Who is allowed to launch satellites – and who is liable for the debris?
(Bild: NASA)
Who is allowed to launch rockets and who is responsible for any damages? An overview of space law, national laws, and international liability rules.
The numbers are impressive: SpaceX, the private space company, has now completed around 500 successful rocket launches, almost a third of them in 2025. Half of all active satellites in Earth orbit come from SpaceX [1], the 10,000th Starlink satellite was just launched into orbit. But what many don't know: these satellites are not intended for eternity. One to two Starlink satellite crashes per day [2] are now the norm: SpaceX designs the satellites for a lifespan of five to seven years, but usually lets them intentionally burn up after less than five years. This allows them to be replaced by newer models and product cycles to be shortened. In addition, the short operational life corresponds to regulatory requirements for the prevention of space debris, as failed satellites quickly burn up in low orbits and pose no long-term threat – more on this later.
While almost all remnants burn up in the atmosphere during the re-entry of Starlink satellites, and only in exceptional cases do tiny fragments reach the Earth's surface, NASA's plan to deliberately crash the ISS at the end of 2030/beginning of 2031 poses an incomparably greater residual risk. The probability of larger fragments hitting inhabited areas is significantly higher due to the enormous mass of the space station.
Both launch and re-entry of spacecraft are associated with risks. Therefore, every launch requires state approval, every satellite must be registered, and the respective state is liable for any damages – regardless of whether the responsible company is private or public. The liability issue is particularly tricky when large objects re-enter in a controlled manner: Who is liable if debris hits inhabited areas? Space law is a patchwork of international treaties from the 1960s, national laws with sometimes significant differences, and non-binding technical guidelines. We provide an overview.
(Image: Leolabs [4])
International Law: Foundations from the Cold War
International space law emerged during the height of the Cold War. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 into space, followed by the USA – both superpowers wanted to prevent the orbit from becoming a combat zone. The solution: the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 [5], which has regulated international law in space for over 50 years, and has now been ratified by 117 states [6].
Core of the treaty: Outer space belongs to no one but is open to all. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty [7] states: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, through use or occupation, or by any other means." States may not appropriate the moon or other celestial bodies. Weapons of mass destruction are prohibited in space, but conventional weapons are not explicitly excluded – a loophole that is becoming relevant again today. Debris, weapons, and subsoil resources make outer space a vast field for lawyers [8].
Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty is particularly important for commercial spaceflight. It stipulates that states are responsible for all space activities under their jurisdiction – whether carried out by state or private actors. The wording is unambiguous:
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space […] whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space […] shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.
This means: A private company cannot simply build and launch a rocket. It needs a state license, and the state must supervise its operation – including disposal at the end of the mission. This regulation was visionary for 1967 – at that time, NASA and the Soviet space agency dominated the sector. Experts have been discussing why an update to the Outer Space Treaty is long overdue [9] for years.
The Outer Space Treaty is supplemented by two further agreements: The Liability Convention of 1972 [10] (Liability Convention) regulates who pays for damages caused by space objects. The Registration Convention of 1975 [11] obliges states to report every launch to the United Nations.
Who pays when a satellite crashes?
The Liability Convention distinguishes between two scenarios:
- On Earth: If a satellite or rocket stage causes damage to the Earth's surface or an aircraft, the launching state is absolutely liable – i.e., regardless of fault. This strict liability applies even if a technical defect was unforeseeable or the object originated from a private operator. This also applies to controlled re-entry: If something goes wrong during the deorbiting of the ISS and debris hits inhabited areas, the involved launching states – primarily the USA – are liable.
- In space: collisions between satellites are subject to liability for fault. Whoever causes damage to another space object must have acted negligently or intentionally.
The most famous liability case is the crash of Kosmos 954 over Canada in January 1978. The Soviet reconnaissance satellite with a nuclear reactor on board did not completely burn up and contaminated a huge area. Canada demanded 6 million Canadian dollars in damages. After years of negotiations, the Soviet Union finally paid 3 million CAD in April 1981 – without admitting fault, purely as an "ex gratia" payment. The case shows: Even clear liability claims can practically only be enforced diplomatically.
Another problem is the definition of "launching state". All states that carry out or arrange a launch, plus those from whose territory or facilities the launch takes place, are considered launching states. Example: A German company launches a satellite with a SpaceX rocket from Florida. Then both Germany and the USA are launching states – both are jointly and severally liable.
To limit liability risks, launching states often conclude internal agreements for international missions that regulate who bears which share in the event of damage. The USA has no interest in being liable for a German Earth observation satellite once it is in orbit – they merely offer a transport service.
Important: A state cannot relinquish its status as a launching state retroactively. The principle "Once a launching State, always a launching State" means: Liability remains indefinitely. If a 30-year-old satellite breaks apart and damages another object decades later, the original launching state is still liable.
Germany without Space Law: A Decade of Delay
While the USA has been regulating commercial spaceflight in detail since the 1980s and France passed the French Space Operations Act (FSOA) [12] back in 2008, Germany is lagging. The French law requires every operator – whether state or private – to apply for a permit from the responsible ministry before launching or controlling a satellite. France checks both the technical and financial capabilities of the applicant and their compliance with safety-relevant regulations. Violations can result in fines of up to 200,000 euros and, in safety-relevant cases, even prison sentences. The FSOA is considered a European benchmark: it links national supervision with the obligations from the UN space treaties.
Germany, on the other hand, still has no comparable, comprehensive space law. The consequence: The federal government is internationally liable for all space activities of German citizens or companies but cannot claim recourse from the operators in case of damage because the legal basis is missing.
In September 2024, the Federal Cabinet decided [13] at least on key points for a future space law. The most important points:
- Permit requirement: All private space activities will require a license in the future, which is to be issued by an authority within the purview of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK).
- Liability cap: Private operators are liable up to a maximum of 50 million euros per claim [14]; beyond that, the federal government will step in.
- Mandatory insurance: Operators must provide proof of liability insurance up to the maximum limit.
- Space debris prevention: Technical requirements for the prevention of space debris, including binding disposal plans after the end of the mission.
The German space industry reacts with mixed feelings. According to a BDI survey, 70 percent of the new space start-ups surveyed rate the key points negatively. Main criticism: excessive bureaucracy and unclear procedures.
The Bundeswehr is currently examining the establishment of its own satellite constellations [15] to ensure its communication and reconnaissance capabilities independently of civilian or foreign operators in the future. Considering growing geopolitical tensions, the Bundeswehr plans to establish its own, securely encrypted network of small satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) – a kind of German military counterpart to Starlink. The aim is to guarantee sovereign, interference-resistant data transmission and situational reconnaissance in crisis situations, even if terrestrial networks fail.
Orbits: Legally Equal, Practically Different
From an international law perspective, it makes no difference whether a satellite flies at an altitude of 500 or 36,000 kilometers. The basic obligations – approval, registration, liability – apply universally. In practice, however, there are significant differences related to the physics of the respective orbit.
- Low Earth Orbit (LEO, 200 - 2000 km): Satellites in low orbits are still in the remnants of the Earth's atmosphere. Friction slows them down over years until they eventually burn up. Starlink operates at an altitude of around 550 km – there, the natural lifespan without orbital boost is about five years. SpaceX uses this deliberately: defective or outdated satellites are simply no longer boosted and burn up automatically.
- Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO, 35,786 km): Geostationary satellites move synchronously with the Earth's rotation. Deorbiting into the atmosphere would require about 1500 m/s Delta-v, where Delta-v (Δv) denotes the total change in velocity that a spacecraft can achieve with its engines and thus the measure of its maneuvering and energy reserves. Because deorbiting would be costly, decommissioned GEO satellites are instead moved to a "graveyard orbit", about 235 – 300 km above the geostationary orbit.
Disposal obligations: From 25 years to five years
The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) [16] – an international forum of 13 space agencies – has recommended the 25-year rule since the 1990s: LEO satellites must be removed from orbit at the latest 25 years after the end of their mission.
The USA has drastically tightened this in 2024. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a binding five-year rule [17]: All satellites licensed by it must disappear from LEO within five years of the end of their mission. The rule also applies to foreign operators who want to offer services in the US market. The FCC has also already imposed fines: $900,000 for unauthorized satellites [18] had to be paid by the start-up Swarm Technologies.
SpaceX is consistently implementing the rule, as the daily crashes show. New satellites from Almagest, AST, SpaceSail, and Starlink are now competing in low-Earth orbit [19], while SpaceX is even planning another 15,000 satellites for mobile communications from space [20].
The European Space Agency (ESA) has now adopted and expanded the US five-year rule for decommissioned LEO satellites. As part of its "Zero Debris" approach [21], which is part of "Agenda 2025", the ESA even requires all new missions to remove satellites from orbit within five years of the end of their mission at the latest.
ISS Deorbiting: One Billion Dollars for Controlled Crash
The challenge of deorbiting is particularly evident in the already mentioned planned end of the International Space Station. The ISS weighs about 420 tons and measures 109 meters in length, or 94 meters with deployed solar arrays. An uncontrolled crash could be catastrophic.
In June 2024, NASA commissioned SpaceX to develop a special "US Deorbit Vehicle" [22]. The vehicle is based on the Cargo Dragon capsule but will be massively reinforced and equipped with additional fuel tanks. The costs: $843 million [23] – for development alone. Launch and operation will cost hundreds of millions more.
The plan envisages [24] that the Deorbit Vehicle will fly to the ISS at the end of 2028 or beginning of 2029. The last crew will leave the station about six months before the final re-entry. The vehicle will then bring the ISS down in a controlled manner in a final, massive maneuver sequence – presumably in January 2031 in an uninhabited area of the South Pacific.
The responsibility for safe deorbiting lies with all five participating space agencies [25]: NASA, Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, and the Canadian Space Agency. Should something go wrong during re-entry, the involved launching states would be liable, a billion-dollar risk that underscores the importance of precise planning.
The Kessler Syndrome: When Collisions Become a Chain Reaction
The greatest long-term threat to the safe use of space is the so-called Kessler syndrome, named after NASA astrophysicist Donald J. Kessler. In 1978, he formulated the hypothetical assumption that the density of objects in near-Earth orbit could become so great that collisions between satellites and debris would trigger an uncontrollable chain reaction. This theory was first published in the journal Journal of Geophysical Research under the title "Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt". It describes a kind of "runaway effect": each collision creates new debris, which in turn collides with other objects. The result would be a self-sustaining, exponential increase in space debris, a kind of orbital domino effect.
Physically, the mechanism is easily explained: at relative speeds of up to 16 km/s, even particles a few millimeters in diameter release enormous kinetic energy. If it hits a larger object, it can damage or even penetrate its surface. This creates new fragments that spread out on unpredictable trajectories. These fragments, in turn, increase the probability of collision and lead to a self-reinforcing process.
Kessler recognized that there is a critical object density at which debris production grows faster than natural removal through atmospheric friction. If this threshold is exceeded, near-Earth space will turn into a permanently dangerous zone, even if no new rocket launches take place. This state would be irreversible in the long term and could block access to space for decades.
We are already approaching critical densities today. According to the ESA Space Environment Report 2025 [26], about 40,000 objects are tracked, of which about 11,000 are active satellites; in addition, there are millions of smaller particles that cannot be tracked directly. Each of these components flies at several kilometers per second – upon impact, this corresponds to the energy of a grenade.
Historically, the development began with explosions in spent rocket stages that had residual fuel on board. Kessler himself studied these cases in the 1970s. The practical proof of the danger he described was provided by the collision of Iridium 33 and Kosmos 2251 on February 10, 2009: at an altitude of 789 kilometers, an active communication satellite and a decommissioned Russian military satellite collided at about 11.7 kilometers per second. This created over 100,000 fragments, of which only the largest are cataloged. Some of these debris pieces are still in orbit today and have forced the International Space Station to take evasive maneuvers several times.
Empfohlener redaktioneller Inhalt
Mit Ihrer Zustimmung wird hier ein externes Video (TargetVideo GmbH) geladen.
Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass mir externe Inhalte angezeigt werden. Damit können personenbezogene Daten an Drittplattformen (TargetVideo GmbH) übermittelt werden. Mehr dazu in unserer Datenschutzerklärung [27].
Current models, such as those from ESA and NASA, show that near-Earth space is slowly approaching critical density without active countermeasures. Simulations, such as those by the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office in Houston, predict that the number of larger objects could double every five to ten years, even without additional launches. This scenario could make the permanent operation of satellites and space stations impossible.
The theoretical basis of the Kessler syndrome is reminiscent of non-linear dynamics systems: a small change in density (more satellite launches) can exceed a threshold, beyond which feedback loops dominate. The orbit then develops metastable states – similar to supercritical nuclear fission or ecological tipping points. In this sense, the current situation is an empirical test of a non-linear system on a global scale.
Military Use: A Legal Gray Area
While weapons of mass destruction in space have been explicitly prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty since 1967, conventional weapons, military use, and tests in orbit remain permitted – an aspect that has gained new urgency due to recent geopolitical developments.
Tensions in near-Earth orbit have increased significantly again since last year: Russia has repeatedly sent suspected anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) into space and maneuvered them close to US military satellites [28]. In parallel, high-ranking military officials and political experts have warned that space is threatening to become a theater for hybrid and military conflicts between the great powers. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, Pierre Vandier, called in early 2025 for Europe to finally compete on equal footing with Russia, China – and also private space providers like Elon Musk – in space [29].
In April 2025, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also urgently warned [30] that the international community must be aware of the looming militarization and nuclearization of orbit. Especially considering new hybrid threats and the potential deployment of nuclear weapons in space (despite formal prohibition), the nuclear balance is no longer guaranteed as a matter of course.
Against this background, new business models such as the planned cargo spacecraft by US start-up Inversion [31], which could store military goods in orbit and deliver them worldwide within an hour, appear in an entirely different light: they are not only an impetus for political and international legal debates, but are becoming part of an increasingly real security architecture in space.
Conclusion: Law is lagging behind technology
Commercial spaceflight is developing faster than the law can keep up. While SpaceX burns satellites daily and NASA plans the complex deorbiting of the ISS, international space law is still based on treaties from the Cold War era. Germany took over a decade to even agree on key points for a national law.
The basic principles are clear: states bear responsibility – not only for launch but also for disposal. Private actors require permits, and the launching state is ultimately liable for damages. With tightened US disposal regulations and planned EU regulations, a turnaround is emerging. Whether this will be enough remains to be seen – at the latest with the controlled crash of the ISS, the world will see how serious the spacefaring nations are about responsible use of space.
[32](vza [33])
Don't miss any news – follow us on Facebook [34], LinkedIn [35] or Mastodon [36].
This article was originally published in German [37]. It was translated with technical assistance and editorially reviewed before publication.
URL dieses Artikels:
https://www.heise.de/-11068780
Links in diesem Artikel:
[1] https://www.heise.de/news/SpaceX-schiesst-10-000sten-Starlink-Satelliten-ins-All-10789121.html?from-en=1
[2] https://www.heise.de/news/Satelliteninternet-Schon-ein-bis-zwei-Abstuerze-von-Starlink-Satelliten-pro-Tag-10726535.html?from-en=1
[3] https://platform.leolabs.space/visualizations/leo
[4] https://platform.leolabs.space/visualizations/leo
[5] https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
[6] https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
[7] https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html
[8] https://www.heise.de/news/Muell-Waffen-Bodenschaetze-Das-Weltall-als-weites-Feld-fuer-Juristen-4080144.html?from-en=1
[9] https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Die-Weltraumpolitik-bewegt-sich-endlich-ins-21-Jahrhundert-6208503.html?from-en=1
[10] https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html
[11] https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html
[12] https://spacecare.cnes.fr/en/la-securite-des-vols-spatiaux-english/legislative-and-regulatory-framework/
[13] https://www.heise.de/news/Regierung-will-Raumfahrt-Industrie-regulieren-und-Weltraumschrott-vermeiden-9857590.html?from-en=1
[14] https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/1042900/WD-5-183-24-pdf.pdf
[15] https://www.heise.de/news/Ein-eigenes-Starlink-Bundeswehr-prueft-Aufbau-von-Satellitenkonstellation-10345434.html?from-en=1
[16] https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/iadc-space-debris-guidelines-revision-2.pdf
[17] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/09/2024-17093/space-innovation-mitigation-of-orbital-debris-in-the-new-space-age
[18] https://www.heise.de/news/900-000-Dollar-Strafe-fuer-nicht-genehmigte-Satelliten-4257856.html?from-en=1
[19] https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Neue-LEO-Satelliten-von-Almagest-AST-SpaceSail-und-Starlink-auf-dem-Markt-10277852.html?from-en=1
[20] https://www.heise.de/news/SpaceX-plant-neue-15-000-Satelliten-fuer-Mobilfunk-aus-dem-All-10672024.html?from-en=1
[21] https://technology.esa.int/page/space-debris-mitigation
[22] https://www.heise.de/news/NASA-beauftragt-SpaceX-mit-Entwicklung-eines-Deorbit-Vehicle-fuer-ISS-9780120.html?from-en=1
[23] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-selects-international-space-station-us-deorbit-vehicle/
[24] https://www.nasa.gov/faqs-the-international-space-station-transition-plan/
[25] https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-analysis-summary.pdf
[26] https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/ESA_Space_Environment_Report_2025
[27] https://www.heise.de/Datenschutzerklaerung-der-Heise-Medien-GmbH-Co-KG-4860.html
[28] https://www.heise.de/news/Russland-hat-angeblich-Antisatellitenwaffe-ins-All-und-zu-US-Satellit-geschickt-9726486.html?from-en=1
[29] https://www.heise.de/news/NATO-Kommandeur-Europa-muss-im-Weltraum-Musk-Russland-und-China-Paroli-bieten-10372430.html?from-en=1
[30] https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/nato-rutte-warnung-atomwaffen-100.html
[31] https://www.heise.de/news/Inversion-Raumfrachter-soll-jeden-Ort-der-Welt-in-60-Minuten-erreichen-10711766.html?from-en=1
[32] https://www.heise.de/newsletter/anmeldung.html?id=ki-update&wt_mc=intern.red.ho.ho_nl_ki.ho.markenbanner.markenbanner
[33] mailto:vza@heise.de
[34] https://www.facebook.com/heiseonlineEnglish
[35] https://www.linkedin.com/company/104691972
[36] https://social.heise.de/@heiseonlineenglish
[37] https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Wer-darf-Satelliten-starten-und-wer-haftet-fuer-den-Schrott-10789195.html
Copyright © 2025 Heise Medien