Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The case for space environmentalism


The shell bound by the Karman line at a height of ~80–100 km above the Earth’s surface and geosynchronous orbit at ~36,000 km is defined as the orbital space surrounding the Earth. It is within this region, and especially in low Earth orbit, where environmental issues are becoming urgent because of the rapid growth of the anthropogenic space object population, including satellite ‘mega-constellations’. In this Perspective, we summarize the case for considering the orbital space around the Earth as an additional ecosystem, subject to the same care and concerns, and the same broad regulations as the oceans and the atmosphere, for example. We rely on the orbital space environment by looking through it, as well as by working within it. Hence, we should consider damage to professional astronomy, public stargazing, and the cultural importance of the sky, as well as the sustainability of commercial, civic, and military activity in space. Damage to the orbital space environment has problematic features in common with other types of environmental issue. First, the observed and predicted damage is incremental and complex, with many contributors. Second, whether or not space is formally and legally seen as a global commons, the growing commercial exploitation of what may seem to be a ‘free’ resource is in fact externalizing the true costs.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The growth of all tracked objects in space over time.
Fig. 2: Visualization of the currently tracked objects in LEO.
Fig. 3: Visualization of 4,000 ASOs in various orbital neighbourhoods.
Fig. 4: An image of the sky taken by the Dark Energy Survey camera in 2019.
Fig. 5: An observation made using the Hubble Space Telescope in November 2020.
Fig. 6: The evolution of the satellite population, debris population and cumulative collisions for scenarios at a height of 600 km with frequent de-orbiting.

Data availability

The datasets and Jupyter notebooks used in the construction of Figs. 1, 2 and 6 are available via GitHub at The datasets used for Fig. 3 are available at


  1. Lawrence, A. Brief of Professor A. Lawrence as Amicus Curiae, USCA Case #21-1123 Document No. 1910216 (US Court of Appeal, 2021);

  2. Miraux, L. Environmental limits to the space sector’s growth. Sci. Total Environ. 806, 150862 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lawrence, A. Losing The Sky (Photon Productions, 2020).

  4. Long, G. The Impact of Large Constellations of Satellites Document No. JSR-20-2H (JASON Programme Office, Mitre Corporation, 2021);

  5. Rwanda files at ITU for nearly 330,000 satellites. SpaceWatch Africa (22 October 2021);

  6. Walker, C. et al. Impact of satellite constellations on optical astronomy and recommendations towards mitigations. Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 52, 0206 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hall, J. et al. Executive Summary. In Report of the SATCON2 Workshop, 12–16 July 2021 (AAS, 2021);

  8. Rawls, M. L. et al. Observations Working Group Report. In Report of the SATCON2 Workshop, 12–16 July 2021 (AAS, 2021);

  9. Venkatesan, A. Community Engagement Working Group Report. In Report of the SATCON2 Workshop, 12–16 July 2021 (AAS, 2021);

  10. Walker, C. et al. Dark and Quiet Skies for Science and Society: Report and Recommendations (UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, 2021);

  11. Walker, C. & Benvenuti, P. (eds) Dark and Quiet Skies II for Science and Society (UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, 2022);

  12. McDowell, J. General Catalog of Artificial Space Objects Release 1.2.3. (2020);

  13. Space Debris by the Numbers (ESA, 2022);

  14. Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, 2019);

  15. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (UN Office for Outer Space Afffairs, 1967);

  16. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, 1972);

  17. Jah, M. Discovering the interconnection between Heaven and Earth. Aerospace America (May 2021);

  18. Jah, M. Where to find fresh talent for the space tracking field. Aerospace America (July/August 2021);

  19. G7 Nations Commit to the Safe and Sustainable Use of Space (UK Space Agency, 2021);

  20. Space Sustainability Rating (World Economic Forum, 2021);

  21. Mroz, P. et al. Impact of the Starlink satellites on the Zwicky Transient Facility Survey observations. Astrophys. J. Lett. 924, L30 (2022).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bassa, C. G., Hainaut, O. R. & Galadi-Enriquez, D. Analytical simulations of the effect of satellite constellations on optical and near-infrared observations. Astron. Astrophys. 657, A75 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tyson, J. A. et al. Mitigation of LEO satellite brightness and trail effects on the Rubin Observatory LSST. Astron. J. 160, 226 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Feuge-Miller, B. et al. ASTRIANet Data for: Python Computational Inference from Structure (PyCIS). Texas Data Repository (2021).

  25. Kucharski, D. et al. Full attitude state reconstruction of tumbling space debris TOPEX/Poseidon via light-curve inversion with Quanta photogrammetry. Acta Astronaut. 187, 115–122 (2021).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mallama, A. The brightness of VisorSat design Starlink satellites. Preprint at (2021).

  27. Michalowoski, M. J. et al. GN-z11 flash was a signal from a man-made satellite not a gamma-ray burst at redshift 11. Nat. Astron. 5, 995–997 (2021).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lawler, S. M., Boley, A. C. & Rein, H. Visibility predictions for near-future satellite megaconstellations: latitudes near 50 degrees will suffer the worst light pollution. Astron. J. 163, 21 (2022).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. SKAO needs corrective measures from satellite ‘mega-constellation’ operators to minimise impact on its telescopes. SKAO (7 October 2020);

  30. Selection of new IAU Centre for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Sky from Satellite Constellation Interference. IAU (3 February 2022);

  31. IAU Resolution B5 In Defence of the Night Sky and the Right to Starlight (IAU, 2009);

  32. Boley, A. B. & Byers, M. Satellite mega-constellations create risks in low Earth orbit, the atmosphere, and on Earth. Sci. Rep. 11, 10642 (2021).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Brown, M. K., Lewis, H. G., Kavanagh, A. J. & Cnossen, I. Future decreases in thermospheric neutral density in low Earth orbit due to carbon dioxide emissions. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 26, e34589 (2021).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Woodward, C. High-seas launch worries islanders. Christian Science Monitor (22 September 1999);

  35. Weber, B. Inuit angered by Russian rocket splashdown in the Arctic. Globe and Mail (3 June 2016);

  36. Ailor, W. H. Large Constellation Disposal Hazards (Center for Space Policy and Strategy, The Aerospace Corporation, January 2020),

  37. Dacke, M., Baird, E., el Jundi, B., Warrant, E. J. & Byrne, M. How dung beetles steer straight. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 66, 243–256 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mouritsen, H. & Larsen, O. N. Migrating songbirds tested in computer-controlled Emlen funnels use stellar cues for a time-independent compass. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 3855–3865 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Emlen, S. T. Celestial rotation: its importance in the development of migratory orientation. Science 170, 1198–1201 (1970).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mauck, B., Gläser, N., Schlosser, W. & Dehnhardt, G. Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) can steer by the stars. Anim. Cogn. 11, 715–718 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sjoberg, S. & Muheim, R. A new view on an old debate: type of cue-conflict manipulation and availability of stars can explain the discrepancies between cue-calibration experiments with migratory songbirds. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 10, 29 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rich, C. & Longcore, T. (eds) Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting (Island, 2006).

  43. Lintott, C. & Lintott, P. Satellite megaclusters could fox night-time migrations. Nature 586, 674 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Brown, T. M. Using light to tell the time of day: sensory coding in the mammalian circadian visual network. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 1779–1792 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Phillips, T. The Starlink incident. Space Weather Archive (9 February 2022);

  46. Nair, V. Statistical families of the trackable Earth-orbiting anthropogenic space object population in their specific orbital angular momentum space version 2. Texas Data Repository (2021).

  47. IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines Revision 2 (Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, 2020);

  48. Report of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space A/74/20, para 163, Annex II (UN COPUOS, 2019);

Download references


We are grateful to H. G. Lewis at the University of Southampton for providing a dataset of orbital elements of simulated debris from the recent C1408 ASAT event, as well as for general discussions on the topic of space environmentalism. Many other colleagues have contributed indirectly to this Perspective through comments on the open document during August 2021 in preparation for the Amicus Brief, and general discussions at astronomical meetings during 2020 and 2021 at which the issue of the impact of constellations was discussed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



The Perspective was conceived, initiated and led by A.L. The initial draft was written by A.L. in collaboration with M.L.R. and M.J., who also wrote major parts of the text. All other authors contributed significant text or key technical or scientific points.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andy Lawrence.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lawrence, A., Rawls, M.L., Jah, M. et al. The case for space environmentalism. Nat Astron 6, 428–435 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing