According to SpaceNews, a recent Executive Order has fundamentally revised how the U.S. implements Space Policy Directive-3, removing the long-standing expectation that basic space situational awareness (SSA) services—including crucial conjunction warnings—would be provided for free. This decision breaks from over a decade of U.S. practice where sharing this data was seen as a core safety function. The order, titled “Ensuring American Space Superiority,” shifts the policy without providing a clear new funding or legal framework. Now, the Department of Commerce could start charging operators for collision alerts that were previously a public service. The immediate impact is uncertainty for every satellite operator, from giant constellations to small startups, who rely on this data to avoid catastrophic in-orbit collisions.
The three confusing reasons why
So what’s the actual goal here? The article, written by former Office of Space Commerce director Richard DalBello, lays out three possible theories, and that’s the core of the problem. We don’t know which one is right. Is it simple cost recovery? That seems pretty weak, honestly. The fees would likely be marginal compared to the system’s cost, operators could just use free data from Europe or others, and the administrative headache would be real. It just doesn’t add up.
The second theory is more cynical, and maybe more plausible: market forcing. Basically, the government makes its own service expensive or annoying to push everyone toward commercial SSA providers. Let the market figure it out through “real demand and real failure.” Here’s the thing, though: that flips the entire original plan on its head. SPD-3 envisioned a trusted, free civil baseline first, to build confidence and standards, then a commercial market grows on top. Using safety data itself as a market-discipline lever is a huge gamble. Will it create a robust market or just a fragmented, less safe orbital environment?
The worst-case scenario: ambiguity
The third possibility is the most concerning: maybe there isn’t a clear goal at all. This could just be strategic ambiguity. Charge for the service without deciding if the government will stay in the game, become just a coordinator, or bail out entirely. That’s not policy flexibility—it’s governance failure. It forces operators and investors to guess, creating hesitation and risk at the worst possible time. And in a domain where decisions are time-sensitive and irreversible, uncertainty is a direct threat to safety.
This isn’t like selling widgets. We’re talking about preventing collisions that create catastrophic, permanent debris fields. Operators need authoritative, trusted data when they’re deciding whether to burn precious fuel to maneuver. Markets in high-consequence domains mature through confidence and accountability, not just price signals. Charging could push smaller companies to accept more risk and bigger ones to retreat into their own proprietary systems, making the overall traffic picture less transparent and less safe for everyone. It’s a classic tragedy of the commons in the making.
A legal and leadership mess
And let’s not forget the legal headaches. Can they even do this? Recent Supreme Court rulings suggest agencies can only charge fees for services that confer a “special benefit” on specific users, not for public safety functions. Is warning the entire satellite fleet about a potential collision a “special benefit”? That’s a huge stretch. Congress hasn’t passed a law authorizing Commerce to charge for this. So the administration might be on shaky ground before they even send the first invoice.
Finally, this is a terrible look for U.S. leadership. For years, the U.S. has preached transparency and shared responsibility in space. Providing basic safety data for free reinforced that it’s a collective obligation. Charging for it recasts safety as a market transaction. What message does that send to international partners? It seems like a short-sighted move that could undermine the very norms we say we want to uphold. If they’re going down this path, the absolute minimum is a clear statement of purpose. Is it cost, markets, or a new government role? Without that, this isn’t a policy. It’s an experiment with the orbital environment as the lab.
