On Monday, Amazon launched its first batch of operational Project Kuiper satellites in its attempt to compete with SpaceX's Starlink for providing fast and reliable internet connectivity across the globe.
While the advent of more competition in the rarefied realm of space-based communications might be good for consumers, the surging numbers of satellites orbiting Earth could be very bad in myriad disturbing ways. As our top story notes, when the first Starlink batch launched in 2019, there were about 2,000 satellites in orbit; today, thanks to that SpaceX project and other mega constellations, there are more than 11,000. And this remarkable trend of growth seems destined only to accelerate.
More satellites mean more "space traffic" to manage—more crowded orbits, more near-misses to avoid, and, sooner or later, more actual collisions that produce hazardous cascades of debris. Some of this debris risk can be mitigated by deliberately deorbiting defunct satellites to burn up in Earth's atmosphere, but even then the massive influx of vaporized metals and plastic into the air can frightfully degrade vital things like our planet's protective ozone layer. Even leaving all that aside, swelling numbers of satellites will also unavoidably interfere with all sorts of astronomical observations that depend on clear, dark skies. And, perhaps worst of all, regulatory frameworks that might rein in the worst excesses of mega constellations are relatively threadbare, fostering a laissez-faire approach that could prove profoundly damaging in the longer term.
Simply put, thanks to mega constellations Earth's orbital environment is now undergoing dramatic change. Could the escalating situation reach a breaking point? And if so, when? What's at stake—and is the push for ubiquitous satellite-based connectivity worth what could be some very high environmental costs? Read our top story to find out more. —Lee Billings
