FCC to explore new rules for in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing missions

With the Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission hopes to build a robust record on current ISAM activities and identify ways to facilitate and reduce barriers for ISAM missions. The basic concept of ISAM is not new or unique to the Commission. It has been U.S. government policy to foster satellite servicing as early as 2008, when Congress specifically instructed NASA to ensure that provisions for satellite servicing be made “to the extent practicable and appropriate.” By 2010, a major NASA study concluded that “[f]or any meaningful future endeavor in space, success is more assured with architectures that include satellite servicing. For our national security, a domestic satellite servicing capability is paramount.” Very recently, the U.S. administration created a “national strategy” for ISAM and a “national initiative” for the related concept of “on-Orbit Servicing, assembly, and, manufacturing” (OSAM), with the twin goals of advancing U.S. technology and activity in space. The FCC NOI is a closely related initiative that seems to fit closely to these administration activities.

Spectrum

One important question uniquely facing the Commission is how to allocate already scarce spectrum resources to support and facilitate ISAM mission growth. The issue is complicated by the variety of activities already involved in contemplated ISAM operations and the likelihood that new ISAM activities will develop as the industry grows.

Some key spectrum-related questions the Commission has posed in the NOI include:

• What are the various radiofrequency communications links that could be involved in ISAM and what are the potentially relevant international frequency allocations and allocations in the U.S Table of Frequency Allocations? Are there existing satellite allocations in those ranges? How can the Commission facilitate sharing in these frequency bands? Are there frequency bands that are amenable to ISAM operations that have not been utilized to date?

• Is it possible to define a scope of “typical spectrum use” for various types of ISAM missions while at the same time recognizing that different mission types will have varying needs?

• Should ISAM be considered a space operation service, involving telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C)? And if so, how should the Commission account for ISAM activities that involve sensors and imaging, which may have different spectrum needs?

• Should the Commission continue in some instances to authorize ISAM communications on a non-interference, unprotected basis, for example for rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO)? Would geographic or temporal limitations help coordination with incumbent users?

• How can the Commission support ISAM operations in frequency bands that commercial and other non-governmental entities view as compatible with their missions, such as existing investments in on-orbit servicing (OOS) and RPO technologies in some frequency bands.

• What is the potential scope of communications links with spacecraft beyond Earth’s orbit and on celestial bodies, what are the related spectrum needs, and what unique issues do they present for spectrum licensing? Can existing allocations for satellite services such as inter-satellite links support some of these communications?

• What are the challenges with spectrum assignments for Earth station support for ISAM missions beyond Earth’s orbit?

Licensing

The nascent ISAM industry is already straining against the confines of the Commission’s part 25 licensing framework and part 5 experimental licensing rules. The Commission is seeking input on whether the existing frameworks in these rules can be modified to accommodate and adequately address ISAM activities. In the alternative, the Commission asks whether a new ISAM licensing framework is needed and what that framework might look like. The Commission is interested in how to address the current and likely expanding variability in ISAM missions, including the potential for variation in operations or activities within a single spacecraft or mission.

Some key licensing issues of interest for the Commission include:

• How can the Commission address variability in ISAM missions through its part 25 rules, including variable duration or locations, and evolving characteristics?

• Are there certain application or regulatory requirements that the Commission could rely on to anticipate the variations and changes, and the possibility that a single mission/spacecraft could have multiple vectors of variability (for example a servicers that service multiple spacecraft of varying types)?

• Can fixed-satellite service or mobile-satellite service allocations accommodate ISAM activities?

• Do the Commission’s rules need additional flexibility to account for ISAM activities that may blur the line between or exist on the edge between GSO and NGSO distinctions in part 25 rules?

• Should the Commission create a streamlined version of its processing round framework for ISAM activities, akin to the one created for small satellites and small spacecraft? How should the Commission modify technical disclosure requirements?

• Does the Commission need to update or modify licensing processes for earth stations to facilitate ISAM missions?      

• Do satellite servicing missions present unique licensing considerations? Do both the servicer and the client need to licensed “for the scope of radio-frequency activities involved in the servicing operations” or should it be the servicer alone?

• Do assembly and manufacturing missions require any revisions or modifications to the Commission’s part 5 and part 25 licensing rules ?

• Should the Commission adopt ISAM-specific changes to its rules for missions beyond Earth’s orbit, or are the current provisions in the part 25 “small spacecraft” rules, regular part 25 rules, and part 5 experimental rules sufficient?

Orbital Debris

As with other areas of space innovation, ISAM expansion may contribute to increases in orbital debris and reinvigorate conversations about the challenge of balancing commercial space industry growth with the sustainability of the outer space environment and continued availability of existing space-based services. ISAM activities will be subject to similar orbital debris mitigation obligations as other space operators, although the current rules may not adequately account for certain characteristics of ISAM activities. At the same time, the Commission is interested in the potential for ISAM technologies to clean up and remediate debris.

Some key questions the Commission is considering regarding its orbital debris rules include:

• How should the Commission account for ISAM activities that raise orbital debris challenges that are not contemplated by the Commission’s current rules and adopted practices, including involving in-space fuel storage and small debris or byproducts from in-space assembly or manufacturing processes?

• Are there rule updates that would help to address these risks?

• How can the Commission promote continued grown, innovation and development of new technologies that would enable the remediation and removal of debris?

• Should the Commission consider making active debris removal “part of an operator’s orbital debris strategy for post-mission disposal or backup post-mission disposal”?

International Considerations

• The Commission is interested in how new ISAM rules might fit in the global space regulatory milieu.

• How should the Commission account for the global nature of the emerging ISAM industry and the possibility of interactions between operators under the jurisdiction of multiple nations, including issues such as international coordination?

• How does the Commission’s review and potential authorization of ISAM operations implicate U.S. planetary protection obligations under Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty? What role should the Commission play in reviewing planetary protection plans and implications for ISAM missions?

Encouraging Innovation and Investments in ISAM

• The Commission is seeking input on how to encourage ISAM investment and also promote the participation of established participants, new market entrants, and companies of different sizes.

• Are there existing regulatory barriers that the Commission can remove or modernize to facilitate innovation and investment in ISAM in the public interest? How can the Commission address industry’s concerns about regulatory processes and also maintain access to spectrum and a safe space environment for all operators? How can the Commission encourage innovation and growth for current ISAM operators and developers and new market entrants?

• What is the current state of ISAM technology and the economic impact of ISAM on space-based services? How does ISAM fit within the broader satellite communications services sector?

• What is the cost structure of supplying ISAM activities? What are the economies of scale and how important are they in production?

Next Steps

The NOI presents an opportunity to contribute to the Commission’s development of new ISAM rules from the earliest stages of the rulemaking process. Comments are due October 31, 2022 with reply comments due November 28, 2022. If you have questions or would like more information about the proceeding, please contact our team.

Authored by Gerry Oberst, George John, and Ambia Harper.