| If a network of these aircraft becomes a viable alternative to satellites, this could be a partial solution to the imminent problem of growing space debris, whose quantity and danger posed are decidedly super-linear to the number of objects launched into space: > As the chance of collision is influenced by the number of objects in space, there is a critical density where the creation of new debris is theorized to occur faster than the various natural forces remove them. Beyond this point, a runaway chain reaction may occur that would rapidly increase the number of debris objects in orbit, and therefore greatly increase the risk to operational satellites. Called the "Kessler syndrome", there is debate if the critical density has already been reached in certain orbital bands. A runaway Kessler syndrome would render a portion of the useful polar-orbiting bands difficult to use, and greatly increase cost of space launches and missions. Measurement, growth mitigation and active removal of space debris are activities within the space industry today. [1] (Anyone remember that scene from WALL-E where they need to punch through the debris to get out of Earth's orbit? It's not too far from the truth, and it would definitely make space travel a lot more difficult for future generations!) On the other hand, an alternative to satellites for private industry means that there will be a lower demand curve for commercial launches, which may limit the amount of research and innovation that private space companies can support. But of course Earthlings, in their infinite wisdom, have found a solution to low demand curves: government regulation! So the real question is: can our governments find a good balance between debris-proliferation and innovation? Only time and politics will tell! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris |