Charge satellites that use orbit a fee based on collision risk, and use the money to clean up old debris
In short
- Companies that own satellites pay a yearly fee for as long as they use an orbit.
- The fee is higher for crowded orbits and for satellites that stay up a long time.
- The money pays to collect old satellites and rocket pieces that are already drifting in space.
- A satellite that leaves orbit on schedule when its job is done gets part of its fee back.
If this comes true
In the control room of a weather satellite that watches the paths of storms, the years when alarms to dodge debris sounded many times a year seem almost unreal, and the staff now calmly watch images of moving clouds.
Perhaps
A small first satellite from a country that cannot afford the fee might be called off before launch, and space might slowly become something only rich countries and companies own.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
The rule covers every country and company that puts a satellite in orbit around the Earth. Countries create a shared fee system through a treaty, and each country collects the fees for the satellites it has allowed to launch and pays them into an international fund. The fee depends on how many years the satellite stays in orbit, how crowded the orbit is at that height, the size of the satellite, and how likely it is to break into pieces if it is damaged. A satellite in a low orbit, which falls naturally into the atmosphere within a short time even after it loses power, pays less, and a satellite in a high orbit, where it stays a long time, pays more. A satellite that leaves orbit as planned when its job is done gets part of its fee back. The fund pays companies to collect or remove from orbit old satellites whose owners are unknown or no longer exist, and upper rocket stages, starting with those that pose the greatest risk of collision. The cleanup work is done under international monitoring, with the target and method reported in advance, and when it involves approaching another country's satellite, that country must agree. Fee reductions or exemptions are allowed for small first satellites launched by lower-income countries and for science observation satellites.
BenefitsThose who use orbit pay to keep it clean
Once there is a fee, putting a satellite in orbit has a price. Because crowded orbits and long-lasting satellites cost more, companies have a reason to choose lower orbits or design satellites that can be brought down right after use. Because the fee comes back if a satellite leaves after its job is done, following through on cleanup pays off. Instead of watching constantly to force people to follow rules, this changes the balance of gains and losses and so changes the behavior of many companies naturally. The money collected is spent on removing old debris that no one has been willing to pay for. If the most dangerous pieces are removed first, the chain reaction in which debris creates more debris can be stopped before it starts. If removal work gets a reliable buyer, private companies will sharpen their technology, and the cost of removal should fall. Keeping orbit safe protects people around the world who depend on weather forecasts, disaster monitoring, and communication with distant regions, and it also leaves usable orbits for countries that are just starting to use space.
DrawbacksSpace gets more expensive to use, and cleanup technology can also be a weapon
The fee will surely raise the cost of owning a satellite. Large, wealthy companies and countries can keep paying, but it will be a heavy burden for universities and small countries, and even with exemptions, barriers of paperwork and conditions will remain. If the idea spreads that anyone who pays may use orbit, wealthy companies could end up buying up the space with money. Also, deciding fees by how dangerous each orbit is and by how much becomes a source of disputes, both technical and political. A country that wants lower fees for its own satellites will surely push hard on how the calculation is done. More serious is that the technology to approach another satellite, grab it, and pull it out of orbit can also be used to destroy or seize other countries' satellites. Work meant as cleanup could raise military suspicion and increase tension between countries. Satellites of countries that do not join the treaty cannot be charged, so an unfairness remains in which only the conscientious countries carry the burden. A system to protect a shared place cannot deliver the effect people hope for if few countries join.
Learn the background
Around the Earth, countless pieces of retired satellites and rockets circle at very high speed. Even a small piece can destroy a satellite if it hits, and that collision creates even more pieces. In recent years, more companies have been launching many satellites at once, and orbits are getting more and more crowded. Our daily lives rely on satellites for weather forecasts, location information, and communication, so if orbits became unusable, the effects would reach the whole world. The reason this problem is hard to solve is that orbit is a shared place that belongs to no one. Even if one company is careful, the danger does not shrink if other companies leave debris behind. There are moves to require new satellites to have a cleanup plan, but old debris that is already floating there stays untouched, because the owners have disappeared or no one has a reason to pay for removal. Cleanup technology is growing, but no one pays for it. The root of the problem is that there is no system that makes the people who use a shared place pay the costs, including for the mess they made in the past.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes