Orbital-use fees could more than quadruple the value of the space industry

Rao, Akhil and Burgess, Matthew and Kaffine, Daniel (2020): Orbital-use fees could more than quadruple the value of the space industry. Published in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Vol. 23, No. 117 (26 May 2020): pp. 12756-12762.

Abstract

The space industry’s rapid recent growth represents the latest tragedy of the commons. Satellites launched into orbit contribute to—and risk damage from—a growing buildup of space debris and other satellites. Collision risk from this orbital congestion is costly to satellite operators. Technological and managerial solutions—such as active debris removal or end-of-life satellite deorbit guidelines—are currently being explored by regulatory authorities. However, none of these approaches address the underlying incentive problem: satellite operators do not account for costs they impose on each other via collision risk. Here, we show that an internationally harmonized orbital-use fee can correct these incentives and substantially increase the value of the space industry. We construct and analyze a coupled physical–economic model of commercial launches and debris accumulation in low-Earth orbit. Similar to carbon taxes, our model projects an optimal fee that rises at a rate of 14% per year, equal to roughly $235,000 per satellite-year in 2040. The long-run value of the satellite industry would more than quadruple by 2040—increasing from around $600 billion under business as usual to around $3 trillion. In contrast, we project that purely technological solutions are unlikely to fully address the problem of orbital congestion. Indeed, we find debris removal sometimes worsens economic damages from congestion by increasing launch incentives. In other sectors, addressing the tragedy of the commons has often been a game of catch-up with substantial social costs. The infant space industry can avert these costs before they escalate.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: common-pool resources, externalities, satellite tax
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods ; Programming Models ; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q29 - Other; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q3 - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation > Q39 - Other; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q55 - Technological Innovation; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q58 - Government Policy

References

M. Wienzierl, Space, the final economic frontier. J. Econ. Perspect. 32, 173–192 (2018).

Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS satellite database (2018). https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database. Accessed 1 April 2019.

A. Witze, The quest to conquer earth’s space junk problem. Nature 561, 24–26 (2018).

D. J. Kessler, B. G. Cour-Palais, Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt. J. Geophys. Res. 83, 2637–2646 (1978).

J. Liou, N. Johnson, Instability of the present LEO satellite populations. Adv. Space Res. 41, 1046–1053 (2008).

J. Pearson, J. Carroll, E. Levin, J. Oldson, “Active debris removal: EDDE, the ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator” in Proceedings of 61st International Astronautical Congress (IAC, 2010).

J. Morin, Four steps to global management of space traffic. Nature 567, 25–27 (2019).

N. Adilov, P. J. Alexander, B. M. Cunningham, Earth orbit debris: An economic model. Environ. Resour. Econ. 60, 81–98 (2015).

C. Munoz-Patchen, Regulating the space commons: Treating space debris as abandoned property in violation of the outer space treaty. Chi. J. Int. Law 18, 27–44 (2018).

W. Hanson, Pricing space debris. New Space 2, 143–144 (2014).

M. K. Macauley, The economics of space debris: Estimating the costs and benefits of debris mitigation. Acta Astronaut. 115, 160–164 (2015).

Z. Grzelka, J. Wagner, Managing satellite debris in low-earth orbit: Incentivizing ex ante satellite quality and ex post take-back programs. Environ. Resour. Econ., 1–18 (2019).

A. Rao, “The economics of orbit use: Theory, policy, and measurement,” PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (2019).

A. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (Macmillan, 1920).

A. M. Bradley, L. M. Wein, Space debris: Assessing risk and responsibility. Adv. Space Res. 43, 1372–1390 (2009).

F. Letizia, C. Colombo, H. Lewis, H. Krag, Extending the ECOB Space Debris Index with Fragmentation Risk Estimation (European Space Agency, 2017).

European Space Agency, Discos database (2018). https://discosweb.esoc.esa.int/. Accessed 6 September 2018.

A. Jonas et al., “Space: Investment implications of the final frontier” (Tech. Rep., Morgan Stanley, 2017).

J. Rogelj et al., Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).

W. D. Nordhaus, To tax or not to tax: Alternative approaches to slowing global warming. Rev. Environ. Econ. Pol. 1, 26–44 (2007).

K. D. Daniel, R. B. Litterman, G. Wagner, Declining CO2 price paths. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 20886–20891 (2019).

G. D. Libecap, Contracting for Property Rights (University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2003).

K. Kelleher, R. Willmann, R. Arnason, “The sunken billions: The economic justification for fisheries reform” (Tech. Rep., The World Bank, 2009).

G. D. Libecap, S. N. Wiggins, Contractual responses to the common pool: Prorationing of crude oil production. Am. Econ. Rev. 74, 87–98 (1984).

D. Schrank, T. Lomax, B. Eisele, “2012 Urban mobility report” (Tech. Rep., Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, 2012).

M. L. Weitzman, Can negotiating a uniform carbon price help to internalize the global warming externality?. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour Economists 1, 29–49 (2014).

E. Havice, Rights-based management in the Western and Central Pacific ocean tuna fishery: Economic and environmental change under the vessel day scheme. Mar. Pol. 42, 259–267 (2013).

European Commission, EU ETS handbook. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/ets_handbook_en.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2019.

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies (1967). http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/outer_space. Accessed 26 June 2019.

S. Felder, T. F. Rutherford, Unilateral CO2 reductions and carbon leakage: The consequences of international trade in oil and basic materials. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25, 162–176 (1993).

C. M. Brooks, Competing values on the Antarctic high seas: CCAMLR and the challenge of marine-protected areas. Polar J. 3, 277–300 (2013).

M. L. Weitzman, Prices vs. quantities. Rev. Econ. Stud. 41, 477–491 (1974).

R. E. Townsend, On ‘capital-stuffing’ in regulated fisheries. Land Econ. 61, 195–197 (1985).

A. M. Birkenbach, D. J. Kaczan, M. D. Smith, Catch shares slow the race to fish. Nature 544, 223–226 (2017).

G. Duranton, M. A. Turner, The fundamental law of road congestion: Evidence from US cities. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 2616–2652 (2011).

C. Costello, S. D. Gaines, J. Lynham, Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science 321, 1678–1681 (2008).

J. Leape, The London congestion charge. J. Econ. Perspect. 20, 157–176 (2006).

N. C. Ban et al., Diverse fisheries require diverse solutions. Science 323, 338–339 (2009).

B. Weeden, History of ASAT tests in space (2019). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e5GtZEzdo6xk41i2_ei3c8jRZDjvP4Xwz3BVsUHwi48/edit#gid=0. Accessed 16 January 2020.

IADC, “IADC space debris mitigation guidelines” (Tech. Rep. IADC-02-01, IADC, 2007).

L. H. Goulder, R. N. Stavins, Discounting: An eye on the future. Nature 419, 673–674 (2002).

M. Ansdell. Active space debris removal: Needs, implications, and recommendations for today’s geopolitical environment. Journal of Public & International Affairs, 21:7–22, 2010.

A. M. Bradley and L. M. Wein. Space debris: Assessing risk and responsibility. Advances in Space Research, 43:1372–1390, February 2009.

Y. Cai and K. L. Judd. Stable and efficient computational methods for dynamic programming. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(2-3):626–634, 2010.

J. Carroll. Bounties on orbital debris? First Int’l Conf. on Orbital Debris, 2019.

Combined Space Operations Center. Space-track.org satellite catalog, 2018. From Space-Track.org at https://www.space-track.org/.

J. Duchon. Splines minimizing rotation-invariant semi-norms in sobolev spaces. In Constructive theory of functions of several variables, pages 85–100. Springer, 1977.

European Space Agency. Discos database, 2018. From ESA at https://discosweb.esoc.esa.int/web/guest/home.

H. S. Gordon. The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery. Journal of Political Economy, 62, 1954.

A. E. Hoerl, R. W. Kennard, and R. W. Hoerl. Practical use of ridge regression: A challenge met. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 34(2):114–120, 1985.

IADC. Iadc space debris mitigation guidelines. Technical Report IADC-02-01, September 2007.

A. Jonas, A. Sinkevicius, S. Flannery, B. Swinburne, P. Wellington, T. Tsui, R. Lalwani, J. E. Faucette, B. Nowak, R. Shanker, K. Pan, and E. Zlotnicka. Space: Investment implications of the final frontier. Technical report, Morgan Stanley, November 2017.

D. L. Kelly and C. D. Kolstad. Integrated assessment models for climate change control. International yearbook of environmental and resource economics, 2000:171–197, 1999.

P. Ketz. Subvector inference when the true parameter vector may be near or at the boundary. Journal of Econometrics, 207:285–306, December 2018.

R. Klima, D. Bloembergen, R. Savani, K. Tuyls, D. Hennes, and D. Izzo. Space debris removal: A game theoretic analysis. Games, 7(3):20, 2016.

J.-P. Kreiss and S. N. Lahiri. Bootstrap methods for time series. In Handbook of statistics, volume 30, pages 3–26. Elsevier, 2012.

F. Letizia, C. Colombo, H. Lewis, and H. Krag. Extending the ecob space debris index with fragmentation risk estimation. 2017.

F. Letizia, S. Lemmens, and H. Krag. Application of a debris index for global evaluation of mitigation strategies. 69th International Astronautical Congress, October 2018.

C. Muller, O. Rozanova, and M. Urdanoz. Economic valuation of debris removal. In 68th International Astronautical Congress, 2017.

W. Nordhaus. Chapter 16 - integrated economic and climate modeling. In P. B. Dixon and D. W. Jorgenson, editors, Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling SET, Vols. 1A and 1B, volume 1 of Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, pages 1069 – 1131. Elsevier, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59568-3.00016-X. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978044459568300016X.

Union of Concerned Scientists. Ucs satellite database, 2018. From UCS at https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/satellite-database. Accessed April 2019.

B. C. Weeden. Overview of the legal and policy challenges of orbital debris removal. Technical Report IAC-10.A6.2.10, September 2010.

M. Wienzierl. Space, the final economic frontier. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32:173–192, Spring 2018.

J. Wilkerson, B. Leibowicz, D. Diaz, and J. Weyant. Comparison of integrated assessment models: Carbon price impacts on u.s. energy. Energy Policy, 76:18–31, 01 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.011.

H. Zou and T. Hastie. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the royal statistical society: series B (statistical methodology), 67(2):301–320, 2005.