Comment on the Orbital Compute, Inc., application to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to operate a constellation of 100,000 orbital data centers

August 18, 2026

Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20554

via ICFS Electronic Filing

In re: Application of Orbital Compute Inc. for Launch and Operating Authority for the Orbital Datacenter System

ICFS #: SAT-LOA-20260624-00251

Call sign: S00867

COMMENTS OF THE CENTER FOR SPACE ENVIRONMENTALISM 

The Center for Space Environmentalism (CSE)1 appreciates the opportunity to comment on the application submitted by Orbital Compute, Inc. (henceforth “Orbital”). Orbital requests authority to deploy and operate a non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) constellation of up to 100,000 satellites operating as a distributed data center for artificial intelligence (AI) computing workloads.2

CSE formally opposes this application. While smaller in proposed satellite count than SpaceX's one-million-satellite filing, Orbital’s proposal shares identical structural, environmental, and regulatory defects. Outer space is a shared human environment, not an off-grid dump for energy-intensive industrial processing. We urge the Commission to apply the Precautionary Principle and deny this application.

I. Deconstructing the “greenwashing” of orbital computing

Orbital asserts that deploying 100,000 AI computing satellites will serve the public interest by relieving terrestrial power grid bottlenecks, reducing cooling water consumption, and eliminating the carbon footprint of terrestrial data centers.3

This argument is a false environmental trade-off. Shifting heavy industrial compute hardware off-grid into Earth orbit does not eliminate environmental impacts; it merely exports them to the upper atmosphere and near-Earth space.

It also results in additional harms to the terrestrial environment. Orbital specifies a 7-year operational lifetime per satellite.4 Maintaining a 100,000-satellite constellation requires replacing roughly 14,285 satellites per year (~39 deorbits and launches per day). The environmental costs of this proposal are severe:

• Massive material deposition. Each satellite is a massive 100 kW-class spacecraft weighing between 1,500 kg and 2,500 kg.5 This schedule translates to burning 21,000 to 35,000 metric tons of high-performance hardware in the upper atmosphere every single year.

• Atmospheric degradation. The continuous launch cadence and atmospheric re-entry cycles inject unprecedented amounts of black carbon (soot), water vapor, and reactive alumina aerosol particles into the mesosphere and stratosphere.6 These pollutants absorb solar radiation, warm the stratosphere, and catalyze global ozone layer depletion.7

Orbital’s claim that moving AI data processing to space “relieves” terrestrial power grid bottlenecks and saves cooling water relies on a fundamental environmental fallacy.8 Shifting heavy industrial compute hardware off-grid into Earth orbit does not eliminate environmental costs; it merely exports them to a shared global commons without public consent. As articulated in the CSE Manifesto, the sustainability of the entire Earth-space system must be evaluated, rather than treating outer space as a convenient sink to offset unsustainable terrestrial consumption.

Furthermore, maintaining a 100,000-satellite constellation requires a continuous cycle of burning thousands of spacecraft in the upper atmosphere every year.9 Locking future generations into decades of persistent stratospheric alumina deposition, black carbon injection, and ozone degradation purely to process short-term commercial AI workloads violates our fundamental intergenerational duty to steward the Earth-space continuum.

II. Ideological disconnect: private AI compute vs. shared public interest

Orbital frames its application around addressing “a critical bottleneck in global AI development” and fulfilling cloud computing provider demand.10 Unlike traditional telecommunications constellations that offer broadband access to underserved populations, Orbital’s proposed system is tailored exclusively for private, energy-intensive commercial AI workloads. Commercial enterprise demand for compute capacity does not constitute a statutory “public interest” justification for commandeering low-Earth orbit (LEO). Outer space must be stewarded as a shared commons for humanity, not privatized to offset the energy demands of private technology firms.

III. Extreme orbital density, Kessler Syndrome, and waiver misuse

Orbital proposes placing 100,000 massive satellites into “discrete near-circular orbital shells with a width of up to 50 km” at altitudes between 500 km and 850 km.11

These are not small CubeSats; each satellite features a stowed dimension of 3 m × 3 m × 4 m, a deployed span of 50 to 70 meters, a 100 m2 thermal radiator, and a projected cross-sectional area of 80 to 120 m2.12 Packing 100,000 mega-structures into narrow 50 km altitude bands drastically increases physical orbital density. A single un-maneuverable satellite, collision, or propulsion failure within these dense shells could trigger a catastrophic runaway debris cascade (Kessler Syndrome) that would destroy orbital corridors and render near-Earth space unusable for generations.13

To fast-track this system, Orbital requests three extraordinary regulatory waivers:

1. Waiver of processing round procedures (47 C.F.R. §§ 25.156, 25.157). Orbital requests to bypass standard NGSO processing rounds, claiming its use of optical inter-satellite links (OISLs) minimizes RF spectrum demand.14

2. Waiver of surety bond and milestone requirements (47 C.F.R. §§ 25.164, 25.165). Orbital asks to be exempt from financial bonding and build-out milestones, asserting that non-interference backup operations pose no risk of spectrum warehousing.15

3. Waiver of Schedule S formatting limitations (47 C.F.R. § 25.114). Orbital requests exemption from standard technical disclosures, offering only two representative orbital planes instead of exhaustive technical data.16

The Commission’s performance bond and milestone rules exist precisely to guard against speculative filings and verify that licensees possess the operational and financial capability to execute their proposals. Orbital is an early-stage entrant with zero prior spaceflight heritage or operational satellite track record. Waiving financial bonding and build-out milestones for a first-time operator seeking to deploy 100,000 satellites removes the primary regulatory safeguard against non-performance, speculative resource reservation, and sudden operational failure. If an unproven operator encounters insurmountable technical hurdles, the public and other orbital users bear the environmental and operational fallout without any financial recourse.

Granting these waivers would establish a dangerous precedent, allowing mega-constellation operators to occupy orbital shells without financial accountability, processing round equity, or full technical transparency.17

IV. Fundamental alteration of the night sky and Unintended Electromagnetic Radiation

Orbital proposes to operate its constellation in Sun-Synchronous Orbits (SSO) with a nominal 06:00 local time of ascending node (LTAN) to maximize solar array illumination.18 This would result in a number of problems for astronomers and other users of the night sky:

• Optical sky brightness. Because each satellite deploys a 50–70 meter array span and a 100 m2 radiator,19 100,000 illuminated units will create continuous optical and infrared reflections across the dawn/dusk sky. This aggregate glow will disrupt ground-based optical and infrared astronomical research worldwide.20

• Infringement on cultural night-sky heritage. Each of Orbital’s proposed satellites is an immense physical structure operating in a 06:00 LTAN Sun-Synchronous Orbit.21 Placing 100,000 such massive objects in twilight orbits will produce continuous optical glints and thermal infrared reflections along the horizon during dawn and dusk globally. Beyond the catastrophic impact on optical and infrared astronomy, this continuous artificial twilight infringes upon the self-evident right of all human beings to experience an unbroken view of the natural cosmos. Outer space is an intrinsic component of human cultural heritage. By permanently altering the night sky to facilitate private AI processing, the Applicant prioritizes specialized commercial utility over the cultural, historical, and recreational rights of the global public.

• Unintended Electromagnetic Radiation (UEMR). Housing high-frequency GPU clusters and high-power server buses on 100,000 satellites risks emitting significant aggregate UEMR, threatening delicate radio astronomy installations.22
  

V. Technical hazards: optical links and relayed operations

Orbital states that its primary data path will rely on optical inter-satellite links (OISLs) to third-party constellations (e.g., Starlink, Amazon Kuiper) to relay data to ground stations, relying on Ka-band solely for backup telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C).23 Routing a 100,000-node compute architecture through external commercial networks introduces severe multi-operator coordination hazards, including uncoordinated optical beam cross-talk, tracking failures, and compromised collision-avoidance protocols.

Furthermore, Orbital attempts to leverage this third-party reliance to justify its waiver requests and minimal spectrum disclosures, asserting that non-interference optical backhaul eliminates traditional spectrum concerns.24 This relies on a dangerous premise of private commercial self-policing. Operational safety and environmental protection in low-Earth orbit cannot depend on voluntary best efforts or informal arrangements between private actors. Delegating the operational integrity, beam steering, and data backhaul of an unprecedented 100,000 active compute satellites to third-party networks without binding, multi-operator regulatory oversight leaves the public and other users to absorb the fallout when systemic coordination breakdowns inevitably occur.

VI. Conclusion and requested FCC actions

The FCC's statutory mandate under the Communications Act requires it to protect the public interest. To safeguard the space environment, the Commission should take the following actions:

1. Require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Revisit the categorical exclusion under NEPA and require a comprehensive EIS evaluating cumulative stratospheric soot/alumina injection, ozone depletion, and re-entry toxicity.25

2. Deny all waiver requests. Reject Orbital’s requests to bypass processing round rules, surety bond obligations, build-out milestones, and Schedule S technical disclosures.26

3. Halt fast-track processing. Allow a thorough public and scientific review period for this and all other space-based data center applications.

4. Initiate formal inter-agency review and international treaty consultations. Coordinate with NASA, NTIA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State to evaluate space domain awareness, collision hazards, and international treaty compliance. In accordance with Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty,27 the Commission and State Department must conduct formal international consultations before granting operating authority for a system that poses clear risks of potentially harmful interference to foreign space assets and astronomical observations.

5. Establish enforceable brightness and UEMR standards. Impose strict, binding limits on optical reflectivity, infrared signature, and unintended electromagnetic emissions prior to granting operating authority.

Notes

1 The Center for Space Environmentalism is a multidisciplinary consortium of astrophysicists, orbital dynamicists, and policy experts whose mission is to inspire, inform, and guide the preservation and protection of the space environment.

2 Orbital Compute Inc., Application for Launch and Operating Authority for the Orbital Datacenter System (Exhibit A Narrative), ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260624-00251, at 2 (filed June 2026).

3 Application Narrative (Exhibit A), supra note 2, at 3.

4 Orbital Compute Inc., Orbital Debris Assessment Report (Exhibit E ODAR), ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260624-00251, at 2 (filed June 2026).

5 Id.

6 S.P. Sharma, Impact of Spaceflight on Earth's Atmosphere: Climate, Ozone, and the Upper Atmosphere, NASA/TM-20240013276 (2024).

7 J. P. Ferreira et al., Potential Ozone Depletion From Satellite Demise During Atmospheric Reentry in the Era of Mega-Constellations, 51 Geophysical Research Letters e2023GL107293 (2024); Christopher M. Maloney et al., Investigating the Potential Atmospheric Accumulation and Radiative Impact of the Coming Increase in Satellite Reentry Frequency, 130 J. Geophysical Res.: Atmospheres e2024JD042442 (2025).

8 Application Narrative (Exhibit A), supra note 2, at 3 (terrestrial grid bottleneck and cooling claims).

9 Orbital Debris Assessment Report (Exhibit E ODAR), supra note 4, at 2 (100 kW-class, 7-year lifetime, 1,500–2,500 kg mass).

10 Application Narrative (Exhibit A), supra note 2, at 2; Orbital Compute Inc., Waiver Requests (Exhibit D), ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260624-00251, at 1 (filed June 2026).

11 Application Narrative (Exhibit A), supra note 2, at 2.

12 Orbital Debris Assessment Report (Exhibit E ODAR), supra note 4, at 2.

13 Donald J. Kessler & Burton G. Cour‐Palais, Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt, 83 Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 2637 (1978); Hugh Lewis & Donald Kessler, Critical Number of Spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit: A New Assessment of the Stability of the Orbital Debris Environment, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Space Debris (2025).

14 Waiver Requests (Exhibit D), supra note 10, at 1.

15 Waiver Requests (Exhibit D), supra note 10, at 2–3.

16 Id.

17 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.156, 25.157; 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.164, 25.165; 47 C.F.R. § 25.114.

18 Application Narrative (Exhibit A), supra note 2, at 3; Orbital Debris Assessment Report (Exhibit E ODAR), supra note 4, at 2.

19 Orbital Debris Assessment Report (Exhibit E ODAR), supra note 4, at 2.

20 Miroslav Kocifaj et al., The Proliferation of Space Objects is a Rapidly Increasing Source of Artificial Night Sky Brightness, 504 Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Soc'y: Letters L40 (2021); John C. Barentine et al., Aggregate Effects of Proliferating Low-Earth-Orbit Objects and Implications for Astronomical Data Lost in the Noise, 7 Nat. Astronomy 252 (2023).

21 Application Narrative (Exhibit A), supra note 2, at 3; Orbital Debris Assessment Report (Exhibit E ODAR), supra note 4, at 2 (06:00 LTAN SSO parameters and span/radiator dimensions).

22 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).

23 Application Narrative (Exhibit A), supra note 2, at 2; Orbital Compute Inc., Technical Attachment (Exhibit B), ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260624-00251, at 1 (filed June 2026).

24 Waiver Requests (Exhibit D), supra note 10, at 1 (optical ISL reliance & non-interference RF claims); Application Narrative (Exhibit A), supra note 2, at 2; Technical Attachment (Exhibit B), at 1 (third-party network relay).

25 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42 U.S.C. § 4332.

26 See Waiver Requests (Exhibit D), supra note 10, at 1–3 (requesting waivers of processing round procedures under 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.156 and 25.157, bond and milestone obligations under 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.164 and 25.165, and Schedule S formatting limits under 47 C.F.R. § 25.114).

27 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies art. IX, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205 (mandating that a State Party “shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding” with any activity that would cause “potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties”).