On January 30, 2026, SpaceX filed an application with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for a megaconstellation of up to one million satellites to power data centres in space.
The proposal envisions satellites operating between 500 and 2,000 kilometers in low Earth orbit. Some of the orbits are designed for near-constant exposure to sunlight. The public can currently submit comments on this proposal.
SpaceX’s filing is just the latest among exponentially growing satellite megaconstellation proposals. Such satellites operate with a single purpose and have short replacement life cycles of about five years.
As of February 2026, approximately 14,000 active satellites are in orbit. An additional 1.23 million proposed satellite projects are in various stages of development.
The approval process for these satellites focuses almost entirely on the limited technical info companies have to submit to regulators.
Cultural, spiritual, and most environmental impacts aren’t taken into account — but they should be.
The night sky will drastically change
At this scale of growth, the night sky will change permanently and globally for generations to come.
Satellites in low Earth orbit reflect sunlight for about two hours after sunset and before sunrise. Despite engineering efforts to make them less bright, truck-sized satellites from many megaconstellations look like moving points in the night sky. Projections show future satellites will significantly increase this light pollution.
In 2021, astronomers estimated that in less than a decade, 1 in every 15 points of light in the night sky would be a moving satellite. That estimate only included the 65,000 megaconstellation satellites proposed at the time.
Once deployed at a scale of millions, the impacts on the night sky may not be easily reversed.
While the average satellite only lasts about five years, companies design these megaconstellations for nearly continuous replacement and expansion. This locks in a continuous, industrialised presence in the night sky.
All this is causing a space-based “shifting baseline syndrome”, where each new generation accepts a progressively more degraded night sky. Criss-crossing satellites become the new normal.
And for the first time in human history, this shifting baseline means kids today won’t grow up with the same night sky every previous generation of humanity had access to.
Houston, we have a ‘mega’ problem
Concerns over the sheer volume of proposed satellites come from many sides.
Scientific concerns include bright reflections and radio emissions from satellites that will disrupt astronomy.
Industry experts also note traffic management and logistical concerns. There’s currently no form of unified space traffic management in the same way that exists in aviation, for example.
Megaconstellations also increase the risk of Kessler syndrome, a runaway chain reaction of collisions. There are already 50,000 pieces of debris in orbit that are ten centimetres or larger. If satellites stopped all collision avoidance manoeuvres, the latest data shows we can expect a major collision in 3.8 days.
Major cultural concerns abound, too. Satellite light pollution will negatively impact Indigenous uses of the night sky for longstanding oral traditions, navigation, hunting, and spiritual traditions.
Launching so many satellites uses up vast amounts of fossil fuels, damaging the ozone layer. After the satellites have served their purpose, the end-of-life plan is to burn them up in the atmosphere. This poses another environmental concern — depositing vast quantities of metals into the stratosphere, causing ozone depletion and other potentially harmful chemical reactions.
All this feeds into legal concerns. Under international space law, countries — not companies — are liable for harm caused by their space objects.
Space lawyers are increasingly trying to understand if international space law can actually hold corporations or private individuals accountable. This is especially important as the risk of damage, death or permanent environmental damage grows.
We can no longer ignore the gaps in regulation
Currently, the main regulations concerning satellite proposals are technical, such as deciding which radio frequencies they will use. At the national level, regulators’ focus is on launch safety, lessening environmental impacts on Earth, 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 study, navigation, Indigenous teaching and ceremony, and cultural continuity.
These are not traditional “environmental” harms, nor are they technical engineering concerns. They’re cultural impacts that fall into a regulatory blind spot.
This is why the world needs a Dark Skies Impact Assessment, as proposed by space lawyers Gregory Radisic and Natalie Gillespie.
It’s a systematic way to identify, document, and meaningfully consider all the impacts of a proposed satellite constellation before it goes ahead.
How would such an assessment work?
First, evidence must be gathered from all stakeholders. Astronomers (both amateur and professional), atmospheric scientists, environmental researchers, cultural scholars, affected communities, and industry all bring their perspectives.
Second, it’s essential to model any cumulative effects of the satellites. Assessments should analyse how constellations will change night sky visibility and skyglow, orbital congestion, and the risk of casualties on the ground.
Third, it will define clear criteria for when unobstructed sky visibility is critical for science, navigation, education, cultural practice, and shared human heritage.
Fourth, it must include mitigation pathways such as brightness reduction, orbital design changes, and deployment adjustments to lessen harm. This should include incentives for using as few satellites as possible for a given project.
Finally, the findings must be transparent, independently reviewable, and directly tied to licensing and policy decisions.
It’s not a veto tool
A Dark Skies Impact Assessment doesn’t prevent space development. It clarifies trade-offs and improves decision making.
It can lead to design choices that reduce brightness and visual interference, orbital configurations that lessen cultural impact, earlier and more meaningful consultation, and cultural considerations where harm can’t be avoided.
Most importantly, it ensures that communities affected by satellite constellations aren’t finding out about them after approval has already been granted and bright lights crawl across their skies.
The question is not whether the night sky will change — it’s already changing. Now is the time for governments and international institutions to design fair processes before those changes become permanent.
Gregory Radisic, Fellow at the Centre for Space, Cyberspace and Data Law; Senior Teaching Fellow, Faculty of Law, Bond University, and Samantha Lawler, Associate Professor, Astronomy, University of Regina
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Follow us on X, Facebook, or Pinterest
