Reply Comment to Cowboy Space Corporation consolidated opposition and response

July 30, 2026

Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20554

via ICFS Electronic Filing

In the Matter of: Cowboy Space Application for “Stampede” Constellation

ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260323-00135

REPLY COMMENTS OF THE CENTER FOR SPACE ENVIRONMENTALISM

The Center for Space Environmentalism (CSE) [1] respectfully submits these Reply Comments in response to the Consolidated Opposition and Response filed by Cowboy Space Corp. (“Cowboy Space” or the “Applicant”) on July 23, 2026. The CSE operates under the foundational mandate that Earth’s orbit is a fragile, shared human environment, not a lawless frontier to be exploited by terrestrial industries seeking to bypass local environmental and zoning regulations. The unprecedented scale of the Stampede constellation fundamentally threatens orbital sustainability, upper-atmosphere chemistry, marine ecosystems, and the preservation of the night sky for scientific observation.

I. Cowboy Space’s procedural defect claims misapply Commission rules

As an initial matter, Cowboy Space attempts to dismiss the public interest concerns raised by CSE and other scientific organizations by claiming that public filings were procedurally defective for failing to include “service copies,” a “certificate of service,” or “affidavits required under applicable rules”. [2]

This claim fundamentally misapprehends Commission practice. [3] Public comments submitted in direct response to the Commission’s Public Notice accepting an NGSO application for filing are public interest pleadings intended to inform the Commission’s statutory public interest determination. They are not adversarial petitions to deny subject to the personal service requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 1.47 or the strict affidavit requirements of § 25.154(a)(4). Cowboy Space’s attempt to erect procedural hyper-technicalities underscores its unwillingness to engage with the substantive legal and scientific critique of its application.

II. Rebutting Cowboy Space's NEPA and categorical exclusion arguments

In its Opposition, Cowboy Space reiterates its reliance on the Commission’s traditional categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), asserting that satellite licensing is automatically excluded under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 and that commenters failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. [4] This position is legally and scientifically indefensible.

In its previous comment, the CSE established the following unrefuted, empirical scientific record establishing that the launch, operation, and demise of megaconstellation hardware actively alters the Earth's environment:

1. 540× climate impact multiplier. Black carbon soot and particulate matter released during the launch and atmospheric re-entry lifecycle of megaconstellations linger in the upper atmosphere, making them 540 times more effective at altering global climate than equivalent ground-based emissions. [5] Displacing terrestrial data-center energy footprints into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) introduces a high-altitude climate hazard.

2. Atmospheric chemical modification: Direct stratospheric sampling confirms that heavy metal vapors (aluminum, lithium, copper, and lead) from disintegrating spacecraft now outright exceed the natural flux from micrometeoroids. [6]

3. Ozone depletion: The continuous demise of thousands of heavy silicon architectures injects aluminum oxides into the stratosphere that act as potent catalysts for significant ozone depletion. [7]

The Commission is legally required to order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for actions that “may have a significant environmental impact,” even if otherwise categorically excluded. [8] Relying on a 1986 categorical exclusion intended for small surface facilities is unacceptable for a 20,000-satellite deployment. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) explicitly concluded in 2022, the FCC has failed to adequately justify applying this outdated exclusion to modern satellite megaconstellations. [9]

III. The unprecedented hazards of the five-year replacement cycle and data center architecture for tens of thousands of satellites

Cowboy Space defends its proposed 5-year operational lifetime [10] as standard industry practice. [11] However, when applied to a 20,000-satellite constellation, a five-year lifespan dictates that Cowboy Space must launch, maneuver, and de-orbit 4,000 massive computing units every single year, a rate of roughly one multi-ton satellite re-entry every two hours.

This continuous replacement conveyor belt introduces severe and unmitigated hazards, including but not limited to:

• Unacceptable human casualty risk. Cowboy Space acknowledges that its satellites will maintain a ground casualty risk of up to 1 in 10,000 per re-entry. [12] Across a 5-year operational cycle with 20,000 re-entries, the Applicant is openly admitting to an expected value of two human casualties per constellation cycle.

• Orbital conjunctions and collision risk. Launching 4,000 replacement satellites annually into sun-synchronous orbits requires continuous orbit-raising and orbit-lowering maneuvers across heavily trafficked shells, accelerating the risk of a cascading collision event (Kessler Syndrome) potentially toppling the “orbital house of cards” that exists in Low Earth Orbit today. [13]

• Extreme physical footprint. In-orbit data centers cannot rely on convective cooling and must dissipate server heat entirely through thermal radiation. This necessitates multiple massive deployable solar arrays (60 meters) and thermal radiator panels (100 m2). [14] This vast cross-sectional area exponentially increases collision probabilities compared to conventional communications satellites.

• Marine dumping at Point Nemo. Disposing of thousands of heavy satellites via targeted re-entry into the South Pacific Ocean [15] exploits a critical gap in international high-seas environmental law, depositing toxic materials and endangering benthic ecosystems. [16] Right now, a handful of satellites are disposed of in this location yearly, but the Applicant proposes one reentry dumped into this single location every two hours. The physical and environmental effects of this would be unprecedented.

IV. Voluntary coordination does not solve OISL technical hazards to astronomy

Regarding impacts on astronomy, Cowboy Space asserts that its Optical Inter-Satellite Link (OISL) architecture is inherently benign and points to vague commitments to pursue future voluntary coordination agreements. [17] However, Cowboy Space completely fails to refute these physical arguments detailed in CSE’s Comment:

• Albedo and reflectivity. OISL dielectric mirrors and tracking gimbals catch and reflect sunlight down to Earth regardless of laser beam orientation, generating bright streaks in optical images. [18]

• Infrared sensor blinding. Divergent near-IR beams during target re-acquisition or lost-lock maneuvers sweep across observatories, threatening to saturate images and damage sensitive cryogenic detectors. [19]

• Unintended Electromagnetic Radiation (UEMR). Routing massive AI workloads through onboard processing circuits leaks radio frequency noise into protected radio astronomy bands. [20]

• Thermal infrared background noise. Stadium-sized thermal radiator panels act as continuous blackbody thermal beacons. [21] Operating 24 hours a day independent of solar illumination, this thermal radiation introduces background noise for submillimeter observatories like the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), and would be absolutely devastating to infrared-capable observatories worldwide.

• Reflected light from solar panels: The huge size of these satellites, suggested to be even larger than the International Space Station in sketches, [22] could be brighter than the brightest stars in the night sky. [23] No mitigation strategies are actually discussed, only vague promises to “work with astronomers.”

V. Denial of surety bond rule waivers

Cowboy Space requests a waiver of the Commission's standard milestone and surety bond rules under 47 C.F.R. § 25.165. [24] The surety bond serves as the Commission’s primary regulatory mechanism to ensure financial accountability and prevent entities from abandoning dead hardware in LEO upon insolvency.

Granting a financial waiver to Cowboy Space is untenable. Per established precedent (Northeast Cellular), an applicant must demonstrate that “special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and that such a deviation will serve the public interest”. [25] In its recent ex parte filings, Cowboy Space touted raising $365 million in capital. [26] A well-capitalized entity cannot claim financial hardship or special circumstances to evade regulatory safeguards.

Furthermore, Cowboy Space is an unproven venture with zero history of executing complex spaceflight operations. Waiving financial accountability for an inexperienced operator proposing 20,000 massive data centers socializes the environmental and orbital risks while privatizing corporate fundraising gains.

VI. Evidence of regulatory avoidance in applicant's business model

Cowboy Space’s recent ex parte disclosures confirm that the Stampede constellation is a deliberate strategy to circumvent terrestrial environmental oversight. [27] In its corporate presentation, Cowboy Space explicitly contrasts the “years” required for terrestrial data center permitting, including essential “zoning, land use, power impact studies, water usage disclosure, and thermal discharge management”, with its goal of reaching operational status in “weeks” by bypassing these safeguards in orbit. [28]

The Commission must not permit Low Earth Orbit to be used as an unregulated loophole to evade mandatory terrestrial environmental disclosures.

VII. Requested FCC actions

The Commission cannot treat Low Earth Orbit as an infinite environmental dumping ground. The CSE formally requests that the Commission:

1. Deny Cowboy Space’s request for a categorical exclusion under NEPA;

2. Require Cowboy Space to prepare and submit a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);

3. Deny the requested waivers of milestone and surety bond rules; and

4. Defer or Deny licensing action on ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260323-00135 until these environmental and orbital safety hazards are fully evaluated.

References

[1] Ctr. for Space Environmentalism, https://www.spaceenvironmentalism.org (last visited Jun. 13, 2026). 

[2] Consolidated Opposition and Response of Cowboy Space Corp., ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260323-00135, at 1 n.1 (filed July 23, 2026). 

[3] 47 C.F.R. § 25.154; 47 C.F.R. § 1.47. 

[4] Consolidated Opposition, supra note 2, at 12–14. 

[5] Connor R. Barker et al., Radiative Forcing and Ozone Depletion of a Decade of Satellite Megaconstellation Missions, 12 Earth's Future (2026), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF007229 

[6] Daniel M. Murphy et al., Metals from Spacecraft Reentry in Stratospheric Aerosol Particles, 120 Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. (2023), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2313374120. 

[7] S.P. Sharma, Impact of Spaceflight on Earth's Atmosphere: Climate, Ozone, and the Upper Atmosphere, NASA/TM−20240013276 (2024); J. P. Ferreira et al., Potential Ozone Depletion From Satellite Demise During Atmospheric Reentry in the Era of Mega-Constellations, 51 Geophysical Research Letters (2024), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL109280. 

[8] 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c)–(d). 

[9] U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-23-105005, Satellite Licensing: FCC Should Reexamine Its Environmental Review Process for Large Constellations of Satellites, at Highlights, 2 (2022), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105005. 

[10] Application of Cowboy Space for Authority to Launch and Operate the Stampede Constellation, FCC File No. SAT-LOA-20260323-00135, Schedule S at 1, § S1.c (filed Mar. 23, 2026). 

[11] Consolidated Opposition, supra note 2, at 10–12. [12] Consolidated Opposition, supra note 2, at 11–12. 

[13] Sarah Thiele et al., An Orbital House of Cards: Frequent Satellite Close Conjunctions, Acta Astronautica (published online Jun. 19, 2026), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2026.06.023. 

[14] Letter from Joseph Yaffe, COO & CLO, Cowboy Space Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260323-00135, Attachment A (Cowboy Space Overview Deck, June 2026, at 6, 11, 13). 

[15] Consolidated Opposition, supra note 2, at 11–12. 

[16] U.N. Off. for Outer Space Aff., Safeguarding Space: Issues Note 4 (2026), https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2026/i/unoosain1_0_html/Safeguarding_Space_Issues_Note_final.pdf. See also Leonard David, NASA Wants to Dump the ISS in the Sea. Experts Say the Plan ‘Raises Serious Concerns for Ocean Health’, Space.com (Jun. 23, 2026), https://www.space.com/space-exploration/international-space-station/nasa-wants-to-dump-the-iss-in-the-sea-experts-say-the-plan-raises-serious-concerns-for-ocean-health [17] Consolidated Opposition, supra note 2, at 8–10. 

[18] American Astronomical Society, Impact of Satellite Constellations on Optical Astronomy and Recommendations Toward Mitigations, SATCON1 Report (2020). 

[19] David A. Koplow, Blinded by the Light: Resolving the Conflict Between Satellite Megaconstellations and Astronomy, 54 Geo. J. Int'l L. (2025). 

[20] Federico Di Vruno et al., Unintended Electromagnetic Radiation from Starlink Satellites Detected with LOFAR between 110 and 188 MHz, 676 Astronomy & Astrophysics A75 (2023); C. G. Bassa et al., Bright Unintended Electromagnetic Radiation from Second-Generation Starlink Satellites, 689 Astronomy & Astrophysics L10 (2024); D. Grigg, S. J. Tingay & M. Sokolowski, The Growing Impact of Unintended Starlink Broadband Emission on Radio Astronomy in the SKA-Low Frequency Range, 699 Astronomy & Astrophysics A307 (2025). 

[21] See A. Foster et al., Detection of Thermal Emission at Millimeter Wavelengths from Low-Earth Orbit Satellites, Open J. Astrophys. (2025); and S. Caddy et al., Remotely Monitoring the Activity of Satellites from Thermal Infrared Imaging, Proc. Advanced Maui Optical & Space Surveillance Tech. Conf. (2025), at 27. 

[22] Letter from Joseph Yaffe, supra note 14, at 13. We calculate a total solar panel surface area of 8 × 60 m × 10 m for a total of 4800 m2. In comparison, the area of the ISS solar arrays is only 2500 m2. See Nat’l Aeronautics and Space Admin., Solar Arrays on the International Space Station, https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/solar-arrays-international-space-station-2/. 

[23] Aaron Boley, et al., Rings in the Sky: Orbital Data Centres and Potential Impacts to Astronomy and the Sky, Astron. J., in review (2026). 

[24] Application of Cowboy Space for Authority to Launch and Operate the Stampede Constellation, FCC File No. SAT-LOA-20260323-00135, Legal Narrative at 14 (filed Mar. 23, 2026); see also Consolidated Opposition, supra note 2, at 5–8. 

[25] Northeast Cellular Telephone Co., 89 F.C.C.2d 1312 (1982). [26] Letter from Joseph Yaffe, supra note 14, at 11. [27] Id. at 13. [28] Id. at 11.