Those Who Change the Sky

I enjoy watching the night sky. By a campfire, under the open sky, or anywhere city lights do not get in the way. But alongside stars and meteors, I increasingly notice other moving points of light — objects humanity has sent there.

It is sad that we pollute the space around our planet in much the same way as the places we settle. This is not only about Earth and its immediate surroundings. For me, the thought runs deeper: how we treat shared space once we have the power to change it.

Satellites bring benefits we use in everyday life: navigation, the ability to communicate with friends on the other side of the world, internet access in places without good infrastructure, and the ability to observe Earth, its surroundings, and deep space. I find it remarkable that humanity has managed to leave Earth behind, overcome something that once seemed unimaginable, and land on the Moon — and that one day we may travel even farther.

Satellites themselves are not the problem for me. What worries me is how quickly their numbers are growing, and that decisions about changing the space above our heads are made primarily by states and corporations with the technology and capital to do so — often without broader public debate.

Just look at Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet network. The first 120 satellites were launched into it in 2019. By March 2026, more than 10,000 active Starlink satellites were operating in orbit — more than eighty-three times as many in less than seven years.

This is not only about operational satellites. Defunct satellites, discarded rocket parts, and fragments from collisions or weapons tests also remain in orbit. Such debris is not easily cleaned up — and with each additional object, the space around Earth becomes more complex and more dangerous.

In 2021, Russia used an anti-satellite missile to destroy its own satellite, Cosmos 1408. The resulting debris cloud endangered other satellites and astronauts in orbit. This is not a hypothetical problem. It is already happening. One state’s reckless decision can put everyone who uses this space at risk.

Even before a satellite reaches orbit, a rocket must carry it there. But its journey places a burden on our atmosphere. Rocket launches release various substances into the atmosphere — carbon dioxide, water vapour, soot, nitrogen oxides, and other particles. Alongside what we send into orbit, we should not overlook what we release into the atmosphere in the process.

Orbit is not a rule-free space. States are responsible for authorising and supervising private activities under their jurisdiction, while the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) coordinates radio frequencies and orbital resources.

But there is no unified global mechanism that would treat orbit as a shared space: one that would determine how many objects may be added to it and whether their benefits match the risks their operation brings.

We have the right to know what is moving above our heads, who owns it, and what it is used for. I do not expect every detail of military systems to be public. But I do not want orbit to become a space whose form is decided without public participation.

In September 2026, the US Secretary of the Air Force confirmed that the United States has weapons in orbit intended for “space control”. He did not say what these systems were, when they were deployed, or exactly what they could do. Alongside civilian services, military competition is now taking place in orbit too, and the public knows very little about what form it takes.

In September 2022, Ukraine asked SpaceX to activate Starlink near Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea for a planned attack on Russian ships. Elon Musk refused the request; until then, the service had not been active in the requested area.

This case shows that a private company can have a decisive say over infrastructure on which a state’s security may depend in a crisis — and in practice, so can the people who run it.

I do not have a complete answer to how satellites in orbit should be regulated, or what rules should govern each additional launch. Those decisions belong in a broader, informed public debate. What I want is for people to talk about it more — and for us not to treat the space around Earth as an empty place that can be filled without limit simply because we are technically able to do so.

Orbit may lie hundreds of kilometres above us, but its form still matters to us. It is part of the space that surrounds us all. And that is precisely why it makes sense to ask who is placing which objects into orbit, and what power we give to those who operate them by doing so.