Though the commercial low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite industry is booming, it could have an adverse geopolitical impact.

The LEO satellite market is highly fragmented as firms compete for a dominant share. However, the finite nature of orbital slots and spectrum allocation creates a natural market threshold that will likely prevent future entrants from joining the industry’s competition. This dynamic has created what is in effect a satellite race, with both domestic firms and other countries trying to launch their own satellite constellation to compete with the combined might of U.S. firms. We need to ensure that this scramble for space isn’t a race to the bottom.

The Competition for Space

Earth’s lower orbit has limited orbital slots, or specific satellite positions. Each satellite also requires spectrum access on specific frequencies for communication, which companies in the LEO industry and other industries want and compete for. In other words, both orbital slots and spectrum allocation exhibit dynamics similar to a parking lot: once the parking lot is full, there are no spaces left.

As such, the rapid proliferation of LEO constellations and the dearth of orbital slots and spectrum allocation highlights a need for a proactive space policy that can ensure the sustainability of space as a new frontier for technological and economic progress.

The latter is particularly notable, given how LEO satellite constellations have become remarkably popular for commercial uses. Companies such as SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper have capitalized on consumer demand for high-speed, low-latency Internet connectivity and are vying for the opportunity to send thousands of satellites into LEO to achieve global coverage.

Though the United States has been paving its own path in the space industry, U.S. policymakers need to be conscientious of how the country is setting a precedent in space exploration. Given our current advantage, we can establish policies that ensure safe, proactive space innovation and LEO practices.

American space companies are ahead of the pack when it comes to space exploration, and other countries are taking notice. America’s peer competitors recognize the risk presented by American orbital and spectral slot dominance and are encouraging commercial satellite development accordingly. For example, China’s state-backed “Starnet” system plans to launch thousands of satellites into low-Earth orbit to compete with SpaceX’s Starlink and other Western competitors. To Beijing, mega-constellations such as Starlink give the US a strategic edge and threaten China's national security interests.

Space Chokepoints

Aside from national security concerns raised by American rivals, the finite nature of LEO slots creates a low-Earth atmosphere bottleneck. Any object launched further into space must safely navigate through the orbital paths of the thousands of satellites operating in LEO. A densely packed LEO approaching its carrying capacity could serve as a chokepoint, obviating other space activity. As such, the country that de facto “controls” LEO will determine who can explore beyond it. These dynamics may create a security dilemma and encourage more aggressive space activity, such as intentional satellite collisions.

Encouraging efficient utilization of orbital slots should be paramount to international policymakers. Creating an effective satellite allocation system, such as an assigned “parking space” framework, wherein each LEO satellite is assigned a specific orbital slot, could help provide stability and lessen the downstream effects of the projected satellite trends, which anticipate nearly all Earth observation and communication satellites to be sent to orbit without “comprehensive governance.”

Another chokepoint created by commercial LEO satellites is spectrum allocation—the process of issuing frequency bands for communication, which is required by LEO constellations for seamless communication between the satellites and ground stations.

Spectrum band capacity is finite, and distribution is regulated by various international regulatory bodies, which can stifle competition between LEO providers by enabling uneven spectrum access. For example, if different countries try to use the same frequency bands for their LEO satellites, communication failures can be created by interference between the satellites.

If the United States were to create an effective spectrum allocation across different jurisdictions, we could decrease the risk of interference, which would be in all satellite companies’ best interests.

Overall, Washington should reevaluate space regulation and propagate international space norms to foster safe, proactive space innovation and LEO practices. The alternative is the eventual development of aggressive and potentially damaging space competition, culminating in armed conflict for the future of space.

Cassandra Shand is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Cambridge and a Young Voices Innovation Fellow. Twitter: @CassandraShand.

Image: Shutterstock.