Greetings, JustSpace readers and followers! This month we’re delighted to bring you a guest feature by Magnus L’Argent, a recent physics graduate of McGill University.

Astronomers, SpaceX won’t love you back

Magnus L’Argent

In July of 2022, alongside many other astronomers across the world, I eagerly watched as the first images from the JWST telescope were released. Gazing across images like the Carina Nebula, its smoky orange clouds set against a deep blue background, with newborn stars gently cradled in the foreground, I was amazed by the view of the cosmos this instrument gave us. Six months earlier, JWST had been launched from the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana. I hadn’t given much thought to the launch itself, except feeling some sense of relief that it had been successful. As an astronomer, I did not question the logistics and processes that were required to make JWST a success. I didn’t think to ask why “Europe’s Spaceport” was located in a small country in South America. Creole and Amerindian families had lived where the space port was built. What had happened to these families? The answers to these questions reveal much about the relationship between professional astronomy and the economic explosion happening in space, and why, even as academics whose work is deeply tied to it, we are particularly unprepared to meet the moment and fight back against projects actively threatening the night sky.

Reusable space launch technology is facilitating exponential growth in the number of objects in low-Earth orbit, including “mega-constellations” of thousands of satellites such as SpaceX’s Starlink. Competitors like Amazon are following close behind and the total number of satellites could balloon to as many as hundreds of thousands by 2030. The economic boom resulting from mega-constellations is also causing a variety of environmental problems. Astronomers and light pollution experts were among the first to sound off about these issues following the first launch of Starlink in 2019, noting how bright the satellites were, visible to both the naked eye when deploying just after launch and to research telescopes, recorded as obstructive streaks in images. Since then, there has been growing evidence for many other impacts from mega-constellations, including but not limited to a general brightening of the sky (meaning less stars are visible), injection of metals into the atmosphere during burn up (which could contribute to ozone loss), increased debris impacting the Earth (potentially injuring or killing someone), and significant increases of greenhouse gas emissions due to the large number of rocket launches.

We are still in the early stages of the space economy boom, but it does not appear to be slowing. SpaceX is preparing to go public this year, and could be valued as much as $1.75 trillion, seeking to raise $50 billion for its initial public offering, the largest on record. Meanwhile, the licensing agency for satellites in the US, the Federal Communications Commission, is giving industry the green light, modifying regulations to create a “licensing assembly line.”

In the same way fossil fuel companies fund renewable energy projects to deflect from their unceasing extraction, space companies also engage in “greenwashing” to portray a sustainable public image. The most egregious example is the recent proposal by Reflect Orbital to deploy giant mirrors to redirect sunlight to the Earth’s surface at night. In a comically tone-deaf statement, they claim their ambition is to “make clean energy more abundant and lighting more sustainable.” This comes despite over 1800 comments from the public calling on the FCC, the US licensing agency for satellites, to shut down the project, based on potential risks to eyes, harm to nighttime wildlife, and light pollution. Reflect Orbital’s messaging also reveals another clever trick, something I am calling “astrowashing.” The company claims that even before applying with the FCC, they were “engaging with members of the Astronomical community” and that they “want astronomers, researchers, and the public to experience the technology firsthand”. Meanwhile, the American Astronomical Society and the Royal Astronomical Society, together representing thousands of astronomers, have both put out statements condemning the project, with the AAS even going beyond a formal complaint and filing a petition to deny.

Making a claim that one’s project is collaborating with astronomers, is approved by astronomers, or will even benefit astronomers has been a way to protect the public image of companies like SpaceX, whose satellites have yet to meet the maximum brightness threshold recommended by the International Astronomer’s Union. The protection provided by collaborating with astronomers is not limited to public discourse; it also helps in the court of law. In 2023, the light pollution advocacy group DarkSky International legally challenged the FCC’s “categorical exclusion” for satellites, which allows them to avoid environmental assessments, since the agency considers space activities “extraterritorial activities with effects located entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.” In other words, they are of the opinion that what happens in space somehow won’t affect the Earth. The court sided with the FCC and SpaceX, stating that “the FCC reasonably concluded that SpaceX’s mitigation efforts…were sufficient to avoid significant environmental impacts.” These mitigation efforts included “collaborating with many of the groups that raised reflectivity concerns—including NASA and the National Science Foundation.” Essentially, SpaceX can claim that its mitigation efforts with astronomers and other concerned groups, inadequate as they may be in actually meeting the standards set by these bodies, are enough to preclude it from a proper environmental assessment.

If this wasn’t evidence enough that there is a fundamental conflict here that cannot be mediated through “mitigation,” the most recent proposal by SpaceX for a 1-million satellite data center constellation completely destroys any semblance that remained of collaboration. Such a project, if successful, would completely reshape the night sky and how astronomy is done. Similar to Reflect Orbital, many professional astronomy associations and citizens have submitted comments to the FCC against the project. Other space companies, like Blue Origin, are following SpaceX’s lead, in this case filing for its own 50,000-satellite constellation. If this is allowed to happen, then mega-constellation companies will continue to offer crumbs in the form of “mitigation” until their products are completely normalized and integrated into the global economy, to the point where removal or reduction will be unthinkable. What will we do once tens of millions rely on Starlink for internet access? It won’t be so simple then to suggest reducing the number of satellites.

There is still time to prevent major impacts on the space environment if we learn from the failures of past and contemporary environmentalism movements. There are many parallels between the fossil fuel industry and the space industry. Through rocket launches, materials and energy originating from local sites on Earth are deposited into the world’s low-orbit region in space. This parallels fossil fuel extraction and combustion, where the sites of extraction, processing, and transportation are linked to specific locations like pipelines, oil fields, coal mines, etc., but the impacts are distributed globally. Rather than limiting fossil fuel extraction and consumption to deal with the widely-known adverse effects these have on the environment, fossil fuels are still being pumped out of the ground at high rates, with 2025 setting a new record for fossil fuel emission. Emphasis is often put on speculative technological solutions such as geoengineering or carbon capture, rather than reducing output. This is mirrored in the satellite industry by “sustainable” proposals such as recycling satellites or relying on increasingly complicated avoidance maneuvers in crowded orbits. Only about 7% of materials on Earth are recycled; why would we expect a radical departure from this, especially in space where there are so many more challenges? Similarly, if we consider how the risk of orbital collisions is growing and that the “crash clock” (a metric of how long it would take for a collision of satellites to occur in the case where avoidance maneuvers are not possible) shortens everyday (5.5 days vs 164 back in 2018), these technology-based approaches are not sufficient to prevent disaster.

Even if we are able to mitigate all the currently known environmental issues of mega-constellations, this misses the root issue. If space is operated under the same economic framework that has allowed the climate crisis to continue unimpeded, we are only treating symptoms, not the cause. Biologist Richard Lewontin’s idea of agents versus causes is a useful framing here. Satellites and rockets, and the orbital debris that they produce, act as agents of various pollutants, but they are not the cause. The real cause is the continuation of colonialism and globalization through the commercialization of space. Capitalism has a need to expand, and companies like SpaceX have to create ever-growing profits for their shareholders. This is the most important internal contradiction that exists within the space industry, and one that astronomers must realize cannot be mitigated away. As Lewonthin writes in Biology as Ideology: “one pollutant will replace another.” Even if Reflect Orbital is unsuccessful, another outlandish project will rise to take its place.

Why are astronomers failing in this moment to effectively combat these changes? The astronomy community in general has consistently neglected to acknowledge its own contributions to colonialism and how it still benefits to this day from the fallout. One need only look at cases like the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea, which saw astronomers come face to face with the colonial legacy on which our research is established. Professional astronomy is already a niche discipline that is difficult to break into. The extra data processing and mitigation procedures that will be required in the future if the sky is crowded with satellites will increase the cost of observations and therefore reduce the accessibility of the field even more. Astronomers have made efforts to organize academically, such as the SATCON1&2 and Dark & Quiet Skies 1&2 workshops, which led to the creation of the IAU Centre for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Sky from Satellite Constellation Interference (CPS). This resulted in a list of recommendations for industry, including brightness limits, but these have largely not been adopted. The European Union’s Space Act, intended to unify the EU’s space policy and establish common guidelines for satellite operators, originally included a brightness limit similar to the one proposed by the CPS. However, following a consultation period in which many companies pushed back on the draft, the limit has been dropped in favor of more vague language.

More devastatingly, mega-constellations will further brighten the night sky, threatening everyone’s view of it. The night sky is one of humanity’s oldest and most culturally significant resources. For Indigenous cultures and folk traditions, the stars of the night sky are crucial as a record of history, laws, and stories. The systematic lack of representation of Indigenous peoples in decisions to launch light-polluting mega-constellations to space means the rapid disappearance of stars from view can be interpreted as a cultural genocide and its loss follows Rob Nixon’s “slow violence,” where incremental environmental degradation experienced by the poor and Indigenous is ignored. This is built on the history of excluding many countries from international space law governance. Take, for example, what is happening at SpaceX’s Starbase in the Rio Grande Valley, USA, where rocket testing has limited local beach access, started a fire in the neighbouring state park, and launched “watermelon-sized” concrete debris over six miles away. The surrounding community is one of the poorest in the country and majority Hispanic/Latino. The land bordering Starbase is also inhabited by the Carrizo-Comecrudo tribe, including the ancient burial site Garcia Pasture, which is threatened by the activities of the launch site. Starbase is following a long tradition of colonial powers building rocket launch bases on indigenous land and instigating environmental conflicts, as seen with the Guiana Space Centre.

This lack of democracy in space governance is also part of the root causes. Space activities are dominated by a small number of states, and within those states, a small number of mega-corporations. There is no global forum for space holding these actors accountable. The most aggressive actors, those who can get there first, are setting the norms. If we want to get serious about slowing or stopping disasters due to space activities, astronomers and other environmental groups need to walk in step with the groups already fighting every day to combat these problems, instead of appealing to the industry begging for “mitigation.”

Groups like the Carrizo-Comecrudo are organizing their local community and are supporting an ongoing lawsuit against SpaceX about its beach closure. Instead of appealing to industry, supporting, learning from, and working alongside communities like these is where the true opportunities for change lie for professional astronomers. The night sky is a powerful unifying force, and recognizing that there is more at stake here than just our research will make us more effective. By reflecting on our responsibility in these conflicts, being honest with ourselves about the true motivations of companies like SpaceX, and allying with groups like these, we have a much better chance of preserving the night sky for future generations.

Take Action

If you’re interested in contributing a piece on space and social justice to the JustSpace Alliance newsletter, reach out to [email protected] to learn more about our current funding status for commissions, or to pitch a topic.

We also invite you to apply to join the JustSpace Alliance at bit.ly/JustSpaceApply! Members have access to our virtual community spaces, and in the future, we’ll be able to offer in-person gatherings, more podcast and video content, writing, and more. Supporting JustSpace will help us reach our mission goals by allowing us to compensate people for their time and labor for our future projects, as well as help us cover basic costs like maintaining our website, etc. You can find more information at bit.ly/JustSpaceMemberFAQ.