The debate has also butted up against a thornier question: who should decide whether Starlink is bad for the environment, exactly? To that end, the Federal Communications Commission has entertained exempting space-based operations from scrutiny under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on the grounds that satellites operate in extraterritorial airspace. That’s a mistake, astronomers, advocates for dark skies and several state attorneys general say — and the consequences aren’t strictly confined to space.
What the FCC is actually proposing for satellites
For decades, the FCC had categorically excluded most satellite authorizations under NEPA. Now it is considering whether to specifically exempt “space-based operations” by declaring any effects beyond the U.S. outside national jurisdiction. The explicit objective to update rules, cut red tape and speed up communications infrastructure paints the move as a pro-innovation, pro-competition effort for the Commission.
Importantly, this is a rulemaking process, not a final determination. Industry, researchers and the public are in on the act. The Commission will need to balance demands for alacrity with credible claims that satellite constellations generate terrestrial impacts — from skyglow to atmospheric chemistry — that NEPA was constructed to bring into view.
The case for maintaining satellites under NEPA
Astronomers and light-pollution groups say low Earth orbit is a piece of the “human environment.” The American Astronomical Society and DarkSky International say large constellations make the night too bright and images look as if they’ve been streaked, obscuring data for observatories that scan for near-Earth asteroids or study faint galaxies or monitor climate. Accounts gathered by the International Astronomical Union’s Centre for the Protection of Dark and Quiet Skies record satellite brightness well into naked-eye visibility — even after mitigation efforts — with predictions of a significant increase in streaked exposures as fleets expand.
But this is not just about sensitive telescopes. The night sky is also a shared cultural resource, as well as a pillar of ecotourism and indigenous traditions. The central thrust of NEPA is to make agencies publicly review trade-offs — which critics say can’t happen if satellites are waived at the outset.
Unanswered atmospheric and climate questions
Other than light, scientists are investigating what launches and reentries toss into the air. Peer‑reviewed studies published in journals including Geophysical Research Letters and JGR‑Atmospheres have raised two potential flags: black carbon from rockets that warms and perturbs the stratosphere, and aluminum oxides produced when satellites burn up above Earth’s atmosphere that might be ozone loss catalysts. If mega‑constellations replaced thousands of satellites on short time scales, they calculate that hundreds of times more tons of nonterrestrial engineered material could be deposited aloft per annum — more than the natural input of aluminum from meteoric dust into key atmospheric layers.
Also, the number of uncontrolled reentries has been monitored by NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office and collaborating university teams, and they’ve seen an increase in these cases around the world, too. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that debris will strike an individual — and pieces have hit U.S. terrain. That risk to physical safety, no matter how slight, by definition is not extraterritorial.
Industry: Space is outside NEPA — and there’s a payoff
The satellite operators argue that their on‑orbit activities happen in no man’s land, beyond any corner of the U.S. and therefore scope of NEPA. They cite significant public benefits — including broadband to rural areas, disaster resilience, maritime and aviation safety and promising new direct‑to‑device services. They also emphasize mitigation: designs for dimmer satellites, attitude control to minimize glints, rapid deorbiting and compliance with debris rules.
The FCC, on debris in particular, has already strengthened standards by mandating that most new low‑orbit satellites get rid of themselves within five years after their mission ends — a major break with the decades-old 25-year standard. The companies have stated that most of the vehicle’s mass will burn up upon reentry and does not reach the surface.
Is the FCC the right referee for space NEPA reviews?
Even those who criticize the exemption differ on who should conduct environmental review. The F.A.A.’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation already performs environmental assessments for launch and landing sites. NOAA licenses commercial remote sensing. Dark‑sky research and collaborations with industry received funding from NASA and the National Science Foundation. NEPA policy is established by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. One way forward is an interagency framework that sets forth what piece each regulator owns, rather than stretching a single agency’s mandate.
State attorneys general have written to the FCC and urged these steps:
- Docket the specifics of what is definitely being proposed as regulation.
- Release concrete regulatory text for public comment if this proposal changes.
- Offer something more than a cursory explanation of any extraterritorial carve-out.
Their point is procedural but not insubstantial — NEPA calls for transparency before a significant federal action, not after.
So, is Starlink bad for the environment or not?
The honest answer is that the ledger is incomplete. Starlink and other similar systems do provide evident social and economic services, and their operators are already making strides in preventing deleterious light pollution — they will likely learn to demonstrate even more concrete eventual benefits. Yet the top scientific evidence suggests non‑trivial threats to astronomy, the stratosphere, and ground safety warranting formal public evaluation.
That’s exactly what NEPA was promulgated for: not to stop projects, but to force facts, trade‑offs and alternatives into the open, on the record. The question of whether the FCC carves out satellites or launches a broader review will have critical bearing on how fast we’ll see mega‑constellations get big — and how soundly.
