NASA is sounding a clear alarm about the way SpaceX is reshaping low orbit, warning that the company’s satellite swarms and proposed Hubble servicing plans could put one of astronomy’s most important observatories at risk. The concern is not only about a single mission going wrong, but about how a crowded sky and complex private ventures might erode the Hubble Space Telescope’s final productive years.
As SpaceX races to expand its Starlink network and pursues a Private mission to interact directly with Hubble, NASA is being forced into a delicate balancing act between embracing commercial innovation and protecting a national scientific icon. I see that tension running through internal warnings about satellite interference, cautious agreements on reboost studies, and fresh scrutiny of billionaire-led rescue proposals.
NASA’s early warnings about Starlink and Hubble
NASA’s unease with SpaceX’s ambitions did not begin with talk of a Hubble servicing flight. Years earlier, agency specialists were already warning that the next generation of Starlink satellites could interfere with both the Hubble Space Telescope and planetary defense work. In Feb, NASA flagged that the planned Starlink Gen2 expansion, involving tens of thousands of spacecraft, might disrupt the faint signals Hubble depends on and complicate asteroid tracking, a concern that was laid out in detail when NASA says Starlink Gen2 may cause problems for Hubble and other missions.
Those early technical objections were not about politics or personality, but about geometry and probability. Every new layer of satellites in low orbit increases the odds that Hubble’s long exposures will be streaked by bright trails, or that its line of sight to a fast-moving asteroid will be briefly blocked at the worst possible moment. NASA’s own language made clear that the agency saw a direct link between the scale of Starlink’s planned constellation and the risk to both Hubble and critical asteroid detection campaigns, even as it acknowledged that Currently only residents of certain regions could access the service that is driving this orbital buildout.
How mega-constellations threaten space astronomy
What NASA flagged in technical filings has since become a broader anxiety across the astronomy community as so-called mega-constellations multiply. Space telescopes like Hubble are designed to stare at extremely faint galaxies and subtle atmospheric signatures, which means even a single bright satellite can contaminate an image. As Dec reporting on space astronomy under threat has noted, Those satellites are often visible to the naked eye but are even more visible to astronomers, who rely on detailed and uninterrupted exposures to keep protecting our view of space, a reality captured in an analysis of how space astronomy is under threat from ‘megaconstellations’ of spacecraft.
From my vantage point, the problem is not simply that more satellites exist, but that they are being deployed in coordinated shells that sweep across the sky in predictable bands. When a telescope like Hubble schedules a deep observation, it can no longer assume a mostly empty field; instead, it must contend with a moving lattice of reflective hardware that can slice through exposures again and again. That is why NASA’s early warnings about Starlink Gen2 have resonated so strongly with ground-based observatories and other space missions, which see the same pattern of interference playing out across their own instruments.
Starlink’s orbital footprint and the view from Earth
SpaceX’s Starlink network is only one part of a much larger satellite boom, but it has become the most visible symbol of how quickly low orbit is filling up. NASA’s warning in Feb that Roughly one-third of the proposed satellites in a new wave of deployments would orbit Eart at altitudes that intersect with key scientific lines of sight underscored how deeply communications constellations are now entangled with astronomy. That concern was sharpened by the agency’s assessment that these spacecraft could block views of space and Earth at critical moments, a point that was spelled out when NASA issued a warning about SpaceX Starlink satellites and their potential to complicate efforts to redirect a potentially catastrophic impact.
From an observational standpoint, the altitude bands Starlink favors are particularly problematic because they sit in the same general region where Hubble peers past Earth’s limb and where planetary defense telescopes scan for near-Earth objects. When NASA notes that Roughly one-third of the proposed satellites would occupy these orbits, it is effectively saying that a large fraction of the sky that matters most for science and safety will be crisscrossed by moving obstacles. That is the context in which the agency’s more recent concerns about direct SpaceX activity around Hubble itself have to be understood.
Inside NASA’s cautious dance with SpaceX on Hubble
Even as NASA has raised alarms about Starlink’s impact on Hubble’s data, it has also explored whether SpaceX could help extend the telescope’s life. In Dec, NASA and SpaceX signed an unfunded Space Act Agreement Thursday, Sept to study the feasibility of a joint mission that would reboost Hubble to a higher orbit, a move that could delay its eventual reentry and buy astronomers more years of observations. The agreement, which also involved the Polaris program, was framed as a technical study rather than a commitment, a distinction that was emphasized when NASA and SpaceX to study Hubble Telescope reboost possibility was first announced.
That caution reflects how high the stakes are. Any attempt to dock with or grapple the Hubble Space Telescope would involve maneuvering a crewed or robotic vehicle in close proximity to a fragile, aging observatory that was never designed for commercial servicing. NASA’s engineers know from the shuttle era how complex such operations can be, and they are now weighing those risks against the potential benefits of a reboost that could keep The Hubble Space Telescope operating into the mid-2030’s. The agency’s willingness to sign a Space Act Agreement Thursday, Sept while still voicing concerns about Starlink’s broader footprint captures the dual role SpaceX now plays as both a partner and a source of new hazards.
The controversial private mission to “save” Hubble
The most contentious element of SpaceX’s Hubble involvement is not the study itself, but the specific Private mission concept that has emerged around it. A proposal to send a crewed Dragon capsule to rendezvous with the Hubble Space Telescope as part of a commercial flight has raised internal questions at NASA about safety, liability, and scientific control. Emails released through public records requests show that some agency staff worry the mission could expose Hubble to unnecessary risk, a concern that surfaced prominently when a Private mission to save Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails show.
From my perspective, what unsettles many NASA veterans is not just the technical challenge, but the optics of handing a storied public asset to a commercial crew whose primary objective is tied to a privately funded program. The mission concept has been linked to Polaris Dawn, a series of flights bankrolled by Billionaire Jared Isaacman, founder of Shift4 Payments and commander of the SpaceX Inspi mission, who has made clear that high-profile feats are part of the Polaris Dawn program’s DNA. That connection, detailed in coverage of how Polaris Dawn might interact with Hubble, has sharpened questions about whether NASA should allow a billionaire’s mission to take on such a delicate task.
Hubble’s aging hardware and NASA’s own mitigation moves
NASA’s warnings about external threats to Hubble are unfolding against a backdrop of internal challenges as the telescope itself ages. Earlier this year, the agency acknowledged that Hubble is suffering from hardware issues that are forcing it to change how it points, a shift that will limit some types of observations even as NASA insists that great science will continue. In a detailed update, officials stressed that Hubble will change how it points, but NASA says “great science” will continue, and that The Hubble Space Telescope is still expected to operate well into the mid-2030’s, a reassurance laid out when Hubble will change how it points, but NASA says ‘great science’ is still ahead.
In that context, any additional risk from SpaceX activity looms larger. If Hubble’s gyroscopes and other systems are already operating with less margin, a mishap during a docking attempt or an unexpected collision with a piece of hardware from a visiting vehicle could shorten its life dramatically. NASA’s own mitigation steps, such as adjusting pointing strategies and planning for a gradual decline in capabilities, are meant to stretch the telescope’s remaining years. The agency’s concern is that external pressures, from satellite streaks to ambitious private missions, could undo that careful planning.
From interference to direct threat: NASA’s sharper language
Over the past year, NASA’s tone about the satellite boom has grown more urgent, and SpaceX is now at the center of that shift. In Dec, new research highlighted by NASA warned that SpaceX is now threatening Hubble by contributing to a projected surge in orbital traffic, with All told, the researchers argue that current satellite constellations could be joined by as many as 500,000 m more over the next decade. That stark figure, cited in a report that framed how SpaceX is now threatening the Hubble, captures the scale of what NASA now sees as a systemic risk rather than a marginal nuisance.
What stands out to me is how this language connects the dots between individual constellations and the cumulative effect on Hubble’s operating environment. When All told, the researchers argue that current satellite constellations could be joined by as many as 500,000 m more, they are effectively describing a future in which the sky around Hubble is saturated with moving objects that can both spoil images and raise collision probabilities. NASA’s warnings about SpaceX are thus part of a broader alarm about a trajectory that could make precision space astronomy far harder, even if no single launch crosses a red line on its own.
Half a million satellites and the specific risk to Hubble images
The numbers behind that alarm are staggering. Dec analyses of planned satellite deployments suggest that More than half a million satellites are planned to launch in the coming years if current proposals from multiple companies, including SpaceX, go ahead. For Hubble, which relies on long, uninterrupted exposures to capture faint galaxies and subtle cosmic structures, that means a growing fraction of its images could be ruined by bright streaks or glints, a scenario spelled out in reporting that warned that Planned satellite launches could ruin Hubble Space Telescope images if thousands of satellites go ahead.
Another Dec investigation into the threat posed by Elon Musk’s satellites underscored that first came some curious lights in the sky after nightfall, which surprised astronomy enthusiasts, but the most excited about the new constellations were not scientists. Instead, astronomers warned that plans to launch more than 500,000 satellites would directly affect space telescopes like Hubble, a warning captured in a report on how the threat posed by Elon Musk’s satellites also affects space observatories. When I look at those figures side by side, it is clear that Hubble’s imaging challenges are not hypothetical; they are baked into the orbital plans already on the table.
A crowded low orbit and rising collision fears
Beyond optical interference, NASA and other experts are increasingly worried about the physical safety of spacecraft operating in a congested low orbit. Studies of traffic growth in this region warn that Low Earth orbit ‘at risk of experiencing multiple collisions’ as satellite numbers increase, a conclusion that reflects both the sheer count of active spacecraft and the debris they generate. That assessment, detailed in an article on how Low Earth orbit is changing, underscores that every new constellation, including Starlink, adds to a collision cascade risk that could threaten Hubble even if it never comes close to a Starlink satellite itself.
From Hubble’s vantage point, the danger is twofold. A direct collision with a satellite or a fragment would be catastrophic, but even a distant smash-up between other spacecraft could spray debris into orbits that intersect Hubble’s path. NASA’s own modeling of debris fields has long shown how a single event can multiply the number of hazardous objects, and the prospect of hundreds of thousands of new satellites only amplifies that concern. When NASA warns that SpaceX activity could risk Hubble, it is speaking not only about one company’s hardware, but about the role that Starlink and similar projects play in pushing Low Earth orbit toward a tipping point.
Space research at a turning point
For astronomers, the satellite surge is not an abstract policy issue; it is already changing how they work. Dec commentary on 100,000 satellites described Space Research at a Turning Point, arguing that the biggest issue with this satellite boom is how it messes with the data astronomers collect, drowning out the faint signals we care about. That framing, laid out in an analysis of how Space Research is at a Turning Point, resonates strongly with Hubble’s situation, because the telescope’s greatest strength is its ability to tease out those faint signals from a dark, quiet sky.
In my view, Hubble has become a kind of test case for whether the world is willing to treat the night sky as shared scientific infrastructure or as a blank canvas for commercial networks. If the telescope’s images are increasingly marred by satellite streaks, or if its life is cut short by a collision or a mishandled servicing attempt, it will be hard to argue that the current approach to orbital development is compatible with long-term space research. That is why NASA’s warnings about SpaceX carry weight far beyond a single company; they are part of a broader reckoning with how we manage a finite and fragile orbital commons.
Who pays to protect Hubble’s orbit?
As the risks mount, legal scholars and policy advocates are asking whether companies that profit from orbital activity should bear more responsibility for the hazards they create. One prominent argument invokes the “polluter pays” principle, contending that with The Urgency of Action With the rapid rise of satellite mega-constellations, space traffic is becoming unsustainable and significantly increasing the risk of collisions in orbit. That case, laid out in a call for The Urgency of Action With the polluter pays principle in orbit, suggests that operators like SpaceX should help fund debris mitigation and scientific protections proportional to their impact.
Applied to Hubble, that logic would mean recognizing the telescope as a vulnerable bystander in an increasingly commercial neighborhood. If SpaceX’s satellites and potential servicing missions raise the risk to Hubble’s operations, then a fair system would require the company to invest in safeguards, from better collision avoidance to coordinated observation windows that minimize interference. NASA’s current posture, which mixes partnership with pointed warnings, hints at an emerging expectation that private actors will have to do more than simply comply with minimal regulations if they want to operate in the same orbital lanes as irreplaceable scientific assets.
More from MorningOverview