This, of course, assumes that someone can go ahead and purchase an orbit and location on said orbit. I think that would make a lot of sense. Maybe a Verisign-like entity would take registration of expected orbits. You would be paying for the listing that you have claimed that orbit+location. If you deviate, you could be sued by the people whose orbit+location you violated. This entity would take an application and say "You can(not) have it." Nothing needs said about why or who else is there, thus preserving privacy.

If you wanted to wildcat, you'd be welcome to do so. But, if enough "legitimate" players used this registration system, then the courts would serve as a sufficient deterrent through civil suits. Particularly if the precedent was set that you could destroy anything that got into your orbit+location (so long as you cleaned up after yourself, of course, with precedent set for that, too).

I believe this avoids the tragedy of the commons. Comments?

How do you define an orbit for property purposes? Please keep in mind that there are many, many orbits that intersect. That there are important orbits that may have many things in them. (Geostationary orbit is the most notable example.) That orbital mechanics are chaotic, so any object placed in orbit will eventually wind up in a different orbit. (One can, if you time it right, get from near Earth orbit to the Moon with almost no usage of power. IIRC this trip takes about 2 years.)

Next, once you've defined orbits in a reasonable way, you have the problem that most of the space junk out there will cross many orbits. For each owner of an orbit, it is easier to just avoid stuff crossing your orbit than it is to clean that stuff up. (Don't forget, we still have no way to clean things up.) Also any attempt to clean up junk that is crossing one orbit is fairly likely to move it into someone else's orbit. What are the lawsuit opportunities there?

Even if you propose a solution to these problems, you have the bigger problem of how to agree on regulations that have to cover multiple countries. Do you really think that China or India is in any mood to accept a division imposed by the USA, Europe and Russia about who may use what parts of space? And what about the smaller powers? According to Wikipedia there are 45 countries with space agencies. Many, admittedly, do not launch their own satellites. But getting that many countries to agree on a complex legal system involving space is going to be very, very tricky.

I agree that these are problems that need to be addressed at some point if we're going to continue our exploration of space. However I submit that there are a lot of issues to be resolved that free markets are poorly equipped to address. And even if you come up with a solution where free market forces have a role, you first need to create the framework that free market can exist in. And that process itself can't be solved by waving the magic free market wand.

Here's an idea that popped into my head a few years ago whilst having an on-line discussion with someone who worked for an agency involved tracking space debris by radar. And it won't go away. I don't know enough about orbital mechanics, nor have a sufficient appreciation of the forces and velocities involved, to dimiss it. So, if anyone can shoot it down, please do and I can give my brain a rest.

My assumption is that for any given piece of debris currently in a long term orbit, it would only take a small (earthwards) delta change in its instantaneous trajectory to cause it to fall back to earth of its own accord. And, for the vast majority of those small objects, that would be a safe method of displosal. Also, that a near-but-not-quite parallel collision between a piece of debris and a solid flat surface, is likely to redirect the debris, rather than for it to penetrate. Like a bulllet ricocheting off a wall.

In the next couple of years the shuttles are due to be stood down on safety grounds. It long struck me that the biggest risks are associate with launch and return with people on board. And the biggest limitations on individual missions is the support needs for that wet ware. As a final act, one or more of the shuttles could be sent into orbit, perhaps to dock with the space station unmanned, or with a skeleton crew to be returned by other means.

If it took up extra fuel (in the bay) for manovering; the robot arm; and a large solid deflector. It could use that deflector, extended below the shuttles orbit to change the orbits of small pieces of debris (the vast majority of the 9000 or so they track), just enough to cause them to re-enter and burn up.

'scuse the crudity of the ascii art (its obviously not to scale :):

          ____
        >[____]>
           /
          /
         /
         \
          \
           \            ____----
            \   ____----
        ____----  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  
____----        .
             .
          .
       .          Earth V this way
    .                   V
 .                      V
[download]

So, shoot it down--but no missiles please :)

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

How do you define an orbit for property purposes?

I'm sure there are many definitions. I'm also pretty sure that orbits are already defined in some fashion because there are thousands of satellites up there that (IIRC) have never collided in the 50 years we've been putting stuff up there. I'm pretty sure that a company devoted to registering orbits would come up with a pretty good way of describing them.

That there are important orbits that may have many things in them. (Geostationary orbit is the most notable example.)

Said company(s) would start their registries non-empty.

That orbital mechanics are chaotic, so any object placed in orbit will eventually wind up in a different orbit.

Either that can be accounted for in a satellite without the ability to maneuver or maneuvering capability would be required.

For each owner of an orbit, it is easier to just avoid stuff crossing your orbit than it is to clean that stuff up.

If you don't want to clean it up and feel you can avoid it, then great! I've gone without health insurance for months at a time in the past. Even though I was fine, I still pay through the nose right now for it. If I just paid M$50 to make a satellite and get it into the right orbit and I have B$20 in future revenues riding on it, I'll be willing to pay M$10 (or something in that range) to increase its chances of survival. It's almost like a company that pays for improvements in a CPAN module. The company is paying for the benefits they are reaping and costs are calculated from that perspective. That there is an improvement to a commonly-held property is good advertising.

Also any attempt to clean up junk that is crossing one orbit is fairly likely to move it into someone else's orbit.

I think BrowserUk's solution would work quite nicely. With registration of lower orbits, that kind of work is pretty simple to time.

Even if you propose a solution to these problems, you have the bigger problem of how to agree on regulations that have to cover multiple countries. Do you really think that China or India is in any mood to accept a division imposed by the USA, Europe and Russia about who may use what parts of space? And what about the smaller powers? According to Wikipedia there are 45 countries with space agencies. Many, admittedly, do not launch their own satellites. But getting that many countries to agree on a complex legal system involving space is going to be very, very tricky.

What legal system? The only thing that even touches legalities is what courts to use for civil suits. Multinationals have been dealing with that issue since well before the East India Tea Company. Forum-shopping is a completely normal part of corporate law. If there's a crime on board a ship (or other space entity), you apply the provisions currently attaining to a crime at sea. That's worked well enough for hundreds of years. The key here is to avoid the nation-states and to appeal to the corporations. Yes, corporations are rapaciously greedy bastards that look out only for number 1. I can't think of many countries that don't qualify for that description.

I don't have all the answers off the top of my head. I do believe, very strongly, that all the issues you're raising are issues that are solvable by for-profit entities. And, frankly, solvable in better ways than nations could do so. In my eye, the "Tragedy of the Commons" is a for-profit opportunity to take the commons private for cheap, invest to improve it, then lease out usage. At least under private management, the commons wouldn't deteriorate because the owners have a motive to keep it in good shape.

---

My criteria for good software:

1. Does it work?
2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?