Bill Overview
Title: ORBITS Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs specified agencies to take actions to remediate orbital debris (human-made space objects that are no longer in use and can harm orbiting satellites and on-orbit activities). First, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must publish and periodically update a list of orbital debris that pose the greatest immediate risk of harm to orbiting satellites and on-orbit activities, establish a demonstration program to foster the development of technologies to remediate the orbital debris on the list, and carry out other research and development activities to advance technologies for remediating orbital debris. NASA (and other relevant agencies) may also contract for remediation services to support the commercial availability of such services. Second, the National Space Council must update the Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices within 90 days of the enactment of the bill and update them periodically thereafter. The updates must address matters including satellite constellations and other planned space systems, collision risks, and disposal of space systems after missions. The updates must inform (1) regulations of other agencies concerning orbital debris, and (2) bilateral and multilateral discussions with other countries concerning certain space activities. Third, the Department of Commerce must facilitate the development of standard practices to coordinate on-orbit space traffic. Upon completion of the practices, Commerce and other federal departments must promote their adoption and use for space missions.
Sponsors: Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals benefiting from satellite services
Estimated Size: 330000000
- Orbital debris is an international issue affecting satellites and spacecraft globally.
- Spacefaring nations and companies operating in space are most directly impacted.
- The average individual indirectly benefits through improved satellite services (e.g., telecommunications, weather forecasting, GPS).
Reasoning
- The ORBITS Act of 2022 aims at addressing orbital debris, a problem primarily affecting satellite operators and countries engaged in significant space activities, like the U.S.
- Most Americans benefit indirectly from improved satellite services such as GPS, weather forecasting, and telecommunications.
- The policy budget constrains direct impacts to individuals in industries related to space or technology heavily relying on satellites.
- To estimate self-reported well-being impacts, consider populations in tech or dependent fields, regions with higher satellite service usage, non-affected samples, and people with an affinity for space technology.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited about the reduction of orbital debris which ensures the survival of critical satellites.
- Sees potential for innovation in space technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Telecommunications Executive (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supportive as it directly impacts business operations ensuring safety and reliability.
- Worried about implementation timelines and real effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired Aerospace Engineer (Huntsville, AL)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Views it as a necessary step for sustainable space activities.
- Feels funding might fall short for effective long-term solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Marketing Specialist (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Found the idea interesting but does not see direct relevance to her life.
- Believes in the importance of protecting technological infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
NASA Scientist (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strong proponent of this policy as it supports her work.
- Concerned about the collaboration with international agencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Logistics Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Appreciates long-term risk alleviation for business continuity.
- Skeptical if this act directly impacts delivery times and operations initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees no direct impact on current life.
- Thinks it is important for future sustainability and educational purposes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Data Analyst (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides strong reassurance of data protection from satellites.
- Curious about practical solutions for removing debris.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Orlando, FL)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes it could inspire students interested in space and technologies.
- Feels that providing examples of active global responsibility is crucial for education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Digital Nomad (Austin, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Welcome progress toward more reliable satellite internet access.
- Values increased safety in orbital space as it means fewer disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $72000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $34080000, High: $74080000)
Year 5: $58309120 (Low: $38309120, High: $78309120)
Year 10: $66483274 (Low: $46483274, High: $86483274)
Year 100: $167995081 (Low: $146799508, High: $206799508)
Key Considerations
- Technological feasibility of effective debris remediation is uncertain and requires considerable research.
- International coordination is crucial due to the global nature of the space environment.
- The commercial viability of orbital debris remediation services is currently untested on a large scale.
- Balancing costs between current space operations and future safety improvements is vital for economic sustainability.