SpaceX plans to deploy one million satellites into low Earth orbit over the next decade, a scale that astronomers warn will fundamentally and irreversibly alter the night sky for every human on Earth—raising urgent questions about the privatization of a shared global resource.The expansion of the Starlink constellation, detailed in recent filings with international regulators, would increase orbital satellites by two orders of magnitude, transforming the night sky into a continuously moving lattice of artificial lights visible even to the naked eye."This represents the enclosure of the commons on a planetary scale," said Dr. Aparna Venkatesan, a cosmologist at the University of San Francisco who studies satellite constellation impacts. "The night sky is humanity's shared inheritance. No single corporation or government granted permission to fundamentally alter it."Current satellite constellations already disrupt astronomical observations, with trails streaking through images from ground-based telescopes. At one million satellites—approximately 100 times current orbital population—every long-exposure astronomical image will contain dozens of satellite trails, severely degrading observational capacity for discoveries from exoplanets to distant galaxies.The impacts extend beyond professional astronomy. Indigenous communities worldwide use celestial navigation and star lore as foundational cultural knowledge. Karlie Noon, a Gamilaraay astronomer from Australia, noted that "our sky knowledge spans tens of thousands of years. These constellations are being erased within a generation by corporate satellites we never consented to."International regulation of orbital space remains fragmented and inadequate. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits territorial claims but imposes no limits on commercial satellite deployment. The International Telecommunication Union coordinates radio frequencies but lacks authority over constellation scale or environmental impacts.In climate policy, as across environmental challenges, urgency must meet solutions—science demands action, but despair achieves nothing. The night sky crisis requires preventive international governance before damage becomes irreversible, yet regulatory frameworks lag years behind deployment timelines.Elon Musk has defended Starlink expansion as essential for global internet access, particularly in underserved regions. The company has implemented darker satellite coatings and sunshade visors to reduce reflectivity, though astronomers argue these measures are insufficient at mega-constellation scale.Environmental justice advocates emphasize the disproportionate impacts. While wealthy nations conduct most satellite launches, every human shares the consequences—from disrupted ecosystems dependent on natural darkness to cultural practices that will be rendered impossible.The satellites pose additional hazards including orbital debris risks and atmospheric pollution from de-orbiting units. Each satellite burning up in the atmosphere deposits aluminum and other metals into the upper atmosphere, with cumulative effects on ozone and climate poorly understood at million-satellite scale.Astronomers are calling for international treaties establishing orbital carrying capacity, mandatory impact assessments, and public consultation before mega-constellation approval. Dr. Samantha Lawler, an astronomer at the University of Regina, advocates for "treating orbital space like we should have treated the oceans and atmosphere—as shared resources requiring protection before, not after, they're damaged."Several nations have expressed concern about U.S. commercial satellite dominance. China, India, and the European Space Agency are developing competing constellations, potentially multiplying the problem if unregulated proliferation continues.Dark sky advocates note the irony that as humanity expands into space, we simultaneously eliminate our ability to observe it. The night sky that inspired millennia of scientific inquiry, navigation, mythology, and wonder faces irreversible transformation—not through democratic decision but through unilateral corporate and state action.Legal scholars debate whether affected communities could seek recourse through international courts for cultural or environmental harm. The lack of precedent for truly global commons destruction complicates potential remedies.