It's interesting that you think that this is an issue of capitalism, when it has nothing to do with capitalism at all. The vast majority of space junk is the result of governmental programs like NASA and its peers [1].
You're correct. Its the absence of a system of property rights that caused this problem. Its the opposite of capitalism, as is the case with many things that get polluted.
Space is an example of the tragedy of the commons. No one owns space so the incentive is to exploit it now without regard to what happens in the long run.
I think property rights are the answer, but until they are applied to something new, it is non-obvious how to go about it. I have a few, not fully baked thoughts.
What if someone owned the satellite real estate in a particular region of space? They would have an interest in keeping it orderly to maximize revenue.
The owner could charge rent to anyone wanting to put up a satellite in that space. That party would also have to provide a way to remove it and would be charged for accidents that spread debris.
The owners of different regions would compete against each other so we could keep prices reasonable. And other uses of space, such as passage through those regions could be left out of the arrangement.
And if debris from one region impacts another, they owners could sue each other.
> What if someone owned the satellite real estate in a particular region of space? They would have an interest in keeping it orderly to maximize revenue.
In my mind this would only apply to geostationary orbit. Doing anything else would require incredibly complex coordination of "regions" of space, considering orbits are constantly moving with relation to each other and to the Earth.
actually, an entire layer would mean all satellites at a specific distance would be renting from the same owner.
I guess that layer would sell for more initially and still compete with other layers that aren't ideal. Or we could have separate scheme for geostationary satellites.
You are right, but I'm not going to let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant!
I'm not sure what word I should have used, but my fundamental point was that as long as decision-makers, be they corporations, individuals, or government entities, are allowed to make decisions without considering the cost of the mess they make (because they don't have to pay for it), then we are burdening those who will have to clean up the mess and don't even have a voice in our Democratic process.
[1]http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast...