Should governments incentivize the use of de-orbiting technologies?

As the number of satellites and the volume of space debris in Earth's orbit continues to grow, governments and national space agencies are ramping up discussions on regulating the industry and promoting sustainable practices.

De-orbiting technologies , which ensure satellites are removed from orbit at the end of their operational life, can play a crucial role in addressing this issue.

This article explores the potential benefits of incentivizing the use of de-orbiting systems, rather than only regulating missions, and shares a few ideas from other industries.

The evolution of national and agency guidelines

Governments and space agencies around the world have developed a variety of regulations and guidelines aimed at mitigating the risks associated with space debris. These rules often focus on limiting the amount of time a satellite can remain in orbit after the end of its mission.

NASA has set a 25-year timeframe for missions under its oversight (you can see a PDF of the standard here ) while the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mandated a de-orbit within 5 years - but only for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) operating in the US market.

In addition, the European Space Agency (ESA) has also stated that it intends to put in place a new guideline that would require satellites to begin de-orbiting immediately after the end of the mission.

It’s clear that regulation is a moving target and engineers and mission designers will need to adapt future plans to emerging frameworks. However, regulation alone may not be sufficient to encourage the widespread adoption of de-orbiting technologies - particularly beyond the minimum requirements. Could financial incentives also play a role?

Tax cuts and subsidies for responsible space actors

An alternative approach to drive adoption of de-orbiting technologies might be to offer tax cuts or subsidies to companies that incorporate these systems into their satellite designs.

By rewarding responsible space actors who are committing to actively limit new space debris, governments can encourage a more sustainable and safer space environment.

Public funding still plays a huge role in the development of the space industry. For example, every year NASA provides funding to hundreds of small businesses just through its SBIR and STTR programs , while the ESA Business Applications initiative has also financed over 1,200 companies.

Linking such funding outcomes to de-orbiting solutions (either in absolute amount adjustments or via tax reductions) might make a significant difference in industry adoption over time.

Of course, this approach would require some level of international cooperation and coordination to ensure that satellite operators were genuinely motivated to implement de-orbiting devices. And a lot of this will come down to cost.

Assessing the costs - hardware, launch, and operational complexity

To determine the viability of incentivizing de-orbiting technologies, it will be essential to evaluate the costs associated with their implementation. Some of the technical factors to consider include the price of the de-orbiting device, the impact on launch costs, and the implications for satellite operations.

These costs must be weighed against the long-term benefits of reducing space debris and ensuring a sustainable orbital environment, as well as the value of the financial incentive provided in the first place of course.

The impact on brand value is also important - nobody wants to be known as the company that knocked out a multi-million-dollar satellite service because they didn’t de-orbit!

Governments and industry stakeholders will need to collaborate to develop fair and standardized cost models and determine the most effective incentive structures. Here it might be useful to consider how this has been approached in other industries.

Learning from other industries - incentivizing safer technologies

In numerous other sectors, governments and agencies have utilized differential tax rates to incentivize the adoption of safer or more sustainable technologies. And by taxing environmentally-friendly or safety-enhancing technologies at lower rates, governments have helped to encourage both businesses and consumers to adopt such innovations. Some specific examples include:

The automotive industry: in many countries, vehicles with lower CO2 emissions, such as hybrid or electric cars, are taxed at lower rates than traditional gasoline or diesel models. This approach not only incentivizes consumers to purchase cleaner vehicles but also encourages manufacturers to invest in bringing more environmentally-friendly technologies to market.

The construction industry: some governments have introduced tax incentives or reduced property taxes for buildings that achieve high energy efficiency ratings and/or incorporate certain sustainable design features and construction practices.

These measures encourage builders and property owners to invest in energy-efficient materials and technologies, and reduce overall energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The waste management industry: some governments have implemented differential landfill taxes, where the tax rate is higher for waste materials that are more harmful to the environment or have limited recycling potential.

This policy encourages businesses to reduce their waste generation or invest in recycling and waste recovery technologies, contributing to a more sustainable waste management system.

These examples demonstrate that implementing differential tax rates is thought to be an effective strategy for promoting the adoption of safer or more sustainable technologies in various industries.

Perhaps similar tactics can be utilized in the space industry to target de-orbiting solutions and Space Situational Awareness (SSA) systems, enabling governments to drive innovation and support the development of safer space missions.

What’s your view?

The growing issue of space debris demands proactive measures and industry engagement, and incentivizing the adoption of de-orbiting technologies could be an interesting strategy for addressing this challenge.

As discussed, by offering financial incentives, governments can encourage satellite operators to invest in sustainable practices and contribute to a safer space environment. But there are a lot of factors to weigh up and consider in the implementation of such a scheme.

We'd like to invite you to share your thoughts and insights on this topic:

Do you think governments should consider incentivizing the use of de-orbiting technologies?

Or is this a non-starter given how the industry operates today?

What challenges and opportunities do you foresee in implementing such incentives if they were attempted?

Let us know in the comments; and thanks for reading!