[s1artibartfast]

I don't know that the externality comparison and compensation is self evident.

it is possible that the positive externalities of satellite swarms outweigh that of ground based astronomy, and they should be prioritized for the visual spectrum.

[CamperBob2]

Key word being "ground based." SpaceX's work will likely lead to much wider access to space-based telescopes. That may turn out to be a more-than-fair tradeoff.

The other thing about LEO constellations is that they're not permanent. A polluted river may not clean itself up automatically after a couple of years, but LEO will. We can change our minds about the utility of LEO Internet constellations at any time. There seems no real downside to deploying them and seeing if all stakeholders can find reasonable grounds for compromise.

[wolfram74]

starlink is low enough that it will clean itself /relatively/ quickly, but even doubling the elevation get's into some very long lived debris[0].

If you wanted to tax these mega constellations to mitigate the externality they're causing, directing 2 to 3% towards orbital telescope production/launch costs arguably would be the most immediate remedy.

[0]https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1407747990287171587

[s1artibartfast]

Any profit of US constellations will already be taxed at the 21‰ federal corporate income tax rate, so that already seems to be a moot point.

[foerbert]

No, it's not. These are relatively new problems posed by specific companies. If we say part of their taxes go to solving this problem they caused, then what about all the other things their taxes were going to before?

It's roughly similar to suggesting a tiered membership service should upgrade all customers to the highest tier without charging any more than they did last month.

[s1artibartfast]

The taxes don't exist prior to satellite network, so there is no before. Growing the economy grows tax revenues and adds new revenue to the federal budget.

It is like adding a new customer to your license membership service. Marginal costs are zero but they add to revenue. You can then use the extra revenue to develop new features.

[foerbert]

That's not a workable position. By that measure a new industry that blows up significant fractions of major population centers for pennies - but pays taxes on those pennies - is a net producer of new tax revenue and should be considered a net benefit.

Yes, obviously, in this highly contrived example there are many other non-tax laws and reasons this company could never exist. But I think it still demonstrates the point that a new industry that produces new taxes is not inherently a good thing even if you limit the scope to simply government revenue.

I don't believe there is a perfect view of these things, but at least taking the tack I originally expressed is more workable than this.

[Beached]

that's assuming there are no deductions. I'm willing to bet every rocket explosion we see, is written off as r&d expenses and reducing their taxable revenue.

in a company as fast paced as SpaceX, I doubt they pay much in taxes yet.

[s1artibartfast]

I'm Confused, what would the lower 3% tax be on if not profit?

[CamperBob2]

What debris? There won't be any debris unless they hit each other. The SVs themselves are designed to decay after a relatively short period of time.

Agreed, though, I like the idea of taxing them to subsidize space telescope construction.