Starlink, China, and the Night Sky: What the UN Complaints Did and Did Not Change

When China formally notified the United Nations in late 2021 that its crewed space station had conducted evasive manoeuvres during close approaches involving Starlink satellites, the episode was treated at the time as a narrow diplomatic signal rather than a turning point in space governance.

That notification, submitted to the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs and circulated as UN document A/AC.105/1262, cited two incidents on 1 July 2021 and 21 October 2021 which China stated posed potential risks to astronaut safety aboard its Tiangong space station. The filing was made under the notification provisions of the Outer Space Treaty and requested circulation of information, not enforcement action.

The submission and its contents were reported at the time by Al Jazeera, CBS News citing Agence France Presse, and PBS NewsHour. None of that reporting suggested that any United Nations body issued a directive, order, or sanction in response. None did.

Four years on, the episode has re entered public discussion, not because it led to regulatory action which it did not, but because it now sits alongside a separate and increasingly forceful critique of Starlink’s impact on the night sky itself.

Starlink under scrutiny

Two distinct controversies surround Starlink.

In December 2021, China submitted a formal note verbale to the United Nations, circulated as A/AC.105/1262, stating that its Tiangong space station had carried out evasive manoeuvres during two close approaches involving Starlink satellites. The filing framed the issue as astronaut safety and orbital congestion. No United Nations directive or enforcement action followed.

Separately, astronomers and scientific institutions argue that Starlink’s scale has transformed satellite light pollution from a marginal concern into a systemic one, degrading ground based and even space based astronomy. SpaceX has introduced mitigation measures, but scientists say the impact remains only partially addressed.

Together, these disputes expose a deeper gap. Global space law was not designed to govern thousands of privately operated satellites altering a shared orbital and visual environment.

What China alleged and the limits of the claim

China’s United Nations notification focused narrowly on proximity and collision risk. It did not allege a breach of the Outer Space Treaty, did not demand orbital changes, and did not seek adjudication. Its purpose, as reflected in the document itself, was informational.

The United States subsequently submitted a diplomatic response to the United Nations, circulated as UN document A/AC.105/1265, disputing China’s characterisation of the encounters. In that response, the United States stated that conjunction data was routinely shared and that established notification channels were functioning as intended.

Critically, neither A/AC.105/1262 nor A/AC.105/1265, nor contemporaneous reporting, supports the claim that China’s notification resulted in operational requirements for SpaceX or Starlink. The episode remained within the bounds of diplomatic signalling under existing space law.

That distinction matters. Later operational decisions by SpaceX have sometimes been discussed alongside the China filing, but the documentary record does not support a causal link.

SpaceX’s response on the record

SpaceX has consistently disputed the suggestion that Starlink operations posed an unmanaged risk to crewed spacecraft. The company has pointed to its autonomous collision avoidance system, which conducts thousands of manoeuvres each year, and to routine data sharing with other satellite operators.

At no point has SpaceX acknowledged any obligation arising from China’s United Nations filing, nor has it linked subsequent changes in orbital management to diplomatic pressure. There is no statement from SpaceX, the United States, or any United Nations body asserting such a connection.

A separate controversy: light pollution from orbit

Independently of the China episode, Starlink has become the focal point of a growing scientific debate over orbital light pollution.

Astronomers have documented how sunlight reflected from Starlink satellites appears as streaks in astronomical images, interfering with wide field surveys and reducing usable data. The International Astronomical Union has publicly identified Starlink as the constellation that, according to astronomical bodies, transformed light pollution from a theoretical concern into a practical one.

Studies associated with the Vera C Rubin Observatory warn that satellite trails already affect, and are projected to affect, an increasing fraction of survey images. More recent research reported by Reuters suggests that even space based telescopes may be affected as satellite numbers increase.

SpaceX has acknowledged the issue and introduced mitigation measures, including darker coatings and changes to satellite orientation. Scientists cited by Reuters and in peer reviewed journals argue these steps reduce but do not eliminate the problem, and that brightness varies with orbital geometry and season.

This criticism has been driven largely by Western and international observatories and publicly funded research institutions, not by geopolitical rivals. It rests on scientific evidence rather than diplomatic complaint.

Starlink’s de orbiting strategy and what it does not prove

Alongside collision avoidance measures, SpaceX has implemented a deliberate de orbiting strategy for Starlink satellites.

The company states that satellites which fail or reach the end of their operational life are deliberately lowered into decaying orbits so that atmospheric drag ensures they burn up within years rather than remaining as long term debris. SpaceX has also described operating large portions of the constellation at lower altitudes, citing debris mitigation and network performance.

This practice is sometimes described in informal commentary as luring satellites down. What cannot be established, however, is motive.

There is no documentary evidence linking this de orbiting strategy to China’s 2021 United Nations notification, and no statement by SpaceX, the United States, or any United Nations body suggesting that orbital lowering was adopted in response to that complaint. To infer such a link would be to confuse sequence with cause, an assumption this article does not make.

Starlink and China at the United Nations: key dates

1 July 2021
China records a close approach between a Starlink satellite and its Tiangong space station.

21 October 2021
A second close approach involving a Starlink satellite is recorded.

December 2021
China submits a formal note verbale to the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. The notification is circulated as UN document A/AC.105/1262, citing the two incidents as astronaut safety concerns under the Outer Space Treaty.

January 2022
The United States submits a diplomatic response, circulated as UN document A/AC.105/1265, disputing China’s characterisation and stating that existing notification mechanisms were functioning.

2022 to 2025
Astronomers increasingly criticise Starlink for orbital light pollution, separate from and not caused by the United Nations notification.

A harder conclusion

What emerges from the record is not collusion, nor concession, but coexistence without rules.

China’s 2021 notification, circulated as A/AC.105/1262, was acknowledged and filed. The United States responded through A/AC.105/1265. SpaceX pointed to automation, data sharing, and collision avoidance. Separately, the company has moved to shorten the lifespan of its satellites by lowering orbits and accelerating atmospheric burn up, a strategy SpaceX presents as responsible stewardship rather than diplomatic compliance.

None of this establishes causation. No United Nations body ordered changes. No operator admitted pressure. The connection exists only where narrative outruns evidence.

Yet the underlying problem remains. Orbital traffic is rising. The night sky is changing. And the legal framework governing both safety and visibility still assumes a quieter age.

Starlink is not accused of illegality. But it is operating at the edge of a system that can record risk, circulate documents, and measure harm, and do little else. How long that remains acceptable to regulators, scientists, and operators alike is the unresolved question now hanging over low Earth orbit.

You might also like to read on Telegraph.com