A space startup can answer to as many as seven US agencies and none of them is in charge

A panel at the Technology Policy Institute Aspen Forum highlighted that space startups may answer to as many as seven US agencies, including the FCC, Department of Commerce, NOAA, Department of Defense, FAA, and NASA, with no single agency in charge. Former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell and others noted that regulatory authority is often limited to specific aspects, such as the FCC's approval of Reflect Orbital's satellite test covering only RF use and debris, not the mirrors themselves. The panel stressed the need for clear regulatory goals and cautioned against over-regulation that could hinder market evolution.

With plans underway to launch massive constellations of satellites to deliver broadband services and support orbital AI data centers and other applications and services, the space economy is enjoying a boom time. But this growing and evolving sector will also need to adhere to current and coming regulations. While multiple regulatory bodies are responsible for setting new rules and greenlighting or denying missions, it's not crystal clear who is responsible for what – and not just in the US, but internationally as well. Who should regulate the space economy? A panel of top legal and regulatory experts tackled that tricky question this week at the Technology Policy Institute Aspen Forum in Aspen, Colorado. Multiple groups have a say Robert McDowell, a former FCC commissioner who is now chair of the Global Communications Practice Group and partner at Cooley LLP, listed several organizations and agencies that a space industry entrepreneur might come up against. In the US, that list includes the FCC, the US Department of Commerce or even NTIA itself , the Office of Space Commerce, NOAA and the Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs, or CRSRA, office, the US Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration FAA and perhaps NASA, too. Related: Amazon Leo inches toward service launch /satellite/amazon-leo-inches-toward-service-launch Multiple agencies may need to approve a space mission, but their regulatory authority is often limited to particular aspects of it rather than the mission as a whole. One such example is Reflect Orbital https://www.reflectorbital.com/ , a startup that plans to use mirrors to redirect beams of sunlight into nighttime regions. Potential applications include illuminating disaster zones to aid search-and-rescue teams, extending industrial work hours and possibly boosting the yields of certain types of crops. In July, the FCC approved Reflect Orbital https://spacenews.com/fcc-approves-first-reflect-orbital-satellite/ to conduct its first test. Jay Schwarz, the former chief of the FCC's Space Bureau, noted that the FCC's review was limited to Reflect Orbital's use of RF for telemetry, tracking and control of the spacecraft, potential orbital debris, and potential foreign ownership concerns. However, the FCC, which also keeps close tabs on the efficient use of spectrum and the potential for harmful interference, has no regulatory jurisdiction over the mirrors themselves. Schwarz said the decision ties into three key questions that will help determine how space is governed: What is the goal? Does it need to be regulated? And if it needs to be regulated, who is responsible? "I think the Reflect decision is going to turn out to be an important one as we think about setting the rules of space going forward here," Schwarz said, noting later that the FCC's recent modification of its space rules are designed to accelerate licensing processes and to make those processes more predictable. Related: Musk: 'Magic' not needed for SpaceX's orbital AI data center plan /data-centers/musk-magic-not-needed-for-spacex-s-orbital-ai-data-center-plan The big question Going forward, the bigger question is: "What is the outcome we're trying to achieve or prevent or encourage if we apply regulation to space?" said Clayton Swope, deputy director, Aerospace Security Project, Center for Strategic & International Studies. "If you can't really think of what that is, I don't know how you're going to come up with a good regulation." And he pointed to a wrinkle: that the US government can apply conditions on their space-focused contracts. "It's another way the government can get what it wants out of a company; it's not regulation," Swope said. Timing is everything Panelists stressed that regulators focused on the space economy should be careful to let the market evolve and avoid acting too quickly and inadvertently hindering progress. "My regulatory philosophy is: Don't regulate first and ask questions later, because you might be snuffing out a perfectly good idea that might not need regulation," McDowell said. Schwarz agreed that regulators should be informed by the private sector, pointing to the developing of the automobile industry as an analogy. Regulators didn't simply slap a cap on the number of cars to put on the road, but instead established rules of the road. "If we sit here and say that we know the right regulation right now, that's a big problem," Schwarz said. WRC-27 concerns This panel, like many others at the event, discussed opportunities and concerns linked to the ITU's 2027 World Radio Conference https://www.itu.int/wrc-27/ , which will be hosted by China and feature an agenda packed with space-focused sessions. The US will need to be wary, panelists said, given its dominant position in areas spanning launch, broadband and data centers. Other countries, including China, also want to improve their position in the space economy, Swope said. "But in the interim, they're happy to hold us back … until they get their act together," he said. "The US has a lot of challenges if we want to stay number one in this space," McDowell agreed.