Elon Musk wants to put up to a million more satellites around Earth
SpaceX is seeking permission from American regulators, but the consequences would reach far beyond America: across other nations’ horizons, through astronomers’ observations and into the night skies shared by billions of people. The question is who gets to approve a transformation on that scale—and how much say the rest of the world actually has.
SpaceX has applied to the US Federal Communications Commission for permission to launch and operate up to one million satellites as orbiting data centres. An official notice issued by the FCC’s Space Bureau confirms the scale of the proposal and its acceptance for public comment—a procedural step, not approval to deploy the constellation.
SpaceX’s ambitions now span broadband, direct-to-phone connectivity and computing in orbit. Its million-satellite application concerns AI data centres, distinct from the Starlink networks carrying communications. Meanwhile, its push towards mobile services promises to extend its commercial reach. India illustrates both the opportunity and the limits: Starlink has obtained a telecommunications licence, but recent reporting says further clearances remain outstanding before commercial service can begin.
Countries do not ordinarily grant permission for every satellite passing overhead. Outer space is not national territory, and the international framework permits its exploration and use while requiring states to oversee their operators. That arrangement allows commercial constellations to circle the planet without securing individual approval from every country beneath their orbits. A national licensing process can therefore have consequences for people far beyond the licensing nation’s borders.
Advertisement:
Privately Controlled Defence Infrastructure
Ukraine offers a stark warning about dependence on privately controlled infrastructure. On 14 October, Ukrainian officials said unexpected Starlink restrictions had disrupted military drone missions, with service affected when terminals travelled above specified speeds. This was a restriction associated with movement speed, rather than a confirmed general reduction in Ukraine’s internet bandwidth. SpaceX had not publicly commented when Reuters reported the disruption. The restrictions come just after Ukrainian attacks on Yandex data centres in Russia which reportedly disrupted far right wing bot activity on social media.
Musk’s political involvement adds another dimension to that concentration of power. Campaign-finance disclosures showed he spent more than US$250 million helping elect Donald Trump in 2024. During that campaign, he also suggested in an interview with Tucker Carlson that he could face imprisonment if Trump lost—a claim he made, rather than an established legal consequence. His influence over communications infrastructure exists alongside his substantial investment in American electoral politics.
Governments can regulate services sold within their borders. Protecting their citizens’ view of the universe is a different challenge. An orbital network can affect a country’s night sky whether its people subscribe, refuse to subscribe or never receive the service at all.
That is where the commercial story becomes a planetary one. Astronomers modelling SpaceX’s proposal warn that hundreds—and at certain times thousands—of satellites could be visible, with serious consequences for observations. Before a million machines become a permanent feature of humanity’s view overhead, the world deserves a meaningful voice in deciding what it is prepared to lose.
Astronomers and major observatories warn that SpaceX’s million-satellite proposal could fill the night sky with moving lights, contaminate telescope images and undermine billions of dollars invested in scientific research. Environmental and cultural objections extend to orbital collisions, pollution from launches and re-entry, and the transformation of a shared night sky without meaningful consent from the communities beneath it.
Advertisement:
John Goldsmith takes on SpaceX’s million-satellite future
For more than three decades, Western Australian photographer John Goldsmith has turned his cameras towards the night sky. Now the landscape he photographs is at the centre of a contest between commercial ambition and humanity’s ability to see the universe.
An Australian Financial Review report has brought attention to Goldsmith’s opposition to SpaceX. Behind that confrontation lies a proposal of extraordinary scale: Elon Musk’s company has applied to launch and operate up to one million satellites as orbiting data centres. The number is real. A US Federal Communications Commission notice confirms that SpaceX submitted the application on 30 January 2026. The proposed spacecraft would operate between 500 and 2,000 kilometres above Earth. The February notice accepted the application for consideration and public comment; it was not permission to launch the entire constellation.
These are proposed computing facilities in space, intended to help meet demand for artificial intelligence. They are a separate undertaking from the Starlink broadband satellites already crossing our skies.
For Goldsmith, the argument begins with something more fundamental than computing capacity: who gets a say when a company proposes to change the sky for everyone? His Celestial Visions website carries a longstanding appeal against excessive satellite deployment, warning that people worldwide face changes over which they have had little consultation.
“The night sky should not be sacrificed for the sake of global internet,” he wrote in that earlier statement opposing Starlink’s expansion. His concern extends beyond professional astronomy to the shared cultural inheritance of an unobstructed night sky. Goldsmith brings an unusually broad perspective to that argument. An astrophotographer, author and researcher, he has documented Western Australian skies for more than 35 years. His doctoral research examined Aboriginal astronomical knowledge, and his work has contributed to the Western Australian Museum’s Western Australia by Night exhibition.
Through a partnership with Koya Aboriginal Corporation, he has also helped young Aboriginal people experience astronomy and cultural storytelling at Lake Ballard. That work connects the stars to landscape, language and community—values difficult to enter on a technology company’s balance sheet.
The scientific warnings are substantial. In July, the European Southern Observatory published findings from astronomer Olivier Hainaut’s modelling of existing and proposed satellite constellations. For SpaceX’s million-satellite proposal, the study projected hundreds of visible satellites during much of the night, rising at certain times to several thousand.
Even assuming satellites faint enough to escape unaided vision, the modelling found that trails could cause losses of up to 28 per cent of the field of view in particular Very Large Telescope observations two hours into the night. Brighter spacecraft would worsen the interference. Those are modelled outcomes, dependent on satellite characteristics and observing conditions. They nevertheless illustrate why astronomers regard the proposal as a threat to scientific capability, rather than simply an irritation in photographs.
Advertisement:
Harm to Astronomical Research
The American Astronomical Society submitted a formal petition on 6 March asking the FCC to deny SpaceX’s application. It warned of harm to astronomical research and the billions of dollars invested in it. The society reported that the application attracted almost 1,500 comments.
SpaceX’s case deserves examination too. Moving computing infrastructure into orbit could exploit abundant solar energy and reduce pressure on terrestrial electricity networks. That is the promise behind the proposal: expanding computing power without reproducing all the land and power demands of conventional data centres.
The company has also worked with astronomers on reducing Starlink’s brightness. Its published technical material describes changes to satellite surfaces and operating orientation, alongside continuing collaboration to reduce interference. Those efforts show that mitigation is possible; they do not establish that a million additional spacecraft would be acceptable. The environmental questions extend beyond reflected sunlight.
Research reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2023 identified metals from spacecraft re-entry in approximately 10 per cent of sampled stratospheric sulphuric-acid particles. That finding documents an existing atmospheric footprint. It does not, by itself, establish the environmental consequences of SpaceX’s proposed constellation, but it makes the fate of discarded satellites a serious research question.
Calling orbital computing environmentally beneficial therefore requires accounting for the whole system: manufacturing, launches, operation, replacement and disposal. Moving machinery out of sight does not automatically remove its costs.
This is where sustained public-interest journalism matters. A regulatory application can appear remote and technical, buried beneath orbital specifications and commercial projections. Reporting makes its consequences visible and asks whose interests are being counted.
The AFR’s attention to Goldsmith brings a human figure into that debate: a photographer whose work depends on darkness, confronting an industry whose ambitions increasingly occupy it.
The essential questions reach well beyond one photographer and one company. What level of interference is acceptable? What evidence should be required before deployment? How should communities outside the United States influence decisions that could alter their skies?
Goldsmith’s photographs record something familiar, ancient and increasingly vulnerable. The prospect of a million additional satellites forces a choice about whether that view remains an inheritance—or becomes another consequence of a business decision made elsewhere.
Related Stories
Musk: The Documentary and the Price of Speaking Out
Why Musk closed the Global Engagement Center
What to do about Musk’s predicted “hardship” & market crash?
What is Elon Musk’s “everything app” aka “X”?
Meta launches Threads, their rival to Musk’s Twitter
Scenarios for the Future of Murdoch’s Empire
Advertisement:
