Let's stop doing irreversible things. Do we need a million satellites?

The FCC public comment period for two major satellite proposals is closing fast.

Reflect Orbital's plan to launch 50,000 mirror satellites (deadline March 9) and SpaceX's proposal for up to one million orbital data centers (deadline March 6). If you have never filed a public comment before, do not let that stop you: the American Astronomical Society has published step-by-step instructions that walk you through the entire process. It takes less than 30 minutes, and your voice matters.

These new satellite proposals follow similar pattern. Neither Reflect Orbital nor SpaceX made any apparent attempt to consult or negotiate with the scientific community before filing, offering no mitigation plans and no quantitative data on brightness. It is a striking contradiction. SpaceX, in particular, markets itself as a champion of science and humanity's future and invokes visions of becoming a multi-planetary species as proof of its pro-science credentials, while simultaneously launching ventures that treat working scientists and the shared night sky as acceptable collateral damage.

A growing coalition has pushed back. DarkSky International warns that SpaceX's constellation would increase active satellites nearly 70-fold, and that effects on the night sky and orbital environment "would be extraordinarily difficult to reverse." Environment America focuses on broader environmental harm. Atmospheric pollution from launch emissions that could degrade the ozone layer, disruption to bird migration, and impacts on human sleep cycles. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) estimates that at peak megaconstellation deployment, 29 tons of satellite metal would re-enter the atmosphere daily, and organized a letter signed by 120+ researchers calling on the FCC to require environmental review before any further launches. The Federation of American Scientists has called on regulators to stop approving individual constellation pieces without assessing their cumulative environmental impact. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) previously filed formal comments arguing the FCC violated federal environmental law by failing to analyze the human and ecological impacts of Starlink's expansion.

What unites these groups is a shared frustration with how these decisions get made. None of these proposals triggered a mandatory environmental impact review. The FCC accepted SpaceX's million-satellite application in five days.

One might argue these ventures carry genuine public benefit. SpaceX's Starlink has expanded internet access to remote and underserved communities, and that counts for something. But convenience and public good are not the same thing. A public good requires public accountability, and Starlink is a private monopoly controlled by an individual who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that he is willing to use communications infrastructure for personal and political ends.

A PBS Frontline investigation documented the systematic dismantling of content moderation and independent oversight following his Twitter takeover. Research published in 2024 found that Musk's social media posts received a sudden and unexplained algorithmic boost. The motivations behind these actions appear to range from geopolitical to petty. Therefore, it is hard to argue for handing monopoly control of orbital internet infrastructure to someone with that track record.

The public comment window is one of the few moments where that accountability can actually be demanded.