The US Federal Communications Commission approved a demonstration satellite on July 9, 2026, that is designed to reflect sunlight onto the Earth after dark. The spacecraft, named Earendil-1, is built by the California-based startup Reflect Orbital. It will carry an 18-by-18-metre thin-film mirror made of glossy mylar plastic into an orbit 600 kilometres above the surface. The satellite will launch folded like origami and deploy its flat mirror in space. The company intends to test the feasibility of redirecting natural sunlight to terrestrial solar farms, extending their operating hours past sunset. The license permits Reflect Orbital to test the technology for up to two years.
\nReflect Orbital envisions a future constellation of up to 50,000 mirrors by 2035. The economic premise relies on capturing peak electricity pricing. Ben Nowack, the chief executive of Reflect Orbital, told Sky & Telescope in July 2026 that it would be beneficial to capture solar energy outside daylight hours because operators could "charge higher prices and make a lot more money." Extending the daily generation window improves the utilisation of existing solar infrastructure without requiring additional ground-based construction. By selling sunlight on demand, the company hopes to provide an alternative to massive battery storage facilities. The company also suggests the technology could illuminate disaster zones after dark for free to assist rescue teams.
\nThe approval marks a significant milestone for the orbital power industry, but it has triggered intense opposition. The FCC received over 1,800 public objections to the application. The debate has exposed a critical gap in how emerging space technologies are governed, pitting the commercial drive for renewable energy against the preservation of the night sky.
\nThe Federal Communications Commission regulates the use of the radio spectrum. It does not regulate visual light. When the American Astronomical Society petitioned the agency in July 2026 to deny the license for Earendil-1, the organisation warned that the satellite carries the "potential for eye damage to amateur astronomers looking through reasonably sized telescopes." They also cited the risk of flash-blinding pilots and drivers, alongside the broader implications for optical astronomy.
\nThe FCC approved the satellite despite these warnings. In its July 2026 ruling, the agency stated that the effects on optical astronomy are beyond its scope of review. The regulator concluded that harm from the reflector is not likely to occur, and that the deployment of a solar reflector is beyond its authority to regulate. The FCC did stress that approving this single demonstration satellite does not predetermine the outcome of any future application for a larger constellation.
\nThis decision rests on a long-standing precedent. In the United States, satellite projects are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act. This exemption has been in place since the 1980s, an era when only a handful of satellites were launched each year. Today, the astronomical community argues that this logic leaves regulators powerless. The American Astronomical Society noted in its July 2026 statement that the FCC's logic implies the commission would have no ability to consider the severe implications of a 50,000-satellite constellation. The society also expressed dismay that the FCC did not require a formal coordination agreement to protect federally funded astronomical facilities, a step the agency has historically taken when observatories are at risk.
\nThe visual impact of a massive space mirror extends far beyond its intended target. A study by astrophysicist Gaspar Bakos of Princeton University and FrantiĊĦek Kundracik models the exact light pollution these satellites would generate. The research, accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal and available on arXiv, calculates the effects of atmospheric light scattering.
\nThe researchers focused on Reflect Orbital's planned operational mirrors, which would measure 54 by 54 metres. According to their models, an observer standing at the centre of the mirror's 5.4-kilometre-wide beam would see a light 40 times brighter than the full moon. The sky would become as luminous as after-sunset twilight, completely wiping out the stars. Bakos told Space.com in August 2026 that the situation "will be worse than big cities like London" because observers would not see any stars if they were in the beam.
\nThe problem is compounded by the atmosphere. As photons bounce off particles in the air, the light spreads. The study found that even 14 kilometres away from the beam, the sky would remain brighter than during a full moon. At a distance of 34 kilometres, the light-polluted area above the horizon would still appear brighter than the night sky during a full moon.
\nA single mirror is not enough to generate commercial power. Bakos estimates that triggering energy generation in modern solar panels would require the combined reflected light from at least 400 mirrors simultaneously. The resulting beam would be 10,000 times brighter than the full moon. The researchers found that the sky glow from these combined beams would be visible from 80 kilometres away. The light pollution from a town illuminated by the beam would be ten to twenty times brighter than the artificial lighting in that same town. Artificial light only illuminates streets and sidewalks, but the orbital beam would illuminate every backyard, park, roof, and river.
\nThe overall effect depends heavily on the ground surface and the weather. A dense forest might absorb most of the light, while snow-covered fields or concrete city streets would scatter it further into the atmosphere. Biologists have also raised concerns. Brett Seymoure, a biologist at the University of Texas at El Paso, noted in a September 2026 Science News interview that nighttime light can disrupt circadian rhythms, the behaviour of nocturnal animals, and the migration patterns of birds and insects.
\nFor comparison, SpaceX currently operates around 11,000 Starlink satellites. While astronomers complain that Starlink leaves streaks on telescope images, those satellites are much smaller and dimmer than the proposed orbital reflectors. A constellation of 50,000 massive mirrors represents a fundamentally different scale of light pollution.
\nReflect Orbital disputes the findings of the Princeton study. The company argues that the models rely on inaccurate assumptions and that the vast majority of people will never see the light.
\nChristopher Buscombe, a spokesperson for Reflect Orbital, told Science News in September 2026 that "exploring how new technologies can help the world forgo fossil fuels is a responsible application of the scientific process." The company maintains that the service locations will be remote solar farms and large construction projects. They state that only the satellites required to serve approved locations would be active, and that inactive satellites would remain below the threshold of naked-eye visibility. The mirrors are steerable and can be tilted away from the Earth instantly to turn off the beam.
\nThe company insists it is engaging with the scientific community. Reflect Orbital says it is working on a coordination agreement with the National Science Foundation. It is also commissioning third-party research through independent scientists to verify its own operational plans. The industry's broader argument is that orbital reflectors are a necessary step to make solar power dispatchable, reducing the need for fossil fuels during peak evening demand.
\nMost space-based solar power architectures do not rely on reflecting raw sunlight. Instead, they propose capturing solar energy in orbit, converting it to microwaves or lasers, and beaming it to a ground rectenna. This approach bypasses the visual light pollution problem entirely.
\nMicrowave transmission is invisible to the human eye and does not scatter through the atmosphere in a way that disrupts optical astronomy. However, it requires massive orbital infrastructure to perform the conversion, making it technologically and financially daunting. Reflecting sunlight requires only a thin-film mirror, drastically reducing the mass and complexity of the spacecraft.
\nMicrowave architectures also face their own regulatory barriers regarding spectrum allocation. For example, while 5.8 GHz is frequently discussed as an ideal frequency for wireless power transmission, 5.8 GHz is not regulatorily available for space-to-Earth. Any commercial microwave beaming system will require international coordination to secure a dedicated frequency, a process that could take years. Reflect Orbital's approach attempts to sidestep spectrum allocation for power transmission, using radio frequencies only for telemetry and control. This strategy has successfully secured a license for a demonstration, but the resulting visual light pollution has created a fierce backlash.
\nIf the Federal Communications Commission or another US agency is granted explicit statutory authority to regulate visual light pollution from orbit, the current regulatory vacuum would close. This would force orbital reflector companies to undergo rigorous environmental reviews before launching massive constellations.
\nIf Reflect Orbital publishes peer-reviewed technical data proving that their mirrors can operate without causing the severe atmospheric scattering modeled by Bakos, the threat to optical astronomy might be manageable. The current debate relies heavily on models generated by the company's critics, and empirical data from Earendil-1 could disprove the worst-case scenarios.
\nIf the cost of ground-based battery storage continues to plummet, the economic case for orbital reflectors may collapse. The entire business model depends on sunlight-on-demand being cheaper than storing daytime solar energy for nighttime use. If batteries win the economic race, the constellation of 50,000 mirrors will never leave the drawing board.
\n