It's also surprising from a layman's perspective the "freedom" to launch rockets into space without necessarily needing permission, the originating country of course needs to approve it but none else
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.
> 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.
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.
My comment had nothing to do with the theory of commons, only with the implementation. Yes, the better we coordonate the better the overall outcomes, but simply creating rules for the sake of creating rules will just create additional problems. You can't say "a better/new UN will fix Gaza" without understanding why the current one is failing: votes are based on population, there are very large Muslim populations, their political leaders have to play a certain tune or they'll have problems back home etc. It's all a bit more complicated than "let's all get along".
Same with space. Ok, basic rules are nice. At the very least, a norm of not having things go explody in stable orbits would definitely be welcome. Now, problem: how do you create an institution to enforce only the good rules, without scope creep and bureaucracy over 30 years?
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.
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...
I don't agree. Kessler syndrome is another M.A.D. scenario. Nobody would want it to poison the well for everyone incl. themselves.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
> 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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...
It's a genuinely international problem that can hardly be solved by throwing up one's hands and sighing that the oceans are free for everyone and ergo there's nothing that can be done. I believe one could convince a lot of people that there should be limits, I just have to scale up bad behaviors: fishing a species to extinction? pouring toxic waste into the waters? using dynamite for fishing? scraping ocean floors for minerals and turning thriving ecosystems into vast lifeless deserts? huge dragnets that catch and kill everything? Some of these things may not resonate with all people but almost everyone will answer Yes, that should not be allowed, at some point.
Space is another public commons. I will assume it will follow the same trajectory as other public commons. A few decades of abuse, leading to consequences, leading to regulations. But the regulations won't happen until the consequences happens.
- The electromagnetic spectrum - https://www.britannica.com/topic/radio/The-Golden-Age-of-Ame...
- Low altitude airspace - Part 107 Rule
- Fisheries - UNCLOS
Only the orbits that are more plentiful are free.
Then maybe the 4(+) countries that can field anti sat weapons beyond that.
If someone wants to launch satellites with a radio violating every ITU regulation there is, unless someone is going to knock on their door with a gun, it doesn't mean squat. The buck stops at your nation's capital - if they're okay with what you're doing, you can do it. Everything else is just diplomatic window dressing and doesn't really mean anything at the end of the day.
The country is the atomic unit of global governance. Everything else is just hand-shake deals and "promises." If your country says you can do something, you can do it.