction of debris incurred by WASP during its duties to be paid by the debris’ owner

Click to expand...

I believe this is meant to say that 1) fines will be assessed to cover the costs of any action the WASP does; and 2) these fines will be paid by the debris' owner. I'd suggest breaking the sentence in two, as it is currently hard to parse.

REQUIRES member nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects into orbit from their territory by entities that have failed to pay fines and reparations charged to them

Click to expand...

Say nation A is trying to launch an object from the territory of nation B. Nation A owes a fine to nation C, but has paid all of its fines to nation B. I believe, then, than nation B can allow nation A to launch objects. Am I correct, and if yes, is that intentional?

Also, same scenario as above, but instead nation A owes fines to the WASP directly. Can nation B still allow nation A to proceed with the launch?

I'm also interested in your opinions on ways to make this more pro business. Considering it drives a lot of business into WA space programs, I think we are part way there.

Click to expand...

To a good extent, this happens with the contracting clause. To add to that, I'd suggest that the WASP can fund, acquire, and distribute technologies preventing functional objects from turning into debris.

It could also fund and encourage similar initiatives in member states, or the resolution could require states to develop such research programs.

Outfitting existing objects in orbit with proper technology to prevent them from turning into orbit could be another function the WASP could contract out. And likewise, there may be cases where an object that qualifies as debris is easily salvageable. Instead of removal, the WASP could contract out its reparation.

*straightens three inch thick glasses*

Leaving out the full name of WASP was a gaff but luckily not an essential element.

By taking away protection, I mean, WASP will not try to protect the object from debris. So while no one will destroy debris heading towards it on a collision course, it will be destroyed if it starts looking like it might run into another object.
Without proper phrasing, though, that could cause the unfortunate side effect of leaving barely armed merchant vessels helpless.
I don't know if I want to exclude functioning weapon completely from the debris definition as that might protect illegal weapons in orbit. That weapon platformed owned by a neutral nations circling the planet of a different neutral nation doesn't really have bearing as far as I can tell here. Might have to explain that more.

I'm operating under the assumption that any placed regulation is going to be for the safety of others. So allowing non compliance must then work against the safety of others and should be removed.

Fine distribution, I decided it would be too difficult to accurately assign fees in the space allotted. The way I intend it, the nation where the launch occurs will be fined. Should that nation fail to pay the fine, other objects launched from that territory will not be under the protection of WASP's monitoring and thus business would be drawn to other nations who still have that protection (not that they could even legally do such business). Thus nations will be motivated to make sure all their fees are paid and will take all action necessary to collect on those fees to reduce their out of pocket costs. Its also a subtle way of driving business out of nonWA nations who are even less inclined (because nobody at all is required) to pay fines and as far as enforcement goes, I think it's beautiful.

I'm not sure if WASP distributing technology is the best solution [OOC: Especially because of role played tech levels, people might take issue with WASP offering such things.] But a clause that "ENCOURAGES" nations to do so may help. Or perhaps something where WASP offers assistance with design, construction, and equipping.
Requiring the creation of a research deposit probably won't be considered pro business- at least in the Free Trade or other economically friendly categories.

Repair is already part of WASPs mandate at request of the owner.
The next draft will contain some rewording to that fine determination section and the addition of punctuation.