It is clear at this point in time that we do not have a full accounting for all of the known and potential harms associated with a vast increase in the number of LEO satellites expected in the 2020s. It may be further argued that the current international space policy framework is inadequate to address these concerns, and combined with the advent of low-cost commercial launches it has led to a sense in which near-Earth space is the new Wild West where the priority of access is determined by who is the first to arrive. To the extent that near-Earth space represents a kind of commons, as implied by the language of the OST[1], there is now a strong possibility of a tragedy of that commons in which individual users of that space, unhindered by social strictures or meaningful international regulation, simply act in their own self-interest and diminish the resource through their largely uncoordinated activities.[2] Debate over the nature of this commons and the sustainability of its use has fragmented the participants into idealist and conformist factions[3], further muddying the waters as we collectively search for some kind of fair and amicable agreement on the shared use of the resource of near-Earth space. However, all sides seek regulatory clarity and certainty, which seems to be the best hope for achieving some kind of consensus moving forward.
- ↑ Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. (https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/ treaties/outerspacetreaty.html)
- ↑ See, e.g., Hardin, G. (1968), The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. 162 (3859): 1243, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
- ↑ Verstegen, S. & Hanekamp, J. (2005), The sustainability debate: Idealism versus conformism—the controversy over economic growth, Globalizations, 2 (3): 349
