IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2309.10252.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

OPUS: An Integrated Assessment Model for Satellites and Orbital Debris

Author

Listed:
  • Akhil Rao
  • Mark Moretto
  • Marcus Holzinger
  • Daniel Kaffine
  • Brian Weeden

Abstract

An increasingly salient public policy challenge is how to manage the growing number of satellites in orbit, including large constellations. Many policy initiatives have been proposed that attempt to address the problem from different angles, but there is a paucity of analytical tools to help policymakers evaluate the efficacy of these different proposals and any potential counterproductive outcomes. To help address this problem, this paper summarizes work done to develop an experimental integrated assessment model -- Orbital Debris Propagators Unified with Economic Systems (OPUS) -- that combines both astrodynamics of the orbital population and economic behavior of space actors. For a given set of parameters, the model first utilizes a given astrodynamic propagator to assess the state of objects in orbit. It then uses a set of user-defined economic and policy parameters -- e.g. launch prices, disposal regulations -- to model how actors will respond to the economic incentives created by a given scenario. For the purposes of testing, the MIT Orbital Capacity Tool (MOCAT) version 4S was used as the primary astrodynamics propagator to simulate the true expected target collision probability ($p_c$) for a given end-of-life (EOL) disposal plan. To demonstrate propagator-agnosticism, a Gaussian mixture probability hypothesis density (GMPHD) filter was also used to simulate $p_c$. We also explore economic policy instruments to improve both sustainability of and economic welfare from orbit use. In doing so, we demonstrate that this hybrid approach can serve as a useful tool for evaluating policy proposals for managing orbital congestion. We also discuss areas where this work can be made more robust and expanded to include additional policy considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Akhil Rao & Mark Moretto & Marcus Holzinger & Daniel Kaffine & Brian Weeden, 2023. "OPUS: An Integrated Assessment Model for Satellites and Orbital Debris," Papers 2309.10252, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2309.10252
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.10252
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Akhil Rao & Giacomo Rondina, 2022. "The Economics of Orbit Use: Open Access, External Costs, and Runaway Debris Growth," Papers 2202.07442, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    2. Bernhard, Pierre & Deschamps, Marc & Zaccour, Georges, 2023. "Large satellite constellations and space debris: Exploratory analysis of strategic management of the space commons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1140-1157.
    3. Bovenberg, A. Lans & Goulder, Lawrence H., 2002. "Environmental taxation and regulation," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 23, pages 1471-1545, Elsevier.
    4. Adilov, Nodir & Alexander, Peter J. & Cunningham, Brendan M., 2023. "The economics of satellite deorbiting performance bonds," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    5. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249.
    6. Libecap, Gary D & Wiggins, Steven N, 1984. "Contractual Responses to the Common Pool: Prorationing of Crude Oil Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 87-98, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony, 2015. "A Primer on Comprehensive Policy Options for States to Comply with the Clean Power Plan," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-15, Resources for the Future.
    2. Chung, Sung H. & Weaver, Robert D. & Friesz, Terry L., 2013. "Strategic response to pollution taxes in supply chain networks: Dynamic, spatial, and organizational dimensions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(2), pages 314-327.
    3. William A Pizer & Steven Sexton, 2019. "The Distributional Impacts of Energy Taxes," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 104-123.
    4. Peifang Yang & Daniel T. Kaffine, 2016. "Community-Based Tradable Permits for Localized Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 773-788, December.
    5. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.
    6. Philippe Quirion, 2004. "Prices versus Quantities in a Second-Best Setting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 337-360, November.
    7. James Alm & H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2012. "Designing Economic Instruments For The Environment In A Decentralized Fiscal System," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 177-202, April.
    8. Herman Vollebergh, 2004. "Lessons from the Polder: Is Dutch CO2-Taxation Optimal?," Working Papers 2004.6, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. Chan, Nathan W. & Globus-Harris, Isla, 2023. "On consumer incentives for energy-efficient durables," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    10. Takumi HAIBARA & Hiroshi OHTA, 2011. "A New Proposal of Ecological Tax Reform," GSICS Working Paper Series 24, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University.
    11. Paul, Anthony & Beasley, Blair & Palmer, Karen, 2013. "Taxing Electricity Sector Carbon Emissions at Social Cost," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-23-rev, Resources for the Future.
    12. Ellen M. Bruno & Nick Hagerty & Arthur R. Wardle, 2022. "The Political Economy of Groundwater Management: Descriptive Evidence from California," NBER Chapters, in: American Agriculture, Water Resources, and Climate Change, pages 343-365, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Fritz Rahmeyer, 2007. "Europäischer Handel mit Treibhausgasemissionszertifikaten und seine Umsetzung in das deutsche Umweltrecht," Discussion Paper Series 296, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    14. Renström, Thomas I. & Spataro, Luca & Marsiliani, Laura, 2021. "Can subsidies rather than pollution taxes break the trade-off between economic output and environmental protection?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. R.A. Somerville, 2012. "Rationally Expected Externalities: The Implications for Optimal Waste Discharge and Recycling," Trinity Economics Papers tep0112, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    16. Conrad, Klaus, 2001. "Computable General equilibrium Models in Environmental and Resource Economics," Discussion Papers 601, Institut fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Abteilung fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre.
    17. Steven Shavell, 2011. "Corrective Taxation versus Liability as a Solution to the Problem of Harmful Externalities," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 249-266.
    18. Freire-González, Jaume, 2018. "Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: A critical review," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 194-223.
    19. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Salant, Stephen W., 2011. "A free lunch in the commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 245-253, May.
    20. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2309.10252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.