Conflicts setting new standards
Recently, the Chinese government has reportedly complained about (SpaceX CEO) Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites. According to China, the growing number of satellites in space could become a dangerous threat to space safety.
In response, to the complaints, he responded that space is huge and that satellites are minuscule: “Space is just extremely enormous, and satellites are very tiny” (The Financial Times). 1,900 is the current number of Starlink satellites in orbit, while the total planned number of satellites to be sent in space is reported to be 42,000. According to the CEO, these satellites would know how to coexist, allegedly embracing space safety. He explains that: “This is not some situation where we’re effectively blocking others in any way. We’ve not blocked anyone from doing anything, nor do we expect to” (The Financial Times). Elon Musk explained that “tens of billions” of satellites and spacecraft could orbit around the Earth.
Space being such a lowly regulated space, and scarcely untouched on the business side, rules and laws are yet to be set. According to the head of the European Space Agency, Josef Aschbacher, Elon Musk is “making the rules for the new commercial space economy”. He also believes that the CEO has a major interest in sending satellites in space as soon as possible, as there will be less and less space for other competitors to send theirs.
Yes or no to more space regulation?
Daniel Baker, Director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, explains that “scientists should push for the establishment of global rules on launching commercial satellites that could pose hazards in space and that could hinder astrophysical observations”.
Mr. Baker explains that most satellites, smallsats to be precise, will orbit in low Earth orbit (LEO), which means lower than 2,000km. As well as they will improve communication capabilities, they will also cause issues such as space debris crashing into spaceships and satellites. This would therefore mean that sending a rocket to space in a few years will become more dangerous than it is today.
In regards to space safety, standards must be met during the conception of satellites. Firms whose satellites highly pollute space shouldn’t be left untouched.
Concerning the number of satellites allowed in space per firm, numbers could be discussed, but this could potentially mean regulatory risks. As a reminder, regulatory risk is: “the risk a change in laws and regulations will materially impact a security, business, sector, or market. Thus, (…) can increase the costs of operating a business, reduce the attractiveness of an investment, or change the competitive landscape in a given business sector.”
Regulatory risk is therefore a major geopolitical concern. Does a country want to reduce the space development of firms in its territory? Probably not. (thus leading us to an international agreement). Yet, do countries want to reduce future investments in space technology? In my opinion, sure why not?
As countries all together will be limited by the same rules, technological space development may undergo a slight slowdown as incentives to investments would be lowered. But who cares? No? On the flip side, technological space development will evolve by meeting sustainable and ethical goals. Except if there is a space race to develop faster than other planets, a high pace development isn’t desired. In other words, as long as there are no threats vis-à-vis humans from other planets, we should only focus on technologically advancing sustainably and ethically.
Sources:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory_risk.asp
https://www.silicon.co.uk/e-innovation/elon-musk-denies-his-satellites-are-hogging-space-434913
The question is, should orbits be privatized, and if so, how.
Following Locke’s original appropriation, it seems natural, that orbits are to be owned by the first user of the orbital position, questions arise when two orbits meet, what’s the procedure.
Then, you’d have a market of orbits, with one owner selling the orbit to an owner that’s willing to pay more (for a more valuable use of the orbit). In this way, Elon’s Starlink, could be described as cheap landgrab, which people, with interests to keep space as a public property are incentivized to oppose.
As a person interested in space I usually agree with Elon Musk’s ideas. However the matter of satellites shouldn’t be treated as lightly as he was brushing off concerns of blocking the orbit. I think the nations must act faster and create laws of managing space in cosmos and think through what is best for future space projects.