As SpaceX, Amazon and other industry giants invest billions of dollars in low-Earth orbit satellite constellations to expand internet access, concerns over space debris and orbital congestion are mounting. In this interview, Alexandre Vallet, head of the Space Services Department at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), discusses the economic dynamics shaping the sector, sovereignty concerns, the management of orbital resources, and the risks associated with the growing commercialization of space, as Africa looks to strengthen its presence in the emerging space economy.

We Are Tech: Major companies like SpaceX and Amazon are now pouring billions into low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations covering Africa and other regions. Beyond the headlines about universal connectivity, what is really driving these investments?

Alexandre Vallet: These companies believe there is a profitable market in extending connectivity to households and individuals that remain underserved by terrestrial infrastructure. They believe the market can support investments in the range of five to six billion dollars. Beyond the philanthropic messaging around universal connectivity, they see a real commercial opportunity.

A company like SpaceX is targeting two markets. First, the consumer market — people who can afford a monthly subscription. Second, the enterprise market, particularly maritime and aviation connectivity, where demand is very strong. Today, broadband access on airplanes remains relatively poor. These new constellations can deliver much higher throughput for that kind of use case. The same applies to maritime transport, whether for cargo tracking or cruise operations. A large cruise ship can carry three thousand passengers and two thousand crew members — effectively a floating town where everyone expects internet access. Satellite links are the only realistic way to provide adequate connectivity in that environment. That market is real, it is massive, and it is what makes these constellations financially viable.

Amazon approaches the issue somewhat differently because it also sees indirect economic benefits. Expanding connectivity means expanding the number of people who can access Amazon’s online services. Even if the connectivity business itself is not extremely profitable, Amazon can offset that by bringing new users into its broader ecosystem. The strategy goes well beyond connectivity alone — it is also about expanding the customer base.

Aren’t there also geopolitical and defense dimensions to this?

When it comes to geopolitical and military considerations, I do not think they are the main drivers at this stage. Whenever a new communications technology emerges, the military naturally wants to test it and potentially use it. But it would be inaccurate to say that military demand is what led to the creation of these constellations.

That said, once these systems are operational, concerns about strategic dependence become important. Both China and the European Union are cautious about relying too heavily on American companies, and that is encouraging the development of alternative projects.

When it comes to geopolitical and military considerations, I do not think they are the main drivers at this stage. Whenever a new communications technology emerges, the military naturally wants to test it and potentially use it.

Ultimately, this comes down to sovereignty. No country wants to depend entirely on another state’s technology for critical communications. As a result, many countries are developing their own satellite capabilities to secure at least part of their communications infrastructure. Increasingly, states want to maintain a minimum level of autonomous satellite capacity — not necessarily enough to meet all their needs, but enough to preserve essential communications capabilities.

Recently in Africa, ministers from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) agreed to develop a shared geostationary satellite project involving sixteen countries. Algeria, Angola and Egypt already operate their own satellites as well.

That said, not every country is going to build a full constellation like the European Union is attempting to do, because the costs are extremely high. Unlike a geostationary satellite positioned above one region, a constellation continuously orbits the Earth, meaning it spends much of its time serving areas other than your own territory. Countries either need international partnerships to share the cost, or they need to be part of a sufficiently large economic bloc capable of financing the system alone. What we are seeing more frequently is demand for access to geostationary orbit, where deploying even a single satellite already represents a major step forward.

SpaceX is announcing tens of thousands of satellites, while Amazon and OneWeb are making similar claims. Is this competitive race compatible with the ITU’s vision of sustainable management of low Earth orbit, especially given that many countries — particularly in Africa — will also need access to it?

There is a great deal of hype surrounding these numbers, and then there is the reality of what regulators and companies are actually putting into orbit, which is considerably more modest than the public announcements suggest. OneWeb initially announced forty thousand satellites, then reduced the figure to three thousand, and today operates around six hundred. Those headline numbers are often aimed more at investors than at engineers.

Take SpaceX as an example. The company announced that its final Starlink constellation would include around thirty thousand satellites. But the American regulator, the FCC, has only authorized fifteen thousand so far — an initial tranche of seventy-five hundred, with a second tranche planned later. Regulators themselves are nowhere near approving the figures highlighted in public communication.

At the ITU level, the measures actually being implemented remain compatible with sustainable orbit management, even if public messaging suggests otherwise. Real deployments are far more constrained, even though they still involve thousands of satellites.

What is more concerning is space debris. The greater the number of objects in orbit, the greater the potential for debris generation. Mega-constellations therefore raise more environmental concerns than resource-sharing concerns. We are not yet in a critical situation, which makes this the right moment to introduce corrective measures.

The legal framework already contains safeguards. You cannot reserve spectrum indefinitely without using it — it is essentially a “use it or lose it” system — and there are mechanisms to prevent monopolistic behavior. Our treaties require frequency coordination to be based on technical criteria. Countries therefore retain the ability to push back against anti-competitive practices using those technical standards.

There is also a somewhat counterintuitive aspect to this issue: larger constellations can actually make spectrum and orbit sharing easier. The larger the constellation, the more satellites are visible from any point on Earth. A new operator can simply say: “You communicate with that satellite, and I will use another one farther away in the sky.” Smaller constellations mean fewer satellites visible at any given moment, making interference avoidance more difficult. From a resource-sharing perspective, large constellations are not necessarily a problem.

What is more concerning is space debris. The greater the number of objects in orbit, the greater the potential for debris generation. Mega-constellations therefore raise more environmental concerns than resource-sharing concerns. We are not yet in a critical situation, which makes this the right moment to introduce corrective measures.

At what point can we say that low Earth orbit is saturated?

It is a complex question because there is not just one low Earth orbit. The term covers a range of altitudes from roughly two hundred to two thousand kilometers, and conditions vary significantly within that range.

Certain altitudes are particularly attractive, especially between six hundred and nine hundred kilometers. The closer you get to two hundred kilometers, the stronger atmospheric drag becomes, which slows satellites down and can cause them to deorbit relatively quickly. Above nine hundred kilometers, satellites require more power to communicate effectively with Earth, making those orbits less attractive commercially. The real sweet spot lies in the six-hundred-to-nine-hundred-kilometer range, and that area is genuinely becoming crowded.

In terms of physical capacity, the latest MIT study estimated that around 1.8 million satellites could theoretically orbit Earth without colliding. But that does not necessarily mean they could all operate without causing radio interference.

The rest of low Earth orbit is not particularly congested. Above nine hundred kilometers, there are relatively few satellites. Below six hundred kilometers, SpaceX has announced plans to move some satellites down to around five hundred and fifty kilometers, but at roughly four hundred kilometers — the altitude of the International Space Station — traffic remains limited. Low Earth orbit as a whole is therefore not saturated. What we see instead is a concentration of activity within a specific altitude band, partly due to herd behavior within the industry. Over time, operators will naturally begin moving slightly higher because those orbits, while somewhat less optimal, remain very usable.

In terms of physical capacity, the latest MIT study estimated that around 1.8 million satellites could theoretically orbit Earth without colliding. But that does not necessarily mean they could all operate without causing radio interference. For a ground station to distinguish between satellites, they need sufficient angular separation in the sky. That constraint alone limits the number of operational satellites.

So the real practical limit is probably lower than 1.8 million, but we are still very far from it. Even in the most crowded low Earth orbit band, there are currently only around ten thousand satellites. Large parts of low Earth orbit remain barely used — perhaps not the most attractive orbital positions, but still entirely workable.

Who is responsible for cleaning up space debris?

At present, there is no binding treaty governing space traffic management. Discussions are underway within the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) to develop guidelines, particularly concerning debris prevention. But these remain guidelines rather than legally binding rules.

One of the major issues is that every satellite — even non-operational ones — must still have an identifiable point of contact. We are working to ensure communication channels remain open, that operators can be reached, and that in periods of geopolitical tension we can act as a neutral intermediary to facilitate communication.

On the ITU side, our focus is primarily on preventing debris from being created in the first place by ensuring that operators have effective communication channels with one another.

The challenge today is not only that the number of objects in orbit is increasing, but that the number of operators is increasing even faster. SpaceX may manage ten thousand satellites, but it remains a single point of contact, which makes coordination relatively straightforward. Increasingly, however, space activities involve startups, small companies and universities. Several African universities, for example, have launched student satellites.

One of the major issues is that every satellite — even non-operational ones — must still have an identifiable point of contact. We are working to ensure communication channels remain open, that operators can be reached, and that in periods of geopolitical tension we can act as a neutral intermediary to facilitate communication.

In the absence of a binding treaty, how do you manage relationships with satellite operators on debris mitigation?

It varies considerably from one operator to another. Large companies have both economic and operational incentives to keep orbit clean because if they pollute it, they are damaging the very environment they rely on for their future operations. Their interests are broadly aligned with ours.

The bigger challenge comes from startups that launch a single satellite to test a component for a year or eighteen months and then abandon the project. Convincing those operators that a satellite cannot simply remain in orbit indefinitely once it stops functioning is much more difficult. At that point it effectively becomes debris. In my view, that is currently a greater risk than anything posed by mega-constellations.

For smaller operators, the key is to engage before launch and encourage them to use relatively low orbits where atmospheric drag will naturally bring the satellite back into the atmosphere over time, without additional costs or operational complexity.

For smaller operators, the key is to engage before launch and encourage them to use relatively low orbits where atmospheric drag will naturally bring the satellite back into the atmosphere over time, without additional costs or operational complexity. Most are receptive to that argument because it does not require significant extra investment, only better planning ahead of launch. The difficulty is ensuring they receive that information early enough.

Many countries are also introducing domestic regulations. In the United States, for example, the FCC now requires satellites to reenter the atmosphere within five years after the end of their operational life, compared with the previous twenty-five-year rule. Since most launches occur from a limited number of countries, similar national regulations adopted elsewhere could have an effect comparable to an international treaty. But it is true that a global legal framework remains missing.

How do you manage relations with astronomers who argue that satellite constellations interfere with observations?

We do not deal with optical astronomy, meaning observations based on visible light. But radio astronomy will indeed be discussed during the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference.

One of the issues under discussion is the creation of radio quiet zones. These already exist around major radio telescopes, where the use of WiFi or mobile phones is restricted. The debate now concerns extending this principle to space activities by requiring satellites to suspend transmissions when flying over those areas. ITU member states are expected to discuss the issue next year.

What are the most urgent measures needed to bring space pollution under control?

The most urgent priority is ensuring that no satellite ever becomes an orphaned object once its operational life ends. We cannot allow objects to remain in orbit without anyone being responsible for them.

Under international law, every space object remains under the responsibility of the state that launched it. If a satellite reaches the end of its mission and nobody is managing it from the ground anymore, the situation becomes extremely problematic because no one else has the legal authority to remove it.

The most important measure would therefore be guaranteeing that every object in space always has an identifiable point of contact capable of providing information about its status, technical characteristics and operational condition. When communication remains possible, solutions can generally be found. But when nobody can be reached, the object simply drifts in orbit and becomes a collision risk.

How does resource allocation in space work between countries? Can developed countries negotiate directly with less financially capable states to gain control over their orbital resources?

The first step is establishing the international framework. Once that framework exists, the ITU mechanism does not prohibit bilateral agreements between states, nor does it prevent a foreign company from approaching another country and saying: “You have access to these resources.” Such arrangements are allowed as long as they remain within the ITU framework.

All outer space resources are governed by the UN Outer Space Treaty adopted in the 1960s. The treaty establishes that outer space cannot be subject to national appropriation. No country can claim sovereignty over any part of space.

All outer space resources are governed by the UN Outer Space Treaty adopted in the 1960s. The treaty establishes that outer space cannot be subject to national appropriation. No country can claim sovereignty over any part of space.

The orbital resources allocated through the ITU are therefore not a form of ownership, but rather usage rights. The international community recognizes that a state may use those resources and must be protected from harmful interference while doing so. That is sufficient to operate a satellite system.

States cannot sell or rent these resources directly. However, nothing prevents a foreign private company from establishing a subsidiary within another country and having that local entity apply for a license to use the country’s resources. In practice, this is not considered a transfer of ownership. It is simply a state choosing to exercise its rights through a private operator, which remains compatible with international law.

Do countries need to be ITU members to access these resources?

Yes. Only ITU member states can access this mechanism. In practice, however, the issue is almost theoretical because the ITU has one hundred and ninety-four member states — essentially every UN member country. Even the Vatican is a member.

One limitation of low Earth orbit constellations is that their capacity remains constant regardless of whether satellites are flying over densely populated cities or empty ocean areas. This creates congestion hotspots where demand exceeds available capacity.

Only a very small number of entities are excluded, such as Kosovo, which is not recognized by enough countries. Palestine also has quasi-state status within the ITU and retains access to resources. In practice, almost every state can participate.

For African countries that are lagging behind in the space sector, is there a risk that unused orbital resources could eventually be lost?

No, I do not think that is a realistic risk. Every country has one vote within the ITU, and developing countries represent the majority. African countries coordinate their positions through the African Telecommunication Union, allowing around fifty states to adopt common positions. Together with countries from Asia and South America, they form a very large coalition with a clear majority.

That said, resources remain largely theoretical if a country does not actually deploy satellites to use them. That is why there are multiple initiatives across Africa aimed at developing satellite capabilities, including the sixteen-country SADC project and the creation of the African Space Agency in Egypt to pool resources and financing.

African regulators have also been among the first to establish frameworks authorizing services such as Starlink. Citizens in some African countries therefore gained access to these services before users in certain European countries that still restrict them.

Historically, even developed countries did not begin with national satellite systems. They initially relied on regional organizations and pooled resources.

Is the satellite industry moving toward low Earth orbit systems or geostationary systems?

The current trend in the satellite industry is toward what is known as multi-orbit systems: ground equipment capable of communicating with both low Earth orbit satellites and geostationary satellites without requiring separate hardware. The goal is to combine the advantages of both systems.

One limitation of low Earth orbit constellations is that their capacity remains constant regardless of whether satellites are flying over densely populated cities or empty ocean areas. This creates congestion hotspots where demand exceeds available capacity. Geostationary satellites can help solve that issue because they allow operators to concentrate capacity precisely where demand is strongest.

The idea is therefore to rely on low Earth orbit systems in lower-demand areas and fall back on geostationary satellites in areas where LEO capacity becomes saturated.

Starlink already marks certain zones as “currently unavailable” because the constellation has reached its local capacity limits and cannot add more customers without reducing service quality. That offers a preview of the industry’s future direction.

The major technical challenge lies in designing a single terminal capable of communicating both with a satellite orbiting at six hundred kilometers and with one positioned thirty-six thousand kilometers away in geostationary orbit. The differences in power requirements and signal characteristics are enormous, which makes the engineering challenge particularly complex.

Interview by Muriel EDJO