Pollution of Man's Last Frontier: Adequacy of Present Space Environmental Law in Preserving the Resource of Outer Space

1. For an excellent account of the uses of outer space see Lay, S. Houston and Taubenfeld, Howard J., the Law Relating to Activities of Man in Space. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London (1970) 17–33.

2. See, e.g., Hannessian, John Jr, International Aspects of ERTS Program, 23 J. Brit. Interplanetary Soc, Spring 1970, 533–57; NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1973, Hearings on S. 3094 before Senate Comm. on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972) 819–822, 837–840, 897–902; Soviet Space Programs 1966–70, Staff of Senate Comm. on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, S. Doc. No. 92–51, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (1971) 315–17; Soviet Space Programs 1971, Staff of Senate Comm. on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (Comm. Print, April 1972) 47–49; Eugene Brooks, Technological and Legal Aspects of Environmental Monitoring, 1 J. Space L. (1973) 6–39.

3. On May 25, 1973, three U.S. astronauts docked with Skylab I space station workshop to commence a series of experiments. The Washington Post, 05 26, 1973, at 1 col. 4. After completing the first series of experiments the astronauts returned to earth in the Pacific Ocean on June 22, 1973. The Washington Post, 06 23, 1973, at 1 col. 1. For details of the earth resources technology experiments see NASA-University of Colorado, Skylab Experiments, Vol. 2 (05 1973).

4. On problems posed by DBS, see Gotlied, A.E. and Dalfsen, Cm., Direct Satellite Broadcasting: A Case Study in the Development of the Law of Space Communications in 7 Canadian Y.B. Int. L. (1969) 33–60; Dalfsen, Cm., International Legal Problems of Direct Satellite Broadcasting in 20 Univ. Toronto L. J. (1970) 314–332; Dalfsen, Cm.; Direct Satellite Broadcasting in 20 Univ. Toronto L.J. (1970) 366–374; Lee, Edward G., UNSECO Meeting on Space Communication: Legal Issues, 20 Univ. Toronto L.J. (1970) 375–379. Since it would be possible to broadcast directly to home receivers, problems arise with such broadcasts since they could be transmitted without the consent of the receiving country and without control over the programs being received. It is not difficult to imagine how propaganda beamed at countries might create international conflict. Mr. Diaconescu, the Romanian representative, in commenting on the work of the Working Group on Direct Satellite Broadcasting said “Utilization of this new technology for purposes that might infringe on the sovereignty of other states or that might constitute interference in the internal affairs of other states would have profoundly negative effects on that spirit of mutual understanding that we wish to promote in relations among States and peoples; it would also adversely affect international peace and security as well as the very functioning itself of the system of direct broadcasting by satellite.” (Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space U.N. Doc. A/AC 105 PV. 66 (Nov. 3, 1969, 9–10.

5. Clute, Robert E., The Law of Outer Space, 1 Georgia J. Int'l and Comp. L., 1970, 107.

6. See generally Kellogg, W.W., Pollution of the Upper Atmosphere by Rockets in C. de Jager (ed.), 3 Space Sc. Rev. (1964) 275–316; Stagg, J.M., Possible Effects on Climate of Contamination of the Upper Atmosphere in Report of Conference on Law and Science held at Niblett Hall, London, 07 11–12, 1964, 12–16; Sand, Peter H., Space Programmes and International Environment Protection, 21 Int'l & Comp. L Q., 1972, 46–49.

7. Horsford, Cyril E.S., Space Activities and Conservation, 15th Colloquium On The Law Of Outer Space, London (1972) (Mimeo) 3; Mankiewicz, René H., Some Thoughts On Law On Law and Public Order in Space, 2 Canadian Y.B. Int'l L. (1964) 260.

8. There is at present no specific boundary line between a state's air space over which it has rights of sovereignty and outer space where no such rights attach. Since the launching of Sputnik I in 1957, no state has claimed violation of its air space by satellites passing over it. Also a customary rule of international law has emerged in the right of a state to launch a satellite for peaceful purposes. Hence, although there is no precise demarcation line air space does not extend beyond the region where it is possible to orbit a satellite. An object having been launched is in orbit, if left in a state of unpowered flight it completes at least one revolution of the earth. See McMahon, J.F., Legal Aspects of Outer Space, 38 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. (1962) 352–357; McDougal, M.S., The Emerging Law of Space, 58 Northwestern Univ. L. Rev. (1964) 618; Soviet Space Programs, 1966–70, supra note 2, 503–505; Haley, Andrew G., Space Law and Government (1963) 75–117.

9. Jenks, C. Wilfred, Space Law (1965) 280–281; Lay and Taubenfeld, supra, note 1, 141–142. In taking steps toward reducing electronic pollution, section 10 of the September 1963 Resolution of the Institute of International Law states, “The State under the authority of which the launching of a space object takes place shall ensure that every such object is, so far as practicable, fitted with a suitable device permitting the launcher to recover it on the termination of its useful life or if recovery is not feasible as a minimum to silence radio transmission therefrom and eliminate its other effects.” The Resolution appears at 416–418 in Jenks; see also Section IX – 470 V. S. 24, 695 S. 3 of ITU Regulations appended in Jenks at 337.

10. See Gorove, Stephen, Pollution And Outer Space: A Legal Analysis and Appraisal, 5 New York Univ. J. Int'l L. and Pol. (1972) 56.

11. Clute, , supra note 5, p. 26.

12. Compiled from U.K. Ministry of Aviation Supply's Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Report 68124 (1968), data supplied by Royal Aircraft Establishment by letter of March 6, 1973, and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Satellite Situation Report for April 30, 1973. Since compilation is from multiple sources, there may be a small degree of error.

13. As reported in “Space Objects Box Score” Satellite Situation Report, supra note 12.

14. See, e.g., U.K. Ministry of Aviation Supply's Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Report, Supra note 12, col. 2 at 1 et seq.; id. Technical Report 71082 (1971) col. 2 at 185 et seq.

15. Von Braun, , Prospective Space Developments, Astro, and Aero., 04 1972, 29.

16. See e.g., Satellite Situation Report, Supra note 12, 1–39.

17. Von Braun, supra note 15.

18. Dalfen, Charles, Towards an International Convention on the Registration of Space Objects: The Gestation Process, 9 Canadian Y.B. Int'l L. (1971) 260–61.

19. U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/C.1/L.30 (April 1970), para 7.

20. Convention on International Liability For Damage Caused by Space Objects-Analysis and Background Data, staff of Senate Comm. on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 92d Cong. 2d sess. (Comm. Print May 1972) 74–75.

21. Satellite Situation Report, Supra note 12, 13, 29.

22. Id. at 1, 3–5, 7–10, 12, 13, 15, 17–30, 33–38.

23. Jenks, supra note 9, 435; Kirgis, Frederic L. Jr., Technological Challenge to the Shared Environment: United States Practice, 66 Am. J. Int.'l L. (1972) 308; Martin Ryle; The Effects on Astronomy of tests in Earth's Environment in Report of Conference on Law and Science, supra note 6, 17.

24. Commoner, Barry, Science and Survival 1966, 50; Jenks, supra note 9, 435.

25. Bleicher, Samuel A., An Overview of International Environmental Regulation, 2 Ecology L.Q. (1972) 69; Commoner, , supra note 24, 52; Ryle, , supra note 23, 18.

26. See e.g., Gorove, , supra note 10, 55; Lay, and Taubenfeld, , supra note 1, 18.

27. Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water, signed in Moscow, August 5, 1963.

28. Hager, David R., The Orbiting Junkyard, Saturday Review, 09 5, 1970, 44; Convention on Liability For Damage Caused by Space Objects-Analysis and Background Data, supra note 20, 72.

29. USAF Titan IIIC accidently blew up in space adding 240 fragments in orbit, Newsweek, Oct. 17, 1966, 73; The Soviet Kosmos 397 exploded in orbit on March 4, 1971, Soviet Space Programs, 1971, supra note 2, 50, 65.

30. Clute, , supra note 5, 112; Washington Post Dec. 4, 1968, reported that the U.S.S.R. successfully launched a satellite which tracked down and destroyed two other satellites. One might speculate on the possibility of adding innumerable pieces of space debris in view of the current developments in DBS technology. Broadcasting hostile propaganda in times of peace is condemned by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 110–11 of November 3, 1947. A country capable of destroying such satellites could proceed to do so under the right of self defense. In introducing a draft of the Outer Space Treaty the Soviet delegate saw urgent need for legal measures “to prevent a great technical achievement (the reception of direct television broadcasts by conventional television sets) from being used against the interests of peace”, U.N. Doc. A/AC 105/C.2/SR.57 at 13. See also Soviet Space Programs, 1966–70, supra note 2, 500–501.

31. Supra note 20, 74, 75; see also Lay and Taubenfeld, supra note 1, n7 at 137.

32. Vazquez, M. Seana, Cosmic International Law (1965) 114; Lay, and Taubenfeld, , supra note 1, 128.

33. Supra note 20, 74–75; Hager, , supra note 28, 45. The objects which fell in Cuba had not strictly been in space as they belonged to an unseccessful launch.

34. NORAD Fact Sheet, 03 1971, 3. On the degree of error the NORAD Fact Sheet states “Other factors influence the accuracy of the prediction. As a satellite re-enters the atmosphere, its motion will change radically due to various disturbing influences such as changes in atmospheric density, possibility of a break up of the object, change in its mass configuration due to burning, and the changing frontal configuration caused by rotation. And one object may float while another might skip or plunge into the atmosphere”.

35. McDougall, M., Lasswell, H. and Vlasic, I., Law and Public Order in Space (1963) 643. The type of damage that may be caused by impact on a city is described by Spencer Beresford in Liability for Ground Damage Caused by Spacecraft, 19 Fed. B. J. (1959) at 242: “The Force of its impact would crush a building or any other object in its way. Its heat could cause burns and ignite inflammable materials over a wide area. The resulting damage might resemble the devastation left by a meteor. Certain kinds of spacecraft could produce even greater hazards – for example, by releasing radioactive material from a nuclear engine”. See also Dembling, Paul G., Aspects of the Law of Space Activities, 21 Fed. B. J. 235 (1961) and A Liability Treaty for Outer Space Activities, 19 American Univ. L. Rev. (1969) 44.

36. Hall, R. Cargill, Comments on Salvage and Removal of Man-Made Objects from Outer Space, 33 J. Air L. and Comm. (1967) 288; International Cooperation and Organization for Outer Space, staff of Senate Comm. on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, S. Doc. 56, 89 Cong. 1st Sess. (1965) 260. See also Mazaroff, Stanly, Exonerations from Liability for Damage Caused by Space Activities, 54 Cornell L. Rev. 1968–1969, 72.

37. NORAD Fact Sheet, Supra note, 34, 12. For an instance of collision between two U.S. satellites in space see Lay, and Taubenfield, , supra note 1, 140.

38. International Co-operation and Organization for Outer Space, Supra note 36, 260; Jenks, , supra note 9, 281.

39. Jenks, , supra note 9, 433.

40. Sky, and Telescope, , 09 1969, 145.

41. On Outbound and earthbound contamination see generally Robinson, George S., Earth Exposure to Extra-terrestrial Matter: NASA's Quarantine Regulations, 5 Int'l Lawyer (1971) 219–220. See also Phillips, , Back Contamination, 1 Environmental Biology and Medicine (1971) 121–160; Gorove, , supra note 10, 55–57.

42. The first impact was by the U.S.S.R. in September 1959 (Luna II), see Soviet Space Programs, 1966–1970, supra note 2, 532.

43. Soviet Space Programs 1971, supra note 2, 69.

44. See New York Times 03 2, 1966 p. 1. Venera 3 struck Mars on March 1, 1966, Soviet Science Programs 1966–1970, supra note 2, 539.

45. Soviet Space Programs 1971, supra note 2, 66.

46. Horowitz, N.H., Sharp, R.P. and Davies, R.W., Planetary Contamination I: The Problem and the Agreements, 155 Science (03 24, 1967) 1502.

47. Sagan, C., Leventhal, E.C. and Lederberg, J., 159 Science (03 15, 1968) 1192.

48. See e.g., Murray, B.C., Davies, M.E. and Eckman, P.K., Planetary Contamination II: Soviet and U.S. Practices and Policies, 155 Science (03 24, 1967) 1505.

49. Lay, and Taubenfeld, supra note 1, 4.

50. See e.g., Jenks, , supra note 9, 281.

51. See e.g., Fawcett, J.E.S., International Law and the Uses of Outer Space, 1968, 65; Sand, , supra note 6, 49.

52. The special procedure and requirements are discussed in McLane, , King, et al. , Lunar receiving laboiatory, 155 Science (1967) 525; see also NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Back Contamination Mission Rules, 11 14, 1969.

53. The attempt on Oct. 21, 1961 was unsuccessful as the needles failed to leave the package. On May 12, 1963, a second attempt was successful in releasing the needles. See Ryle, supra note 23, 19–23; International Cooperation and Organization for Outer Space, supra note 36, 407–410; Johnson, , Pollution and Contamination in Space, in Cohen, (ed.) Law and Politics in Space, 1964, 37et. seq.

54. Lovell, and Ryle, , Interference to Radio Astronomy from Belts of Orbiting Dipoles (Needles), 3 J. Royal Astro. Soc. (1962) 100–108; Backwell and Wilson, Interference to Optical Astronomy from Belts of Orbiting Dipoles (Needles), id. at 109–114; COSPAR Information Bulletin No. 7, Nov. 19, 1961, 20–21.

55. Darwin, H.G., The Outer Space Treaty, 42, Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 1967, 281.

56. A statement by the COSPAR Consultative Group on Potentially Harmful Effects of Space Experiments issued on May 16, 1964, stated that adding as many as tenfold needles as compared with 1963 experiments would cause significant interference, and a hundredfold increase would be “detrimental to much advanced research in astronomy”. The statement is reprinted as Appendix 2 at 396–397 in International Cooperation and Organization for Outer Space, supra note 36; see also Ryle, , supra note 23, 21–22.

57. Lay, and Taubenfeld, supra note 1, 18; Kirgis, , supra note 23, 308; Sand, supra, note 6, 55.

58. Supra note 57.

59. See e.g., Nelson, Bryce, Reflecting Satellite: NASA Study Causes Concern Among Astronomers 155 Science (01 20, 1967) 304; Clute, supra note 5, 113.

60. On the use of nuclear energy in space see Space Nuclear Power Generators, Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 89th Cong., 1st sess. (Aug. 6, 1965); Johnson, , Beyond Apollo with Nuclear Propulsion, 2 Astro, and Aero. 12 1964, 22–28. For an excellent account of development in the U.S. see NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1973, supra note 2, 721–726, 745–796.

61. See Washington Post, 05 24, 1964, 8.

62. Electrical power for the Apollo lunar experiments is provided by small radioisotope thermoelectric generators which use 8 lbs. of 238 Plutonium Dioxide Microspheres. COSPAR has expressed concern on the consequences of the release of radioactive debris on the Martian suface, should the 1975 Viking spacecraft which uses a radioactive thermo-electric generator crash land on Mars; see Kastel, Dean P., The National Academy of Sciences in International Cooperation in Outer Space: A Symposium, Senate Comm. on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, S. Doc. 92–57, 92d Cong. 1st sess. (12 9, 1971) 219. If the unfortunate event materializes, future manned missions to Mars would be jeopardized. The use of nuclear power is also contemplated in human camps on other celestial bodies. On this see Glenn T. Seaborg, AEC Press release S–6–66 of Feb. 17, 1966.

63. Horsford, Cyril, supra note 7, 3.

64. Brooks, Eugene, Legal Aspects of the Lunar Landings – 4 Int.'l Lawyer 4, (1970), 422; New York Times 07 17, 1969, Special Supplement p. 47; Lay, and Taubenfeld, , supra note 1, 4.

65. See e.g., Von Braun, , supra note 15, 35; NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1973, supra note 2, 33, 362–364.

66. Von Braun, , supra note 15, 34.

67. Sand, , supra note 6, 55.

68. Multilateral Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water, Oct. 5, 1963, 2 U.S.T. 1313, T.I.A.S. 5433 (hereinafter cited as The Test Ban Treaty).

69. The U.N. Resolution of the Commission for Conventional Armaments of Aug. 12, 1948 (U.N. Doc. S/C 3/32, August 18, 1948) defines weapons of mass destruction to include “atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which have the characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above”.

70. Article I (2) reads “Each of the parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control: (a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or underwater, including territorial waters or high seas; or (b) in any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the state under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted. It is understood in this connection that the provisions of this sub-paragraph are without prejudice to the conclusion of a treaty resulting in the permanent banning of all nuclear test explosions, including all such explosions underground, the conclusions of which, as the Parties have stated in the Preamble to this Treaty, they seek to achieve”.

71. The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, was signed on Jan. 27, 1967 and entered into force Oct. 10, 1967, 18 U.S.T., 2410, T.I.A.S. 6347.

72. Id., Article 4 (2).

73. It has been argued that only enumerated military activities in Article IV (2) are prohibited and that non-aggressive military use is permitted. See Stein, Eric, Legal Restraints in Modern Arms Control Agreements, 66 Am. J. Int'l L. (1972) 260–261. The central problem here is that much of space technology can be employed for both military and non-military purposes. On this see McNaughton, Space Technology and Arms Control in Maxwell Cohen (ed.), Law and Politics in Space (1964), 69; Dembling, Paul G. and Arons, Daniel M., The Evolution of the Outer Space Treaty, 33 J. Air L. and Comm. (1967) at 435 state, “aside from the first paragraph of Article IV, the placement of a weapon or other item of military equipment of any description on a celestial body would appear to be prohibited unless it can be demonstrated that the item of military equipment will be devoted solely to the peaceful exploration or use of the celestial body”.

74. Fawcett, , supra note 51, at 35 comments on the drafting of Article IV(2) that in the second sentence, although the expression ‘celestial bodies’ is used, specific mention of the Moon is omitted. It could be argued that the omission is deliberate in an instrument of the importance of the Outer Space Treaty; that there is no prohibition intended in the use of military bases, installations, and fortifications, etc., on the Moon, the prohibition applying only to celestial bodies excluding the Moon.

75. See Statements by the Indian delegate in U.N. Doc. A/AC 105/c.2/SR 66, at 6; The Iranian delegate id at 7; The Austrian delegate in U.N. Doc. A/AC 105/c.2/SR 71 at 10; the Japanese delegate id at 12; The Brazilian delegate id at 17; and the Mexican delegate id at 19. Military activity is compatible with “peaceful purposes” as long as it is not aggressive.

76. Dembling, and Arons, , supra note 73, 434, Finch, Edward R. Jr., Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes, 54 ABA J. (1968), 366; Soviet Programs 1966–70, supra note 2, 462–463.

77. For definition of orbit see supra note 8.

78. Dean Acheson in Proc. Am. Soc. Int'l L. (1963) 14.

79. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (hereinafter Space Liability Treaty) signed at Washington, London and Moscow, March 29, 1972, reprinted in 66 Am. J. Int'l L. (1972), 702–709.

80. Article VII extends this concept of liability to include damage by space objects on the Moon or any other celestial body.

81. Supra note 79, Article II in conjunction with Article I (c). Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty provides for national ownership of a space object by the launching state irrespective of whether it is in outer space or on the Moon or other celestial body or returns to earth.

82. Id. Article VI (1). For an excellent discussion of absolute or strict liability see Goldie, L.F.E., Liability for Damage and the Progressive Development of International Law, 14 Int'l and Comp. L.Q. 1189 (1965).

83. Id Article VI (2).

84. Treaty on Outer Space, Hearings on Exec. D. before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967) 39–40, 54, 70–72, 75–76. See also S. Exec. Rep. No. 8, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967) at 4–5.

85. Supra note 79, Article IV (1) (a).

86. For a short account of the prevailing controversy over compensation payable on expropriation of alien property see Kalsi, Swadesh S., Encouragement of Private Foreign Investment in the Developing Country: Provisions in the Laws of Kenya, 6 Int'l Lawyer (1972), 590–595.

87. Supra note 79, Article IX.

88. Id Article XI (1).

89. Id Article VII.

90. Id Article XIV. Articles XIV to XX deal with the establishment, constitution, powers and rules of procedure of the Claims Commission.

91. Id Article XIX (1) in conjunction with Article XVIII.

92. Note that alternatively the decisions and awards of the Claims Commission can be made binding between the parties that have so declared in accordance with U.N. Resolution 2777 (XXVI) in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation.

93. Supra note 79, Article XIX (2). It is interesting to observe the following from the statement of Carl F. Salans in S. Exec. Rep. No. 92–38, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972) at 6 “When it became clear that the Convention would provide for claims commissions empowered to make only recommendatory rather than binding awards, the U.S. agreed not to insist on a limit if the Convention were otherwise acceptable” (i.e., a ceiling on liability arising from a particular incident).

94. For a brief account of CETEX & COSPAR seen Johnson, Pollution and Contamination in Space in Cohen (ed.), supra note 73, 39–45. See also International Cooperation in Outer Space: A Symposium, Supra note 62, 538–545.

95. The COSPAR Resolution of May 20, 1964 is reprinted in International Co-operation and Organization For Outer Space, supra note 36, 391–392; see also Report of the Panel on Standards for Space Probe Sterilization, id at 397–399.

96. For a criticism of the phrase “due regard” as being vague see McMahon, J.F., Legal Aspects of Outer Space; recent developments, 41 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. (1965–1966) 420; see also Gorove, supra note 10, 61.

97. Murray, , Davies, and Eckman, supra note 48, 1505; Horowitz, et al. , supra note 46, 1504, conclude that the present sterilization standards adopted by COSPAR should significantly be relaxed.

98. Gorove, , supra note 10, 62–63.

99. Id at 63.

100. Wehringer, C.K., The Moon, Spaceports and Law, 36 J. Air L. and Comm. (1970), 68.

101. See, e.g., Lovell, and Ryle, supra note 55.

102. Brooks, supra note 64, 423.

103. See above section on Trends in Space Activity.

104. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1721 (XVI) of December 20, 1961. See also Jenks, , supra note 9, 219–224. In 1970, the Canadian delegation to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space submitted a comprehensive proposal for registration of objects launched into outer space. See U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/ C.1/L.31, April 20, 1970.

105. On the negotiating aspects of Article XI, see Dembling, and Arons, , supra note 73, 444–447; see also Dalfen, , supra note 18, 255–268.

106. Reference is made to the Satellite Situation Report pubhshed montly by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S.A. which contains a list of all U.S. objects in outer space.

107. See, e.g., International Co-operation and Organization for Outer Space, supra note 36, 262.

108. Beesley, Allen et al. , The Legal Problems of International Tele-Communications with special reference to INTELSAT 20 Univ. Toronto L.J. (1970), 309; Fawcett, , supra note 51, 5.

109. On the Space Shuttle see generally, NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1973, supra note 2, 334–423; NASA Environmental Statement for Space Shuttle Program, Draft Statement April, 1972, 1–12. On economic analysis of shuttle see Heiss, Klaus P. and Morgenstern, Oskar in NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1973, supra, note 2, 425–556.

110. Hall, , supra note 36, 289–290.

111. Richard H. Campbell, Traffic in Outei Space, in supra note 20, at 73 gives an instance of the U.S. launch number 082 of 1965 which carried only one pay load but accounted for 451 pieces of space debris.

112. See supra section Space Environmental Law: Damage by Space Objects.

113. Supra note 20.

114. McMahon, , supra note 8, 392.

115. Id at 393.

116. However, the reader's attention is drawn to the work of the U.N. on the human environment. See especially G.A. Resolution 2994 (XXVII Dec. 15, 1972) on U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, G.A. Resolution 2995 (XXVII Dec. 15, 1972) on cooperation between states in the field of the Human Environment, G.A. Resolution 2996 (XXVII Dec. 15, 1972) on International Responsibility of States in Regard to the Environment, and G.A. Resolution 2997 (XXVII Dec. 15, 1972) on Institutional and Financial Arrangements for International Environmental Cooperation.

117. Howard J. and Rita F. Taubenfeld, Modification of the Human Environment in Cyril E. Black and Richard A. Falk, (Ed.) The Future of the International Legal Order: Volume IV - The Structure of the International Environment (1972), 140.