Orbital Datacenter Plans Need an Environmental Review, FCC Told (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0184413240
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/07/11/1917235/orbital-datacenter-plans-need-an-environmental-review-fcc-told
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2026/07/10/orbital-datacenter-gold-rush-needs-an-environmental-review-fcc-told/5269863
They're arguing for an environmental impact assessment for what could be 1 million satellites:
> Earthjustice, acting on behalf of DarkSky International, Environment America, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), [2]filed a petition this week ... The filing doesn't target any single company. Instead, it asks the regulator to put the entire [3]emerging orbital datacenter sector on hold while it assesses the cumulative effects of proposals from [4]SpaceX , Starcloud, [5]Blue Origin , Cowboy Space, and any similar applications that follow. According to the petition, those proposals collectively seek "well over a million datacenter satellites" in low Earth orbit.... " increasing the existing volume of satellites in low-earth orbit by multiple orders of magnitude."
>
> The groups argue that the FCC is trying to apply licensing rules written for much smaller satellite constellations to an entirely new class of infrastructure. "If ever a situation warranted a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [PEIS], it is this one," the petition says. It argues that a single review would allow the agency to examine "the risks, alternatives, needs, costs, and impacts of this sudden transformation of Earth's exosphere" before deciding whether any of the projects are in the public interest. The petition raises concerns about rocket launch emissions, pollutants released as satellites burn up during atmospheric reentry, depletion of the ozone layer, orbital debris, light pollution, impacts on wildlife, and interference with astronomy.
>
> It also argues that the combined effects of these constellations cannot be understood by evaluating applications one at a time.... "It is difficult to imagine a better example of multiple projects presenting essentially identical impacts and risks that compound synergistically and cumulatively than the present proposals..." The petition argues that the FCC's current approach, which generally treats satellite licenses as categorically excluded from detailed environmental review, is no longer fit for proposals measured not in dozens or thousands of spacecraft but in hundreds of thousands and, potentially, millions.
>
> If the FCC agrees, orbital datacenter operators will have a mountain of paperwork to clear before sending their hardware skyward.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2026/07/10/orbital-datacenter-gold-rush-needs-an-environmental-review-fcc-told/5269863
[2] https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.08-petition-for-programmatic-eis.pdf
[3] https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2026/04/15/orbital-datacenter-startup-admits-launch-economics-dont-fly/5219697
[4] https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2026/03/23/spacex-hits-back-at-amazon-in-orbital-datacenter-dispute/5223018
[5] https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/2025/10/03/bezos-dreams-of-orbital-datacenters-powered-by-the-sun/572036
WTF! (Score:2)
I mean, pie in the sky and probably dumb idea aside (with todays power generation ability and server power requirements), but how would THIS get block by the need for an environmental review but that stupid orbital sky mirror shining onto the dark side of Earth NOT need an environmental review? Seems like this is just Satellite++??
Re: (Score:1)
It's clearly OUTSIDE the environment.
Oh man! (Score:2)
That Furbish lousewort sure gets around.
No jurisdiction (Score:2)
Why would the earth huggers think that an American regulatory body would have jurisdiction in this case? Outer space is OUTSIDE of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
> Outer space is OUTSIDE of the United States.
Your statement would apply if these data center space nutters could certify that everything they launch will reach escape velocity.
For everything else, what goes up, must come down. Right back into our jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:3)
Per the United Nations Outer Space Treaty, anything launched from a nation, or by a party under its authority, is the property and responsibility of that nation. If the companies launching or operating the satellites are American, then the USA is supposed to regulate them.
Re: (Score:2)
The launch pads are not in outer space.
There's a bigger issue (Score:2)
Orbital datacenters make no sense when you consider power consumption, radiator requirements, and speed of light delay communicating with the ground. The laws of physics say an orbital datacenter cannot work as efficiently as a terrestrial one.
My question, given that the datacenter concept is obviously a cover story, is what is it a cover story for? The most obvious is that it's to cover stock market fraud, but if satellites actually go up, then there are other, more sinister possibilities.
Re: There's a bigger issue (Score:2)
You are implying that "investors" make mostly good decisions. Citation needed.
out of scope (Score:2)
Under the current interpretation of jurisdiction, this request would be out-of-scope for the FCC. Even if they wanted to grant it, they cannot.
eh (Score:2)
Seems kind of premature, the knuckleheads that are trying to do orbital datacenters have about as much chance of developing a feasible, economic orbital data center as I do in being crowned Miss America.
Problem with cooling. (Score:2)
These orbital datacenters need to dissipate as much heat as it receives from the Sun. Good luck with that in space.
Give an inch, lose a mile (Score:1)
You let the tree huggers in to space launch, they'll be demanding six-year-long environmental reviews for every single piece of a moon base or asteroid sampling flight.
Unless the chinese do it, then crickets.
Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
I'm really not seeing what the advantage is of putting data centers in space that can't be accomplished less expensively down here on good old terra firma. That was the same problem with solar roadways. You want to put up solar panels? Great - we've yet to run out of places you can put them where they aren't going to be driven over by cars.
I realize there's some NIMBYism over data centers lately, but surely putting them somewhere in the middle of nowhere where nobody will complain is still orders of magn
Re: Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score:2)
If I had to guess, cooling. I canâ(TM)t imagine orbital data centres sucking up our water
Re: (Score:2)
Until they invent orbital straws.
Re: (Score:2)
Satellites can get rid of heat with radiators placed in the shade. They do add to mass and cost though.
Re: (Score:3)
It's because they think they can launch capacity faster than they can built it on Earth. Instead of dealing with local government, grid energy supply availability, water and so on, they can just launch it into orbit. It's all about being the first to deploy the compute capacity and cornering the market.
Of course it also creates lots of business for SpaceX, so a lot of it could be a Hyperloop-style scam.
Thing is they need to deal with the pollution it will create (stuff burning up on re-entry doesn't just va