I've worked as a related subject matter expert in a few countries. I can think of a possible reasonable justification for this.
In recent years, the operating environment in orbital space has changed rapidly, and it isn't just the number of objects. These changes are outside the design assumptions of traditional orbital traffic systems, degrading their effectiveness. In response to this reality, governments with significant space assets have been investing in orbital traffic systems that are capable of dealing with the modern environment. However, these rely heavily on classified technology and capability to address the limitations of the older systems.
An argument could be made that it no longer makes sense to fund a public system that is descending into obsolescence due to lack of capability and which can't be meaningfully fixed because that would require exposing classified technical capabilities that no one is willing to expose. In this scenario, the private sector is acting as an offramp from a system that had no future technically.
Space has turned into an interesting place, in the curse sense. It isn't as simple as it used to be.
This isn't an explanation that can be offered, at least politically. It invites questions that governments in several developed countries have clearly decided they don't want as part of the public narrative influencing policy. This is the default choice when the real explanation is more complicated, obscure, or technical than will fit in a soundbite, which would be the case in the scenario I hypothesized.
Governments rarely give genuine explanations for their actions and rarely need to. Much easier to use a plausible soundbite related to the current thing. Most people aren't paying attention anyway.
> Governments rarely give genuine explanations for their actions and rarely need to.
This is an absurdly cynical take. It certainly doesn't jive with how NOAA has historically operated - which has necessitated as much transparency as possible, because that is the only way it can engender the trust with the public necessary to steward life and property.
The standards have historically been much higher, and we ought to strive for them to be higher still.
> The standards have historically been much higher, and we ought to strive for them to be higher still.
My take isn't cynical, it is what I've seen first hand. I've worked for the US government (and others) and NGOs off and on since Clinton was President. The standards were pretty mediocre when I first got involved and they've only become worse.
The standards were probably higher before the 1990s. All of these organizations have a few true believers in the mission but those are the old guard. They've slowly been replaced by the equivalent of DMV bureaucrats, even in the more science-y parts of the government. People interested in doing science have known those organizations are not where you go to do science since long before the current administration, which has been a long, vicious spiral.
Understand the first part perfectly. Yes, a small portion of newspace involves [or will involve) spacecraft that don't spend most of their life orbiting in nice predictable arcs above ground stations with occasional also predictable small station keeping or conjunction avoidance adjustments, and it stands to reason that the most advanced and classified US SDA capability has access to better sensor data and models.
But that seems like a very poor argument for removing a system which might be approaching obsolescence in military terms but is still relied on for a rapidly increasing number of civil satellites to make rapidly increasing conjunction avoidance manoeuvres (and is also relatively inexpensive). Anything that makes them less aware threatens defence and critical civil government infrastructure too, and the private sector doesn't exactly seem to be embracing it as an exciting opportunity - look at the quote from Slingshot! Plus if anything the changes taking place would seem to be a reason to invest more in orbital traffic control with regulation to make it more like the FAA. You don't have to give away the classified tracking tech if you're barking out move orders rather than simply sharing predictions so operators come to their own conclusions about conjunction risk, and likewise orders and requirements for operators to broadcast position and intent are a much better way of dealing with a future of private servicing missions and space megastructures than "let them buy their own tracking data and make their own decisions"
I work in a related area too. NOAA and others in the space game are great partners. I don't agree with the fundamentals of your assessment, seems post hoc ergo propter hoc.
In recent years, the operating environment in orbital space has changed rapidly, and it isn't just the number of objects. These changes are outside the design assumptions of traditional orbital traffic systems, degrading their effectiveness. In response to this reality, governments with significant space assets have been investing in orbital traffic systems that are capable of dealing with the modern environment. However, these rely heavily on classified technology and capability to address the limitations of the older systems.
An argument could be made that it no longer makes sense to fund a public system that is descending into obsolescence due to lack of capability and which can't be meaningfully fixed because that would require exposing classified technical capabilities that no one is willing to expose. In this scenario, the private sector is acting as an offramp from a system that had no future technically.
Space has turned into an interesting place, in the curse sense. It isn't as simple as it used to be.