Eve, here. With all the attention focused on the Iran war, it’s easier than it seems for a tech giant like Elon Musk to pursue a business plan to fundamentally change the planet through SpaceX. This is not an exaggeration. Reflector orbit satellites create incredible levels of light pollution that can end the night as we know it. The impact on life, including nocturnal species and even plants, cannot be estimated and could be devastating. There is another polluting SpaceX energy generation plan. We focus on reflected trajectories in our discussion. Scroll further down to read The Conversation’s article discussing SpaceX’s plan to “power data centers” and why it’s so dangerous.
Act now because SpaceX’s energy-harvesting satellites, which have a lifespan of only five years and will cause serious harm, have a March deadline and Reflect Orbital has a March 9th deadline.
We hope that all of our readers, who are American citizens, will take the time to write to the FCC to oppose these extremely dangerous plans. Crafting a short, formal memo that clearly expresses your disagreement is more important than sending a well-crafted message. Numbers matter.
An easy way to find out how to post a comment is to use the American Astronomical Society’s alert page. Here’s important information about how to submit your comments:
Additional details about these satellite systems are provided below. Follow our step-by-step guide to submit your comments to the FCC.
The full FCC application can be viewed here (please note that you must create an FCC CORES account to view the files attached to the application).
FCC File Number: SAT-LOA-20250701-00129 Public Comment Deadline: March 9, 2026
This call to action comes from reader ChiGal’s sister. We have edited your email based on our introduction. At the end of her remarks, I’ll include an article from The Conversation that goes into more detail about the dangers of this plan.
Let’s start with Chigal’s younger sister, Diana.
Here is an article that attempts to explain some of the problems with the SpaceX program, which is the largest in terms of number of satellites and therefore has the potential to cause the most uncontrollable re-entries. But the Reflect Orbital project is even scarier to me because it wants to use 50,000 satellites to provide lighting like giant light bulbs in space, and it is proposed that even one of the Reflect Orbital satellites will provide as much light as a full moon.
Although the dangers of “satellites” are unknown (again, in my existential view), the dangers of uncontrolled re-entry are already in sight. For example, the huge lithium contamination from this recent event.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-03154-8
Everyone has the right to submit comments to the FCC, so if you decide to take action, we encourage you to offer your personal views as a private citizen about why you don’t want this to happen, rather than using a template that reflects astronomy-centric concerns.
The future of the night sky is at risk!
Project 1 (Reflector Orbit): This is a constellation of 50,000 satellites that uses mirror satellites to reflect sunlight back to Earth at night. Not only would it disrupt wildlife behavior and our sleep patterns, but it would also threaten astronomical facilities.
Project 2 (SpaceX): Launch 1 million new satellites into orbit. This is a new orbital data center project, not an internet service from space called Starlink that has already been approved and is underway. Most of this constellation is in a sun-synchronous orbit, ensuring constant illumination, posing a serious threat to astronomy.
Because all LEO satellites have short lifetimes, the deployment and maintenance of megaconstellations in LEO has additional environmental impacts, from continuous launches to frequent re-entries.
Historic opportunity: You can now comment to the FCC to request environmental impact statements and stop these projects.
AAS has provided instructions for interested parties to post public comments on these two proposed constellations: https://aas.org/action-alert-provide-input-fcc-proused-satellite-systems
DarkSky International also provides two useful templates:
Copy, edit, and print as a PDF that you can attach to your FCC form.
Reflect Orbital’s comment period ends on March 6, 2026, and SpaceX’s deadline to proceed is March 9.
Now, are there too many satellites? Earth’s orbit is heading towards catastrophe, but we can stop it.
Written by Gregory Radicic. Fellow at the Center for Space, Cyberspace and Data Law. Samantha Lawler, Senior Teaching Fellow, Faculty of Law, Bond University and Associate Professor of Astronomy, University of Regina; Originally published on The Conversation
On January 30, 2026, SpaceX applied to the Federal Communications Commission for a mega-constellation of up to one million satellites to power data centers in space.
The proposal envisions the satellite operating in low Earth orbit between 500 and 2,000 kilometers. Some orbits are designed to be exposed to sunlight nearly all the time. The public can now submit comments on this proposal.
Based on SpaceX’s FCC filing, here’s an SSO halo and multiple 30-degree LEO shells. pic.twitter.com/RdP5F9mFqq
— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) February 10, 2026
SpaceX’s application is just the latest in a growing number of proposals for an exponentially growing satellite mega-constellation. Such satellites serve a single purpose and have a short replacement life cycle of approximately five years.
As of February 2026, there are approximately 14,000 active satellites in orbit. A further 1.23 million satellite projects have been proposed and are in various stages of development.
The approval process for these satellites focuses almost entirely on the limited technical information that companies must submit to regulators.
Cultural, spiritual, and most environmental impacts are not considered, but should be.
The night sky changes dramatically
At this scale of growth, the night sky will be permanently and globally changed for generations to come.
Satellites in low Earth orbit reflect sunlight for about two hours, from sunset to sunrise. Despite technological efforts to reduce their brightness, the truck-sized satellites of many giant constellations appear like moving points in the night sky. Predictions show that future satellites will significantly increase this light pollution.
By 2021, astronomers estimate that within 10 years, one in every 15 light points in the night sky will be a mobile satellite. This estimate included only the 65,000 mega-constellation satellites proposed at the time.
Once deployed in the millions, their effects on the night sky may not be easily reversed.
Although the average satellite lifespan is only about five years, companies are designing these megaconstellations to be replaced and expanded almost continuously. This permanently anchors an industrialized presence in the night sky.
.
All of this is creating a space-based “baseline fluctuation syndrome” where each generation accepts a progressively worse night sky. Intersecting satellites will be the new normal.
And for the first time in human history, this change in baseline means that today’s children will no longer grow up seeing the same night sky that previous generations of humanity had access to.
Conversation, CC BY-SA
Houston, we have a ‘huge’ problem
Concerns about the sheer volume of proposed satellites come from a variety of sides.
Scientific concerns include bright reflections and radio emissions from satellites that disrupt astronomy.
Industry experts also point to concerns regarding traffic management and logistics. Currently, there is no form of integrated space traffic management, such as exists in aviation, for example.
Giant constellations also increase the risk of Kessler syndrome, a runaway chain reaction of collisions. There are already 50,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 centimeters in orbit. The latest data shows that if the satellite ceases all collision avoidance actions, a major collision is expected within 3.8 days.
.
There are also a lot of big cultural concerns. Satellite light pollution negatively impacts indigenous peoples’ use of the night sky for long-standing oral traditions, navigation, hunting, and spiritual traditions.
Launching so many satellites consumes huge amounts of fossil fuels and depletes the ozone layer. After the satellite has served its purpose, the end use plan is to burn it up in the atmosphere. This poses another environmental problem by depositing large amounts of metals into the stratosphere, causing ozone layer depletion and other potentially harmful chemical reactions.
All of this leads to legal concerns. Under international space law, countries, not companies, are responsible for damage caused by space objects.
Space lawyers are trying to understand whether international space law can actually hold companies and individuals accountable. This is especially important as the risk of injury, death, or permanent environmental damage increases.
Regulatory gaps can no longer be ignored
Currently, the main regulations regarding satellite proposals are technical, such as determining the radio frequencies to be used. At the national level, regulators are focused on launch safety, reducing the environmental impact on the planet, and liability if something goes wrong.
What these regulations don’t capture is how hundreds of thousands of bright satellites change the night sky for scientific research, navigation, indigenous teachings and rituals, and cultural continuity.
These are not traditional “environmental” harms, nor are they technical engineering problems. These are cultural influences that fall into regulatory blind spots.
This is why the world needs a Dark Sky Impact Assessment, proposed by space lawyers Gregory Radisic and Natalie Gillespie.
It is a systematic way to identify, document, and meaningfully consider all the impacts of a proposed satellite constellation before proceeding.
How does such an assessment work?
First, you need to gather evidence from all stakeholders. Astronomers (both amateur and professional), atmospheric scientists, environmental researchers, cultural scholars, affected communities, and industry bring their perspectives to the table.
Second, it is essential to model the cumulative impact of satellites. The assessment should analyze how constellations change night sky visibility, sky brightness, orbital congestion, and risk of casualties on the ground.
Third, we define clear criteria when unobstructed views of the sky are important to science, navigation, education, cultural practices, and the common heritage of humanity.
Fourth, mitigation pathways such as brightness reduction, orbit design changes, and implementation adjustments to reduce harm should be included. This should include incentives to use as few satellites as possible in a given project.
Finally, findings must be transparent, independently reviewable, and directly linked to licensing and policy decisions.
It’s not a veto tool
The Dark Sky Impact Assessment does not prevent space exploration. Clarify tradeoffs and improve decision making.
It can lead to design choices that reduce brightness and visual interference, track configurations that reduce cultural impacts, earlier and more meaningful consultations, and cultural considerations where harm is unavoidable.
Most importantly, approval has already been granted to ensure that the communities affected by the satellite constellation do not find out about it after the bright light crawls across the sky.
The question is not whether the night sky will change; it is already changing. Now is the time for governments and international organizations to design fair processes before these changes become permanent.
