Mustafa Bilal-Spa-Deb-Thr-Oped thumbnail-Jan-2025-AP

The International Space Station (ISS) has been featured in several Hollywood movies, from being hijacked by a hostile alien in Life to being ripped apart by space debris in Gravity. While the former scenario is detached from reality, the latter has been a real concern since 1978, when two NASA scientists first warned of such an incident arising from the increasing density of space debris that would result in cascading collisions. This threat still haunts humanity’s presence in space and on Earth as space debris comprising defunct satellites and spent rocket stages continues to increase.  Fortunately, the ISS has not met the same fate as depicted in Gravity, but in 2021 it was damaged by space debris. Three years later in November 2024, the ISS manoeuvre to avoid impact with debris from a defunct satellite. Meanwhile, for Starlink satellites, which account for the majority of all operational satellites and operate in an increasingly congested low Earth orbit (LEO), such manoeuvres have increased to over 270 per day to avoid millions of pieces of space debris

To put the quantity of space debris into perspective, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) 2024 Space Environment Report estimated that nearly one million pieces of orbiting debris are less than 10cm, and almost 130 million pieces have frequently been reported as too small to be tracked. While their size may be minuscule, they pose a grave threat. According to the Aerospace Corporation, even blue-berry-sized space debris moving at more than 17,000 mph speeds can be dangerous. This danger was also underscored in the UNU-EHS Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023 report which highlighted space debris among the six risk tipping points. Consequently, unabating growth in space debris threatens satellites, which have become critical for multifaceted functions associated with modern life, such as navigation, communication, national security, weather forecasting, and disaster management. Space debris has thus been flagged as an escalating threat to human rights and sustainable development.

However, most people would dismiss this threat if they discovered that the chances of any particular person being hit were estimated to be less than one in one trillion. Indeed, anyone would think they have a better chance of winning the biggest lotteries. Although this might not always be the case as one family in Florida found out in March last year when space debris crashed into their house, penetrating both the roof and floor. This would not be a one-off incident as recently on December 30th, a large piece of space debris weighing 500kg crashed into a village in Kenya. While no one was harmed in both incidents, they highlight that even if the possibility of being hit by space debris is astronomically low, it is not non-existent. Moreover, the threat of being hit would only increase with time, given that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has predicted that 28,000 pieces of space debris would be crashing down to Earth by 2035.

Despite such concerning predictions, there are still many challenges in mitigating space debris. Firstly, there is no binding international agreement on debris mitigation. On the contrary, Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty deems debris to be the property of the launching state. Therefore, another state cannot just remove it out of goodwill. Although even if it was legally permitted, all debris removal efforts are also impeded by the tragedy of the global commons: individual states lack the incentives to remove debris, especially given enormous removal costs. This underscores that cooperation should be at the core of all efforts aimed at mitigating and removing space debris. However, currently less than 5% of satellite operators share intelligence about the location of their satellites. Increasing intensity of satellite breakup events exacerbates this challenge. There have been six such events this year which have created hundreds of pieces of space debris.

The silver lining is that there is at least increasing global awareness of the imperative of addressing the space debris threat. This awareness is reflected in the efforts of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) towards minimising and preventing the creation of space debris. The World Economic Forum has also published debris mitigation recommendations stressing increased cooperation and transparency. In this context, active and passive debris removal technologies and practices are also being developed. For example, in 2025, the ClearSpace-1 mission will demonstrate feasibility of removing a large piece of debris. Moreover, on December 17th, space startups in India and Japan collaborated to study using laser-equipped satellites for debris removal.

Complementing the efforts of COPUOS and WEF towards tackling the space debris threat, ESA and NASA have formulated space sustainability strategies. Beyond individual space agencies, astropolitical coalitions like the Artemis Accords also stress a commitment to limiting, to the extent practicable, the generation of new debris by taking appropriate measures, including sustainable disposal of spacecraft. The emphasis on sustainably disposing defunct satellites is important considering the environmental issues concerning the projected launches of mega-satellite constellations. Hence, even if space debris is out of sight, the threat it poses should be in the minds of all international stakeholders in private space firms, space agencies, and policymakers, who should collectively endeavour to mitigate its indiscriminate dangers by overcoming the hurdles hindering effective cooperation.

Mustafa Bilal is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad. The article was first published in The News International. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »