AwaitingLaunch_1397728623369

ActaAstronauticaVol. 71, 2012, pp.119-128;
FilippoGraziani et al., “A space standards application
to university-class microsatellites: The UNISAT
experience”, ActaAstronauticaVol. 66, No. 9-10, 2010,
pp. 1534-1543; ShinchiNakasuka et al., “Evolution
from education to practical use in University of
Tokyo's nano-satellite activities”,
ActaAstronauticaVo. 66, No. 7-8, 2010, pp.1099-
1105; K. Thyagarajan et al., “University small satellite
program-ANUSAT”, ActaAstronauticaVol. 56, No. 1-9,
2005, pp.89-97.
96. FilippoGraziani et al., “A space standards application
to university-class microsatellites: The UNISAT
experience”, ActaAstronauticaVol. 66, No. 9-10, 2010,
pp. 1534-1543.
97. Ibid.
98. Shin-Ichiro Nishida and Satomi Kawamoto, “Strategy
for capturing of a tumbling space debris”,
ActaAstronautica Vol. 68, No. 1-2, 2011, pp. 113-120.;
N.N. Smirnov et al., “Impact of debris particles on
space structures modeling”, ActaAstronauticaVol. 67,
No. 3-4, 2010, pp. 333-343.; R. Walker et al.,
“Sensitivity of long-term orbital debris environment
evolution to the deployment of nan-satellite
swarms”, ActaAstronauticaVol. 51, No. 1-9, 2002,
pp.439-449.
99. N.N. Smirnov et al., “Impact of debris particles on
space structures modeling”, ActaAstronauticaVol. 67,
No. 3-4, 2010, pp. 333-343
100. Marco M. Castronuovo, “Active space debris
removal-A preliminary mission analysis and design”,
ActaAstronauticaVol. 69, No. 9-10, 2011: 848-859.
101. Ibid.; L.T. DeLuca et al., “Active space debris removal
by a hybrid propulsion module”, ActaAstronautica
Vol. 91, 2013, pp. 20-33; J.-C. Liou and Nicholas L.
Johnson, “A sensitivity study of the effectiveness of
active debris removal in LEO”, ActaAstronauticaVol.
64, No. 2-3, 2009, pp.236-243; J.-C. Liou et al.,
“Controlling the growth of future LEO debris
populations with active debris removal”,
ActaAstronauticaVol. 66, No. 5-6, 2010, pp.648-653.
102. Shin-Ichiro Nishida and Satomi Kawamoto, “Strategy
for capturing of a tumbling space debris”,
ActaAstronautica Vol. 68, No. 1-2, 2011, pp. 113-120.
103. FilippoGraziani et al., “A space standards application
to university-class microsatellites: The UNISAT
experience”, ActaAstronauticaVol. 66, No. 9-10, 2010,
pp. 1534-1543
104. Michael J. Singer and John T. Musacchio, “An
International Environment Agreement for space
debris mitigation among asymmetric nations”,
ActaAstronauticaVol. 68, No. 1-2, 2011, pp. 326-337.
105. Shin-Ichiro Nishida et al., “Soace debris removal
system using a small satellite”, ActaAstronauticaVol.
65, No. 1-2, 2009, pp.95-102.
106. The following comments are directed at Part II,
Section 4 of the September 16, 2013 version of the
EU's proposed International Code of Conduct for
Outer Space Activities.
107. See third draft of the International Code of Conduct
presented by the European Union on 5 June 2012 in
Vienna, Austria,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/1696642/1
2_06_05_coc_space_eu_revised_draft_working__d
ocument.pdf.
108. See draft treaty submitted by the Russian Federation
and China to the Conference on Disarmament, 12
February 2008.
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/docume
nts/Disarmamentfora/cd/2008/documents/Draft%20PPWT.pdf
109. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
(UNIDIR) has organised meetings on development
of an ICoC in Malaysia, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Mexico,
Kazakhstan, and Thailand. More information can be
found on UNIDIR's website,
http://www.unidir.ch/programmes/emergingsecurity-threats/facilitating-the-process-for-thedevelopment-of-an-international-code-of-conductfor-outer-space-activities.
110. M. Listner, Geopolitical Challenges to Implementing
the Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities
(2012), E-International relations, June 26, 2012
111. J. Wingard, The Battle for Cooperation in Space
(2012), Deutsche Welle, June 14, 2012.
112. Department of Industry, Innovation, Science,
Research and Tertiary Education (DIISTRE),
Australia's Satellite Utilisation Policy,
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
113. In alphabetical order, the space faring nations for
the purposes of this essay are: Canada, China,
France, Germany, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North
Korea, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan,
Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Nations that aspire to become spacefaring include
Brazil, Nigeria, Turkey and Vietnam. Some nations
not listed above have space agencies or space
offices that coordinate their national and
international space engagement activities, manage
investment in ground infrastructure, and
synchronise national requirements for access to
satellite-based services. The member states of the
European Space Agency (ESA) not mentioned above
are not considered to be space faring for the
purposes of this paper.
236 | Awaiting Launch: Perspectives on the Draft ICoC for Outer Space Activities