That's... good? In more ways than one.
The most obvious is that any international body would be easily controlled by the big players, so you'd end up with more centralized control by the same national entities, but now they'd be controlling other countries launches as well.
The other problem is that lately international organizations have a pretty bad track record. Two examples, which I've chosen because they are actually both very important incidents and also squarely in the domain of the respective orgs: WHO with Covid with a mostly useless and visibly politicized reaction; and UN with Gaza, with a large block of Arab voters who are basically stuck at condemning Israel, but systematically refuse to actually step up and help with the problem. Both incidents are literally what those orgs were created to handle, and yet they don't.
Also space launches have a military component, not always public. I doubt many would agree to let an international body poke their nose in that.
If we aren't careful with space debris [1], deorbit protocols [2], and anti-satellite weapons [3], we risk triggering a Kessler syndrome [4] and permanently blocking our access to space. We currently have no international space agreements outside of not putting nuclear weapons in space, which is wholly inadequate for managing the dangers and safety of space development.
The only reason space has been managed decently well until now is because most of it was done through the US and Europe that have very strict regulations around safety. Don't expect this good behaviour to continue.
1. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2025/04/30/station-m...
2. https://www.livescience.com/chinese-rocket-booster-fourth-la...
3. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/chinese-satellite-de...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
> "The only reason space has been managed decently well until now is because most of it was done through the US and Europe that have very strict regulations around safety. Don't expect this good behaviour to continue."
That's a very ahistoric narrative. There's been *zero* regulation around space debris in either the US or Europe, for almost the entire space era up until now—most of it isn't in effect yet. Far from being "strictly regulated", US space operates recklessly with regards to space debris. One ongoing example: spent (ULA) Centaur upper stages have exploded in orbit in four separate incidents since 2018, due to ULA's negligence in correctly passivating/deenergizing them. Which they were never obligated to do anyway—not by regulation,
https://spacenews.com/faa-to-complete-orbital-debris-upper-s... ("FAA to complete orbital debris upper stage regulations in 2025")
The reality is that space debris is a less consequential problem than you'd get from reading HN; the early players in space could, and did, get away with being extraordinarily negligent.
I think you just argued my point. These are the countries that have the most rules. We've effectively relied on NASA being very careful until recently (yet we still have issues of recklessness and carelessness), but that is not gonna fly (pun intended) going forward.
> There's been zero regulation around space debris in either the US or Europe
I present to you Project West Ford [1], and its influence on the original creation of the Outer Space Treaty. Though the wording of the treaty itself makes little mention of space debris explicitly, it's indeed part of the treaty. But the mild wording and weak enforcement are insufficient to deter recklessness.
- Article I – Freedom of Use and Access
- Article IX – Due Regard and International Consultation
- Article VI – International Responsibility
- Article VII – Liability
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford
Meh, orbits and nuclei are vastly different scales, I've tried to simulate this by making everything in space-track a 10km radius sphere and it was just a few starlink nudging each other a couple times a week.
Isn't the theory that each nudge results in 100 new objects?
> Don't expect this good behaviour to continue.
I don't agree. Kessler syndrome is another M.A.D. scenario. Nobody would want it to poison the well for everyone incl. themselves.
I don’t think it really is MAD; for example in a war (I mention this because the comment a couple up talks about anti-satellite weapons) where one side has a major satellite advantage, the other side would probably be tempted to kick off Kessler syndrome. It is a long term problem but the potentially pro-Kessler side doesn’t care much unless they win, and it doesn’t actually cause them major destruction until they want to go start exploring space again (which would probably be put on pause until the war is over).
And, it would be really bad. But to some extent, can you blame them? If they are getting whacked every day by GPS guided bombs or drones, or they are being outsmarted by satellite-gathered intelligence, why should they take it? If we’ve put parts of our weapons in space, we’re the ones weaponizing it, right?
There are basically countless examples in human history of disparate self-interested parties overusing a shared resource and failing to regulate themselves until that resource becomes unusable for everyone involved, from the most micro scale office fridge scenario through to global scale like ocean overfishing and carbon emissions. I don’t see how polluting orbital space is much different than polluting our water, soil, and air.
By that same reasoning everyone should be doing their best to avoid runaway climate change, yet here we are. The tragedy of the commons is tragic.
Things are more civilized in space, maybe in part because of the relatively small number of big players. But at the same time there are tentative signs that we might be in the early stages of Kessler syndrome. It's hard to tell, and by the time we can tell with certainty it might be hard to still act in time
I think the difference is "perceived cost of the catastrophe". Many parties believe or choose to believe that all the damage done can be reversed, or it can't be that bad (which is very wrong, BTW) or, I'll die anyway, who cares.
For space, this perceived cost might be higher so, the limited number of parties might be more cautious.
Indeed I'm aware of The Tragedy of Commons, but from my view, space is a bit more nuanced.
Wish we were much more diligent about our planet though. We, humans, pillage it like all resources are infinite. Sad.
Hi my name is SpaceY and I get paid to launch other companies payloads. What happens once they're deployed in orbit is the customer's responsibility, we specialize only in launching.
Companies don't work for the public good, or even their own good, most of the time. Strange that you'd expect that to change.
> Strange that you'd expect that to change.
I don't expect companies to change. I expect government to regulate and oversee...
What's stranger is, people calling for deregulation of everything despite knowing how it's gonna end up.
The fact that the well is constantly being poisoned would belie that fact.
Kessler syndrome is incredibly overrated.
It's completely incapable of "permanently blocking access to space". What it's capable of is "shit up specific orbit groups so that you can't loiter in them for years unless you accept a significant collision risk".
Notably, the low end of LEO is exempt, because the atmosphere just eats space debris there. And things like missions to Moon or Mars are largely unaffected - because they have no reason to spend years in affected orbits.
LEO is indeed exempt (which is a great thing given that it's getting quite crowded up there). But we could easily break geostationary orbits from being viable, as they don't decay from atmospheric drag.
In the ISS decommission report that evaluated different retirement plans [1] for the ISS, the suggestion to park the ISS in a higher orbit was evaluated but dismissed because raising its orbit out of LEO would increase collision risk to >4 years lifetime, and raising it further requires too much fuel.
ISS is currenrly in the higher end of LEO, meaning most debri decay away slowly. But higher orbits are already hazardous, and our space development is still very small-scale in those orbits. "loiter around for years" is already at 5 years. And that's with a relatively small amount of development and short history. If we want to do space in anther 100 year without inch-thick steel armour on our rockets that leave earth, we need some regulation around this.
1. https://www.nasa.gov/faqs-the-international-space-station-tr...
Somebody has never heard of the tragedy of the commons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
> The tragedy of the commons is the concept that, if many people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource, such as a pasture, they will tend to overuse it and may end up destroying its value altogether. Even if some users exercised voluntary restraint, the other users would merely replace them, the predictable result being a "tragedy" for all.
There is no right of absolute freedom, because at some point that freedom affects other people who also have rights. So we're always limited explicitly and implicitly in what we can do. Free, unfettered access just means taking something away from somebody else.
Space is the one resource that isn't finite. And even in LEO, the amount of space is huge. It's about the same surface area of the earth, but tens of kilometers thick.
We used to have to leave a lot of space between satellites because their orbits varied unpredictably, but we've gotten better at packing them.
Someday we'll talk about the days of 5000 satellites like we talk about when computers had 4096 bytes of RAM, and it will be fine.
ITU is the big international body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...
That police and justice courts don't catch every thief is not an argument to abolish the judiciary or make stealing legal. That police and judges habitually act in favor of certain people is likewise not an indication that a society without regulatory institutions is better off than one with admittedly flawed ones.
Police and courts have legitimacy because they are created by the sovereign nation. There is no sovereign entity above the nation - you're comparing apples and hammers.
If nations have legitimacy then they can enter into supra-/international bodies and agreements with legitimacy much like two persons can agree on an arbiter to resolve differences in their mutual contracts. This is nothing new and we've been doing it for a long time—the Egyptian 18th dynasty entered into the first known peace treaty with a foreign nation 1500 years BCE; NATO and the United Nations are modern examples. The US, of course, is a country that has been notoriously difficult to get into international agreements (Paris/Kyoto, WHO, ICC).
Those international bodies and agreements only have legitimacy because nations agree that they do.
To take a slightly different take, Mexico exists as an objective fact. The EU can decide not to recognize Mexico as a country but Mexico continues to exist and faces basically no adverse reaction from this. If the countries that make up the EU decided it was done and stopped acknowledging it, it would cease to exist. It has no population, no military, no land. No means of projecting force. Mexico retains these properties and abilities regardless of any agreements to the contrary, or lack thereof.
I'm not saying international agreements don't exist but that they have no inherent sovereignty because they are by definition but hand-shake agreements between independent sovereign members.
And what do you think the downsides to unregulated space launches might be, particularly as commercial launches become more commonly viable?
[dead]