Research Spotlight: Space Is Full of Trash
Rocket reusability is becoming a legal and ethical requirement for spacefaring nations. This research spotlight unpacks why ignoring reusable launch systems could violate international laws.
Rocket launches are booming, but so is the junk they are leaving behind. This research spotlight breaks down a sharp and timely legal analysis by Matthew Lumia, who argues that rocket reusability is a legal and ethical necessity. In a world where orbital debris is piling up and regulations are stuck in the past, the article makes the case that current practices may already be violating international law.
🛰️ Blast-Off or Backfire?
Reusable rocket technology is often celebrated for its innovation and efficiency, but Matthew Lumia’s article in the Duke Law & Technology Review presents a more urgent argument. He positions rocket reusability not as a matter of engineering preference, but as a legal and ethical imperative.
In doing so, he draws attention to the overlooked consequences of disposable launch vehicles and the legal obligations that spacefaring nations are bound to under international law.
The growth of commercial space activity, particularly led by private actors like SpaceX, has resulted in frequent and highly visible launches. While the spectacle of these missions garners media attention, the real issue lies in what is left behind.
Expendable rockets contribute to a dangerous increase in space debris, or "orbital junk," which accumulates in low Earth orbit and poses a serious risk to satellites, spacecraft, and even astronauts.
As the author notes, this buildup is not just a technical inconvenience; it is a long-term hazard with environmental, economic, and security consequences.
The article situates this issue within the framework of the Outer Space Treaty, specifically Article IX, which obligates countries to act with "due regard" for the interests of other nations in their space activities. He argues that continuing to use expendable rockets without transitioning to reusable systems violates this principle.
In his view, the burden of proof has shifted. Spacefaring states must now justify why they are not adopting reusable technology when it is available, tested, and demonstrably more sustainable.
What makes the argument particularly relevant is its timing. As of 2024, the global launch cadence is accelerating, largely driven by private corporations operating with limited regulation. Governments have been slow to catch up. The legal frameworks that govern outer space have not evolved to address the realities of today’s commercial space race.
In the absence of binding international rules on space debris, Lumia identifies the "due regard" standard as one of the few existing legal tools that can be interpreted to impose an obligation of responsibility on launch providers.
This raises important questions about enforcement.
The United States, which licenses a majority of global launches through the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, has attempted to set rules on debris mitigation. However, these measures face political resistance and legal uncertainty, especially following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, which has limited federal agencies’ interpretive power. In a political environment where deregulatory sentiment remains strong, relying on voluntary compliance and ethical discretion will likely prove insufficient.
Reusability is not only economically efficient, it is also a legal necessity grounded in international law. Refusal to transition risks violating treaty obligations, harming the shared space environment, and exacerbating geopolitical tensions in an already competitive domain.
🌍 Debris Is the New Smog
The article makes a sound case for why expendable rocket systems must be phased out. The reason is not economic. It is not technological. It is environmental and legal. Each expendable rocket launch increases the volume of dangerous debris in orbit. These fragments are not monitored in any consistent or enforceable way, yet they pose real risks to future missions, satellites, and human life.
The core of the problem is straightforward. Every time a launch provider uses a rocket that cannot be recovered, parts of that rocket remain in orbit or fall back uncontrolled into Earth's atmosphere or surface. The article highlights that the current rate of launches, combined with the lack of global debris regulation, is creating an orbital environment where safety, equity, and access are becoming more fragile by the day.
The author examines the issue through both ethical and legal frameworks. He draws attention to the principle of environmental stewardship, arguing that expendable rockets violate the responsibility of spacefaring nations to protect the orbital commons.
This is not just a matter of policy preference. It is tied directly to Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty, which requires nations to avoid harmful contamination of outer space and to show due regard for the interests of other states. The continued use of disposable launch systems conflicts with this duty.
What makes this argument even more pressing is the absence of a reliable global mechanism to enforce responsible behaviour. The author notes that current mitigation guidelines, such as those issued by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, are voluntary and lack teeth. At the same time, domestic regulatory agencies in spacefaring states have limited capacity to impose meaningful restrictions on commercial actors. The political trend of deregulation, particularly in countries like the United States, undermines the potential for effective domestic oversight. The result is an accountability vacuum at the international level.
In this context, the author’s emphasis on reusability is strategic. It is one of the few tools that can reduce debris generation at its source.
The logic is simple: reusable systems mean fewer discarded stages, less fragmentation, and lower risk to the orbital environment. It also places the burden on launch providers to justify continued use of outdated and environmentally harmful practices when reusable alternatives exist.
There is also a broader geopolitical dimension. If states continue to allow unregulated debris production, it risks fuelling diplomatic tensions. Developing nations, which rely on safe and open access to space, will increasingly see the unchecked behaviour of spacefaring powers as an act of exclusion. This could destabilize existing treaties and weaken cooperation at a time when global consensus is most needed.
The message is clear. Continuing to allow expendable launches without mandatory debris mitigation is not sustainable. It undermines legal obligations, environmental stability, and global trust. Reusability is no longer a technical upgrade. It is a legal and moral obligation.
SpaceX Is Not Just Winning; They Are Proving a Point
SpaceX has transformed space launch norms. While many companies continue to pursue launch vehicles designed for one-time use, SpaceX has normalised recovery, refurbishment, and relaunch.
What the author identifies in his article is not only that SpaceX is succeeding at a technical level, but that it is raising the bar for what should be considered acceptable behaviour in outer space activity. The legal and ethical implications are substantial.
SpaceX began flying reused Falcon 9 boosters with increasing confidence and success starting in 2017. More than a technological milestone, the regular relaunch of these boosters proves that the barriers to rocket reusability are no longer theoretical. The process is effective. It is operationally integrated. It is profitable. Most importantly, it is public.
The consequence of that visibility, as the author explains, is that any state or company continuing to rely on expendable vehicles now carries a heavier burden of justification under international legal norms.
This is where law meets industry.
Under Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty, states must avoid harmful interference and act with due regard for the interests of other states. With reusability now a functioning standard, it becomes legally difficult to argue that the continued use of expendable systems is a responsible choice.
If reusability can significantly reduce orbital debris and environmental risk, then choosing not to adopt it may become inconsistent with treaty obligations. In that light, SpaceX is not just setting a business example. It is establishing a new reference point for what international space law should treat as reasonable conduct.
The role of the United States government in licensing and encouraging these developments cannot be separated from the picture. SpaceX is not operating in a vacuum. The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Department of Commerce have all facilitated its operations.
These agencies now find themselves at a crossroads. If the technology exists to reduce long-term harm to the shared space environment, and if one American company is using that technology effectively, then those agencies may have a duty to begin requiring higher standards from all launch operators.
This places reusability in direct tension with deregulation. Political factions that view environmental regulation as a form of state overreach may resist any move to formalise higher legal standards. Yet this article makes clear that space is not a domestic playground. Its risks are international and intergenerational. If one firm has proven that safer and more sustainable practices are viable, then other actors who refuse to follow suit may not only fall behind in business, they may run afoul of international obligations.
At its core, the SpaceX example gives regulators and diplomats a working model. The legal system may not yet demand reusability, but ethically and practically, the floor has shifted. The international community can no longer claim that single-use launch systems are the only feasible option. That illusion has been dismantled.
The Kessler Syndrome: Sci-Fi or Near-Reality?
Matthew Lumia's article draws urgent attention to a very real risk that space policymakers and legal authorities have not adequately addressed. The Kessler Syndrome refers to a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit becomes so high that each new collision generates more debris, increasing the likelihood of further collisions. This cascading effect would eventually make parts of space unusable for decades or longer.
What the author does effectively is show that this is not a speculative fear or a distant threat. It is already beginning to unfold.
Space debris is not a theoretical hazard. According to recent statistics referenced in the article, there are thousands of objects in orbit that no longer serve any functional purpose. These include defunct satellites, discarded rocket stages, and fragments from past collisions.
All of these travel at extreme speeds, and even a small object can cause catastrophic damage to an active satellite or space station. As space activity grows, particularly from commercial operators launching large constellations of satellites, the volume of debris increases. Yet the regulatory response has remained fragmented and slow.
The author highlights the ethical responsibility of states to prevent this outcome under the existing framework of international space law. Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty requires nations to conduct space activities with due regard to the interests of others and to avoid harmful contamination.
The article argues that continued reliance on single-use rockets and disregard for debris mitigation is inconsistent with these obligations. The threat posed by Kessler Syndrome is not simply technical; it is legal. Failure to address it may place states in breach of their treaty responsibilities.
In the U.S. the challenge becomes even more complex. Agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration all have partial jurisdiction over aspects of space activity in the United States. Their ability to regulate is now constrained by judicial decisions like Loper Bright, which curtail agency discretion. In this political climate, efforts to strengthen federal oversight of space launches risk being cast as regulatory overreach.
The article advocates for a reinterpretation of existing legal principles to prioritise sustainable practices. By situating the Kessler Syndrome within the realm of legal duty, rather than optional policy, the article reframes the conversation. Without decisive legal and policy reform, the risk will only escalate. The longer states wait to act, the more expensive and politically difficult it will become.
Consider subscribing to the Tech Law Standard. A paid subscription gets you:
✅ Exclusive updates and commentaries on tech law (AI regulation, data and privacy law, cybersecurity, digital assets governance, and internet law).
✅ Unrestricted access to our entire archive of articles with in-depth analysis of tech law developments across the globe.
✅ Read the latest legal reforms and upcoming regulations about tech law, and how they might impact you in ways you might not have imagined.
✅ Post comments on every publication and join the discussion.
I agree that the private companies engaging in space exploration should be developing reusable equipment. It was the motivation behind the development of the NASA space shuttle program. But in addition to addressing the impact of increased space debris orbiting the Earth, I suggest that the location of launch pads and the impact on local communities should be considered as part of the discussion about the future development of private space transportation companies. Please see the article in Scientific American of 5/30/25 by Paola Rosa-Aquino reporting on the impact of launches on Starbase, the Space X company town in south Texas. Any policy that looks to manage the orderly and sustainable development of space exploration needs to include what happens on the ground as well in space. Stay safe.