5 ms·

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

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.

Yokolos 1y ago
Somebody has never heard of the tragedy of the commons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
- tlb 1y ago
  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.
- radu_floricica 1y ago
  Oh, thanks for educating me! But seriously, that link on HN is a bit... you kinda expect people here to have basic education. 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?
bigbacaloa 1y ago
[dead]
DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
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.
- pc86 1y ago
  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.
  - DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
    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).
    - pc86 1y ago
      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.
squigz 1y ago
And what do you think the downsides to unregulated space launches might be, particularly as commercial launches become more commonly viable?
aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
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-maneuvers-to-avoid-orbital-debris/ https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2025/04/30/station-m... 2. https://www.livescience.com/chinese-rocket-booster-fourth-lands https://www.livescience.com/chinese-rocket-booster-fourth-la... 3. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/chinese-satellite-destruction-stirs-debate https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/chinese-satellite-de... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
- bayindirh 1y ago
  > 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.
  - macNchz 1y ago
    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.
  - hopelite 1y ago
    The fact that the well is constantly being poisoned would belie that fact.
  - wongarsu 1y ago
axus 1y ago
ITU is the big international body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union#Iranian_complaint_about_Starlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...

Yokolos 1y ago

Somebody has never heard of the tragedy of the commons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

tlb 1y ago
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.
radu_floricica 1y ago
Oh, thanks for educating me! But seriously, that link on HN is a bit... you kinda expect people here to have basic education. 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?

bigbacaloa 1y ago

[dead]

DemocracyFTW2 1y ago

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.

pc86 1y ago
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.
- DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
  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).
  - pc86 1y ago
    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.

squigz 1y ago

And what do you think the downsides to unregulated space launches might be, particularly as commercial launches become more commonly viable?

aDyslecticCrow 1y ago

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-maneuvers-to-avoid-orbital-debris/ https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2025/04/30/station-m... 2. https://www.livescience.com/chinese-rocket-booster-fourth-lands https://www.livescience.com/chinese-rocket-booster-fourth-la... 3. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/chinese-satellite-destruction-stirs-debate https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-03/chinese-satellite-de... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

bayindirh 1y ago
> 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.
- macNchz 1y ago
  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.
- hopelite 1y ago
  The fact that the well is constantly being poisoned would belie that fact.
- wongarsu 1y ago

axus 1y ago

ITU is the big international body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union#Iranian_complaint_about_Starlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...