Bridging the liability gap: a comparative analysis of national licensing obligations versus conjunction risk in mega-constellation operations

The exponential growth of LEO mega-constellations has resulted in a shift in the operational risk profile from isolated accidents to systemic conjunction density. Nevertheless, contemporary international liability frameworks are predominantly predicated on unit-based fault attribution. This research aims to ascertain the discrepancy between national licensing safety standards and the statistical reality of orbital congestion.

A comparative legal analysis of the licensing frameworks utilised by the United States (FCC/FAA), the United Kingdom, and Luxembourg is conducted in this research. The research evaluates the extent to which these regimes impose due diligence obligations that account for aggregate risk, specifically contrasting unit-based reliability requirements (e.g., 90% disposal success) against the systemic risk posed by large-scale deployment.

The research reveals a specific “Liability Gap” where operators can satisfy all national licensing requirements for individual spacecraft reliability while simultaneously creating a congested orbital environment that drastically increases conjunction events. Consequently, third-party damages may occur without a clear avenue for legal recourse, as no single operator violates the “standard of care” defined in existing law.

These findings highlight the inadequacy of current unit-based liability frameworks and propose a regulatory shift toward aggregate risk assessment, requiring licensing bodies to evaluate the incremental systemic risk contributed by new constellation entrants.