Urgent Security Concerns in
the “Proto-zone”
Joseph N. Pelton, Executive Board, International
Association for the Advancement of Space Safety
Book by D. Loth and M. Ernst “How
High is Up?” is a Useful Starting Point
 Loth and Ernst look at the skies in terms of geopolitics. They see a
country’s ability to command their air space as being key. They see this
as the true basis for any subsequent regulatory or legal jurisdiction.
 Weapons systems that advanced from arrows, catapults, guns and
cannons to today’s aircraft and missiles have served to ultimately
increase the altitude of the airspace that a nation controls.
 Today commercial airspace up to 21 Km is well regulated and subject to
air traffic control. This area is coordinated globally by the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) under the Chicago Convention of 1948
and updated via Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs).
 From the perspective of Loth and Ernst, the U-2 incident where Gary
Powers’ U.S. spy plane was shot down by the Soviet Union changed
“How High Is Up.” As a practical matter, this event meant that a nation’s
protected air space would ultimately rise to a higher altitude as
international law followed the real politik reality of the latest capability of
armaments to protect a nation’s skies.
Today’s New Problem-“The Proto-zone”
 The area above commercial airspace, i.e. 21 Km and below the area
that can allow satellites to stay in orbit above Earth, i.e. 160 Km is
finding more and more applications and this region needs to be
considered formally by space legal experts.
 Uses of this region include stable high altitude and stratospheric craft
such as aerostats, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), High Altitude
Platform Systems (HAPS), and so-called “dark sky” research and relay
stations.
 These stable “non velocity” systems are in contrast to systems
travelling at altitude, i.e. robotic stratospheric freighters, space planes,
hyper sonic or super sonic aircraft, or military craft.
 There is much discussion about the need for space traffic management
and control, but there is an equal need to establish Protospace traffic
management and control and coordinated use of this region that has
increasing levels of use.
 There is the additional element of concern for pollution to the
stratosphere, especially with space planes with solid fuels.
Bristol Ascender—
Hypersonic Transport
Google Solar Powered Stratospheric
Balloons for Internet Relay
Prototype of Dark Sky Station
by JP Aerospace
The Law of the Sea Convention
 The Law of the Sea Convention of 1982 establishes a broad
global basis for agreement on territorial waters (12 nautical
miles or 22.2 Km), Contiguous Zone (24 nautical miles) and
Exclusive Economic Zone (up to 200 nautical miles)
 This might serve as a useful way to consider the national
claims to the control and use of the “Protozone” as a
conceptual precedent.
 This would leave national commercial air space control and
management at an altitude up to 21 Km. Create a “Vertical
Strategic Contiguous Zone” to perhaps 42 Km altitude, and
finally a Stratospheric Economic Zone (42 Km to 160 Km).
Key Issues & Concern 1
 The regulation and control of the “ Protozone” involves more that
strategic security and air traffic control and management-- both
nationally and internationally. At the international level there is
not only the logical involvement of UNODA for defense-related
issues and ICAO for air safety coordination. In addition there is
also the ITU with regard to radio frequency allotment. Further
there is the issue of stratospheric pollution that involves the
WMO and the UNEP, and even the World Health Organization
as to radiation hazards and standards.
Key Issue Number 2:
 There is a question of where national control of these various
Protozone related areas begin and end. Do they start at 12
nautical miles off shore or perhaps begin at 200 nautical
miles off shore? Even if there is agreement to start regulating
Protozones it is not only high to they go, but also how far off
shore to they begin or end?
Key Issue Number 3:
 In addition to the question of regulatory and legal provisions
for the safe and harmonious use of the Protozone, there are
also key technical issues that need to be addressed. These
issues involve improvements and changes to software for
satellite navigation systems because of imprecisions that
occur between ground level positioning calculations versus
“aircraft” of various types at altitudes up to 160 Km and also
the functionality of radar systems at stratospheric altitudes.
The technical problems to date have largely not been
specifically addressed and may be more challenging than
regulators and political officials today clearly understand.
Restrictions against the Deployment
and Use of Weapon Systems in the
“Protozone” as well as in Outer Space
 The Outer Space Treaty explicitly restricts the deployment of
weapons in space. The simplest approach to Protospace would
be to prohibit the deployment of weapons in the “Proto-zone” as
well.
 There is today no clarity as to what the status of missile firings,
including those armed with warheads, that travel in sub-orbital
arcs through the “Protozone”. This is the number one
unresolved issue that will ultimately have to be addressed.
Further there are questions about remote sensing or
surveillance satellites that are used for targeting of missiles and
bombs, or communications satellites that are used to provide
tactical support to drones or UAVs in order to deploy bombs or
weapons systems.
Restrictions related to weapons
systems in “Proto-Zone”
 Clearly as new space systems such as directed energy
systems, high powered lasers, and other new systems are
developed that might be deployed in outer space or in the
“Protozone”, there will be many new challenges to be
addressed. The point is that efforts to define “space
weapons” should include recognition that we are now really
addressing restrictions on “space and protozone weapons
systems” rather than just military systems in outer space.
Liability Convention is a problem
 It is over a half century old and is not equipped to cope
with problem of private ownership of spacecraft and
transfer of ownership .
 It is not equipped to address problem of orbital debris
and its build up and in-orbit servicing and active debris
removal
 It is not equipped to address issue of deployment of
systems designed for long term efforts to cope with the
orbital debris like Electro Dynamic Debris
 Eliminator (EDDE).
Traffic Control for Proto-zone may need
not only new regulation but also may
need new technical capabilities.
 One of the elements that seems to have been overlooked in the
consideration of the new applications for the “Proto-zone” is the fact that
there is a need for at least 3 things: (i) new regulations, laws and safety
standards, (ii) new commercial arrangements; (iii) new technical capabilities
to implement these new controls.
 The GPS and other space navigation satellite systems were designed for
determining positioning and targeting on the ground or relatively low
altitudes. There were not designed for space traffic management or even
precise guidance and control at stratospheric altitudes.
 The ability to modulate the accuracy of space navigation systems to provide
for space traffic management and control and for the “Proto-zone” or “near
space” traffic management and control is something that needs careful
review and analysis.
 This may be a matter of developing software or declassifying software that
adjusts automatically to altitude or some other adept programming
adjustment.
 This may also require upgrades on changes to the technical specification of
the new S band Radar Space Fence being deployed in the Pacific.
When Space Traffic Management
and Control is discussed, the
implications and processes for the
“Protozone” must be considered
 The safety considerations and problems in the Protozone are large.
There are very great relative speed and likelihood of greater “density”
of operations.
 The low or zero velocity of UAS, UAV, HAPS and dark sky stations for
commercial and strategic applications must occupy Protozone
locations that may also be inhabited by robotic freighters and
supersonic, hypersonic and spaceplane craft being used for
commercial, governmental and defense-related purposes.
Priority Issues
 Definition of the “Protozone” and perhaps definition of new “spaces”
based on Law of the Sea precedence in terms of “national control
and regulatory authority” for this region.
 Recognition that discussion that discussion of “space traffic
management and control” needs to include consideration of the
“Protozone”. In this regard it needs to be recognized that there are
not only issues of “regulation” but the possible need for new
“technical capabilities”—equipment and software.
 Discussion of deployment of “space weapons” also needs to
explicitly include “Protozone”
 Liability Convention issues and problems also include consideration
of how this relates to the “Protozone”
 Recognition that as far as UN specialized agencies are concerned
that this involves not only ICAO, but also such agencies as ITU,
WHO, UNEP, WMO, UN COPUOS, and UNODA
Questions or Comments?