iss061e045319.jpg

It is like flying through airspace saturated with pieces of every aircraft from the previous fifty years, blind.

DEBRIS OR NOT DEBRIS

Talking Tea, Trash and Destiny with Rising Star Harriet Brettle 

15 November 2019 A debris shield that was removed from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), the International Space Station's cosmic particle detector, is pictured drifting away from the orbiting lab. The debris shield was detached by spacewalkers so they could access and begin the repairs of the AMS thermal control system. Credit: NASA

Space Debris is the dry catchall term describing the space shrapnel adrift far above our headsI say far, it’s as heavenly as the distance between Paris and Amsterdam, about one vertical Eurostar trip away. With analysts currently tracking 26,000 pieces larger than cricket balls orbiting our little rock and another half million the size of Creme Eggs keeping them company, space really does struggle to fit our popular conception of a vast and empty wilderness. That’s before you reach the sobering footnote: a hundred million more Skittles-sized pieces are shooting past at twice the speed of a bullet.

I find myself in Old Street, London, a neighbourhood cobwebbed in luxury apartment-sponsored construction site canvas and open-plan kitchens surveying the plebeian traffic below. My meet is at the aptly named Ozone Coffee. My guest: Harriet Brettle, a finance analyst turned next-generation space-guru set on making space sustainability a reality. Her forte: bringing the thorny issue of space debris into the competitive commercial and public spotlight.

An intern at JP Morgan, a graduate at the Bank of England, then uprooting herself to become a senior analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, before returning to the UK to continue her work at the Bank of England, Harriet has better credentials than most BA Mathematics graduates could dream of (and only seven years after leaving university). Finance seems to have been the foregone conclusion. What changed? Harriet characterises this shift in focus from ‘I.O.U.’s to ‘U.F.O.’s as taking the “scenic route”.

“Honestly, it’s great to say with hindsight that, ‘Obviously, I’ve got this finance experience and then I got this space experience and now I’ve combined the two,’ but you know, it wasn’t that smart of me. I left university and had no idea what I wanted to do. I had enjoyed [JP Morgan] but wanted to focus more on looking at the bigger picture in the financial ecosystem”.

The trouble with finance was that the underlying subject was something Harriet just couldn’t get passionate about. It simply didn’t inspire.

“Before, I’d been focused on ‘What can I achieve in like the next six months or year?’ and then, when I started to think about the bigger picture I was like, ‘actually, in ten years’ time, do I want to be here in this industry?’ Maybe not.”

"...when I started to think about the bigger picture I was like, ‘actually, in ten years’ time, do I want to be here in this industry?’ Maybe not.”

While in New York, Harriet saw an opportunity to satiate a hunger for space by volunteering at public outreach events for The Planetary Society, an organisation advocating for citizen involvement in space exploration. Public engagement struck a chord, but how she might translate that into a career wasn’t obvious.

“I didn’t see how I could do this as a real job because I’m a math major. I’m not an engineer, and I can’t be a rocket scientist and I don’t want to be an astronaut so how could I combine those interests?”

Global Space Congress UAE 2019.JPG

Undeterred, Harriet returned to the UK and took evening classes in astrophysics. Finding a bridge between finance and the space industry became the big problem for Harriet to solve.  Her solution lay in statisticsspecifically their use in the hunt for exoplanets: the promisingly rocky, Earth-sized worlds beyond our solar system.

“Somewhat on a whim, I took a vacation to spend a week in California doing this workshop. It was a game changer because I realised that there were things in the exoplanet research field, particularly the use of statistics, where I could see how my finance experience could be useful.

So, I used that to basically frame my application reference to graduate programs to be like, ‘Look, I might not have a traditional route in, but I have relevant experience,’ so that helped me get into Caltech and study planets.”

Harriet Brettle speaking at the 2019 Global Space Congress in the United Arab Emirates.

Harriet arrived intending to complete a PhD but left with a Masters. The reason? The big picture: pure science’s nitty gritty details could have meant missing out on holistic space strategising.

“At Caltech I started thinking, ‘If I’m not going to be a scientist in the industry, what other options are there?’ I still wanted to do something that was technical. I liked the problem-solving element. So for the business side—I get to do all these different things right?”

However, we agree that a Masters in Planetary Science must make Harriet at least half a scientist. A bit like a Geography degree makes a student half an artist. The drinks arrive and we readjust on our bar stools, the footrests hovering two inches below comfortable. For Harriet, an elegant glass teapot, and for me, a very disappointing espresso.

Harriet’s present role as Head of Business Analysis at Astroscale is particularly intriguing. Working for a private company of self-identified ‘Space Sweepers’, tackling our space junk problem must carry a host of unprecedented challenges and opportunities. Few things illustrate the reality of the threat (or German ingenuity) better then when European Space Agency astronaut Alexander Gerst had no choice but to fix a breach by sticking his finger inside a 2mm debris hole in the Station’s hull back in August 2018. The culprit was suspected to have been a fleck of paint or a bolt from an old satellite. As NASA Ground Control dryly observed at the time, “I don't think that's the best remedy for it."

When push comes to shove, space debris is such a vast problem that intermittent private clean-up efforts risk becoming mere drops in the ocean. I pose this conundrum to Harriet.

“So, you’re right. Space debris is a big problem that is going to require more than just one company removing it. The way we see it is that in order to address the problem, you need to be able to develop the technology that can actually do something about [it].”

“It’s a classic environmental problem, like plastic in the oceans or pollution in the atmosphere. Everyone contributes to the problem, no one wants to take individual responsibility."

Astroscale is prepping for ELSA-d, a mission designed to demonstrate the feasibility of the proximity rendezvous and magnetic docking technologies necessary for debris removalin essence, UFO fishing. By launching two objects into orbit in a single payloadthe Servicer (magnet rod), and the Client (magnetic fish)the company hopes to demonstrate that, alongside exhibiting a host of impressively complex core technologies, fishing really is for everyone. 

It’s the large failed satellites, the high mass objects in space which Astroscale is prioritising. After all, as Harriet and others emphasise, it is much easier to bring down one satellite then wait for it to collide and go about collecting a thousand little pieces like an upset box of supersonic Lego. But that still leaves us with the problem of incentives. Harriet’s main responsibility is to make the commercial and institutional business case for space junk removal. However, the difficulty of getting this issue on the agenda now is that space debris is only a problem, not yet a crisis.

“It’s a classic environmental problem, like plastic in the oceans or pollution in the atmosphere. Everyone contributes to the problem, no one wants to take individual responsibility. If we look at history, things don’t happen until there’s a catastrophic event…the global financial crisis, oil spills [a freak international pandemic, perhaps] and suddenly you need regulations to stop this kind of thing from happening, right? So, we’re trying to be proactive, but that’s very difficult to do.”

For context, it took just two collision events to almost single-handedly double the amount of debris in space. In 2007, China’s ego-flexing resulted in a deeply irresponsible anti-satellite test that generated the largest recorded amount of space debris from a single incident in history. Couple that with the impact between an active US Iridium satellite and a piece of defunct Russian hardware in 2009 known as the Iridium-Cosmos collision, and you get a sense of how terrifyingly easy it is to escalate risk by several orders of magnitude.

Depressingly, it is unlikely that such foolish antics will become less common. In March 2019, India followed China’s example with an anti-satellite missile test, while former President Trump’s codification of the Space Force as the sixth branch of the US military in December 2018 is the comical cherry on the cake of space militarisation which, although gradual, seems unstoppable in the present geopolitical climate. When you throw in the rapidly expanding commercial market, runaway space debris will, as Harriet puts it, “sneak up on us.”

Perhaps. Or, perhaps the problem isn't sneaking at all, with the likes of Amazon’s internet-facilitating Project Kuiper or Space X’s Starlink network brazenly representing orbital ticking time-bombs. Take Starlink, a mega-constellation of satellites currently being launched, which has received permission from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to build a flotilla 12,000 strong by the end of the decade. To help contextualise this figure, fewer than 9,000 objects in total have ever been launched into space. Ever. As Harriet elaborates,

“The problem is that the amount of useable space is finite. The more satellites that we put into space, the more debris we get, which means you have a higher risk of collisions. If we compromise one of those orbits that we rely on, particularly for certain services, we’re really putting ourselves in a challenging position.”

 A conceptual timelapse showing the buildup of space debris over time in low-earth orbit.

Space is vast, yet useable space is cramped and, ironically, increasingly claustrophobic. That is not to say we should necessarily be opposed to these new deployment initiatives, but we should all feel uncomfortable that such an extensive build-up is happening in an environment mostly managed by international agreements legislated in the 1960s and 70s.

Compounding this is the suppression of space data. This sounds marginal, but this may be the problem which needs to be prioritised. If space operators do not have complete information on what is in orbit and where and when it is heading, it is not just like flying a plane without radarit is like flying through airspace saturated with pieces of every aircraft from the previous fifty years, blind.

According to Dr T.S. Kelso, the Operations Manager for the Space Data Center, of the 26,000 pieces of large assets in orbit, 2,000 of these are missing because they have not been tracked for more than 30 days, and around another 500 are classified for national security reasons, regardless of whether the satellite is dead or alive. Another 4,000 assets have not shared up-to-date data because existing data-sharing policies place no obligation on operators to do so. As a reminder, these satellites exist in the context of the tens of millions of small pieces hurtling around the planet which cannot be tracked.

The best that stakeholders can do right now is to volunteer as much information as possible about their assets to maximise space situational awareness, reducing the risk of further collisions and by extension, debris creation. As Charity Weeden, the Vice President of Global Space Policy at Astroscale (US) argues, this is the key to cultivating a positive, incentives-based culture that is necessary to normalize space sustainability as the de facto form of operation. However, until multilateral international agreement is reached on data sharing requirements, the situation is unlikely to improve. How this can be achieved is, for the moment, unclear, but evidently space junk and data cannot be treated as separate issues.

So, are we running out of space in Space? In short, yes. Can we effectively manage the orbital traffic jam? Maybe. I’m keen to know what specific strategies Harriet has to make space operators behave more sustainably. In the UK, if you have a problem with uncollected bin bags, you complain to your local council. Who do you complain to in space?

“[I]t’s interesting you bring up bin bags because part of [what] I’ve done in my job is look at how other industries have solved this problem. So, I’ve been looking at the business models of bin bags!

That sounds stupid, but I’ve learned there’s two ways that people can deal with waste removal. One, is that you buy a bunch of bin bags and the removal of those bin bags is included in the cost, and the other is that you can pay a monthly subscription to have a bin outside your office, and then the council can come and take it away whenever you need it to, right?

speaking at IAC 2018.jpg

What does that model look like? Do we charge a satellite operator every time we go and bring down a satellite, or, do we charge a subscription fee so every year they pay us an amount of money and we commit to keeping that orbit clean to some extent?”

"So, I’ve been looking at the business models of bin bags!”

Like an interstellar bin collection?

“Exactly right. In terms of incentivising customers to pay, the big challenge we have is that unlike other industries there’s no regulation to enforce people to do this, to enforce keeping space clean…”

…and there’s no body to enforce that regulation if it existed.

“What we’re working on is developing the commercial incentives. I’m doing a piece of work right now with the University of Southampton, with Professor Hugh Lewis who is an expert in the modelling of the orbital environment. Looking at theoretical models, you can test what kind of debris removal strategies are effective, and then quantify the effect and the value of those strategies. We’ll be able to say, ‘Look, if you want to protect the orbital environment in which you are operating, we can mitigate your collision risk,’ because we will be able to quantify that in some way. So, the idea is really to strengthen those arguments.”

It's an intriguing solution, a stepping stone toward a fully-fledged orbital insurance policy which could roughly calculate the risk of certain orbits and provide a financial incentive for sustainable rocket launches and satellite deorbiting. While innovative in capturing the commercial self-interest of asset damage mitigation, it cannot be a standalone solution. Ultimately, what we are discussing is private self-regulation as the best-case approach to the problem. Has there been any sort of progress in looking for an institutional actor to play a more governmental role in enforcing these ‘regulations’?

“Right now, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) are both developing Active Debris Removal Missions.”

But as Harriet concedes, “they’re basically looking for commercial companies to remove pieces of their own debris”, outsourcing solutions to companies similar to Astroscale rather than developing their own. This isn’t necessarily bad. The private sector has been able to offer more effective solutions to space problems than national space agencies in the past, with cost-efficient access to orbit being the most obvious example. Groups with catchy names like the ‘United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs’ and the ‘Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space’ develop long-term sustainability guidelines, and space operators are encouraged to voluntarily share orbital data. However, as Harriet points out, there is no legal enforcement of these expectations. She ends her assessment on an optimistic note;

“There’s good movement and we just need to keep on going in that direction and actually see it through.”

Let us all hope Harriet is right. The Federal Communications Commission voted on a promising new set of sustainability rules on 23rd April 2020, including an expansion of satellite reporting requirements and an adjustment of the licensing process to favour companies committing to greater transparency for their operations. Controversially, these new rules mandate any satellite operating above the orbit of the ISS to be capable of manoeuvring, sparking concerns that this might hamstring the growth of the affordable and increasingly popular nanosatellite market by mandating costly propulsion methods. It could also damage the American market if foreign governments do not issue similar guidelines. The verdict is out on this one.

But the new rules do also develop the fledgling system of collision liability currently in place by requiring operators to insure their satellites in the event that during their lifetime they damage another. Despite the criticism these guidelines are facing, it is very easy to lose sight of the risk posed by inaction, a vegetative reality all too common in the regulatory arena where this many actors need to reach agreement. So the passing of the measures does represent a bold statement on the seriousness with which the space sector’s largest stakeholder is taking the issue of sustainability.

AdobeStock_185639666.jpeg

 A Space X Falcon 9 seen over Scripps Pier at La Jolla CA, USA 

hailey-kean-zt8PJ6LT9Uw-unsplash.jpg

Martina Sardelli on how female pain is understood through the male experience.

Lauren Simkin on how everything from brain function to levels of violent crime is being impacted by our rapidly changing climate.

isaac-quesada-fuGPLDhQBo8-unsplash.jpg

Honor McGrigor on why people will go to extreme measures to avoid the possibility that the world is neither just or fair...

I feel duty-bound to prod a traditionally touchy line of questioning: why should we worry about this sector when there are so many immediate challenges right here on Earth?

“For me, it really represents our absolute limit of human achievement. We are going and doing the most incredible things that we have never been able to do before in the history of humanity; we go to the Moon, we explore planets in our Solar System, we go and visit asteroids—it’s just incredible, its awe-inspiring.

"For me, it really represents the absolute limit of human achievement."

"...the thing I love the most about space exploration is you can engage with it no matter where you are on a technical or interest level"

I think the thing I love the most about space exploration is you can engage with it no matter where you are on a technical or interest level, right? You can be a kid who just stares at the stars and thinks they’re cool, or you could be an expert in black holes, or you could be anything in between and there is some way you can engage with space.

Why do I think we should care? The space industry does way more for people in their everyday lives that we take for granted. Satellite technology is an easy one because we rely on satellites every day, right? Whether you’re using GPS, whether you’re getting money out of your bank account, whether it is checking the weather forecast: we use satellites to do immediate weather forecasting to inform our models, but also for long-term climate change, right?

"...we use satellites to do immediate weather forecasting to inform our models, but also for long-term climate change"

I don’t think it’s an either or. I can understand that there are shorter term problems that do need solving, but satellites and space technology can help you do those in a more efficient way.”

On the subject of uncertain futures, where does Harriet see herself in twenty years? In a Trumpified America or Brexited Britain? Or perhaps on an independent Moon using WTO rules and a points-based immigration scheme?

“I see myself as probably staying in the UK, and feel like I’m very lucky to have stumbled onto an incredible company doing amazing things. I’m really excited to see what we do in the next few years.”

Harriet makes it clear that when all was said and done, she feels passionate about fostering the UK as a driving force behind the global space economy. Indeed, our muddled nation of shopkeepers is very lucky to have kept someone like her in the fold. In many ways, Harriet’s is the ideal homecoming, with her years of reflection and contemplation abroad necessary to make the career leap from finance to space, two industries that make a mockery of borders and institutions (and bank balances) alike. Harriet insists that on reflection, she wouldn’t have done anything different.

“I like having a non-traditional background because I think it helps give you perspective. The only real thing I’d tell my younger self is to have more confidence in what you want to do. If you’re interested in something, go and do it because…with the job I have at Astroscale now, the company didn’t even exist when I was at university! If I had waited until the company existed before crafting a career towards it then, you know, you’re too late!”

So, pursue interests regardless of your background?

“Yes exactly, and really embrace it, because I apologised for it for so long and then realised actually, it was useful.”

As watch hands trespass six o’clock and I say goodbye to Harriet, I reflect on the valuable lesson that space debris can hold for all of us: we cannot allow crises to be the only triggers for transition and progress. The danger posed by orbital flotsam overhead might be overstated, but can we risk the alternative? The stakes will never be higher; they are, in fact, infinite.

Interview conducted in January 2020.

read more

and if you have time

if you're hungry

also, read about

and, maybe, this

this one's good too