Sounds like we would have to do a lot coordination after some huge crisis.
In any case, I was working on this model, where authorities and trust
remain at the organisations/nations and they can maintain their security
levels as they wish. Would such a coordination help towards getting the
information required for SSA and STM? I am just asking for a personal
opinion in this matter. I published a paper, and have a bit of mixed
reviews on that. One of the reasons for the mixed reviews could be that
most people involved in space activities, don't know anything about
blockchain, or they think about cryptocurrency when they hear the word
blockchain.
here's a link to the paper if anyone's interested -
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/orbitaldebris2019/orbital2019paper/pdf/6192.pdf
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:15 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, Swapnil Surdi wrote:
It seems like there's no official ONE authority over resolving conflicts.
No, any more than there's one official authority over resolving conflicts
in aviation. Nations are reluctant to cede authority to international
bodies; it gets done only when clearly necessary, as with ITU's
coordination of comsat activities in geostationary orbit. The need for
LEO traffic control hasn't seemed urgent, and in the international realm,
things change slowly unless it's a major crisis.
When (in future) there are more collision warnings, one cannot simply do
this manually with all the parties involved...
There is already more automation than is obvious at first glance,
especially at organizations which manage large numbers of satellites.
But it's been happening incrementally and informally rather than being
based on a grand plan by a central authority.
Henry
