In-Space Servicing and Satellite Inspection Market Analysis 2026

Key Takeaways

• Servicing can extend satellite life, reduce debris, and change spacecraft economics.
• Inspection missions create useful data but also raise dual-use security concerns.
• The market depends on trust, regulation, docking standards, and repeat customers.

Why In-Space Servicing and Satellite Inspection Have Become a Commercial Test

On April 9, 2025, Northrop Grumman’s Mission Extension Vehicle-1 undocked from Intelsat 901 after five years of commercial life-extension service in geosynchronous orbit. That single event turned in-space servicing and satellite inspection from an experimental promise into a more practical business question: whether operators will pay for spacecraft that can approach, inspect, dock with, tow, refuel, repair, or safely dispose of other spacecraft after launch. Northrop said MEV-1 had provided five years of life-extension services to IS-901, then moved the satellite into a graveyard orbit before release.

The promise is straightforward. Satellites are expensive assets, and many fail commercially before every useful component is worn out. A spacecraft may still have working electronics, antennas, sensors, and solar arrays, yet lose value because it lacks fuel for station-keeping, cannot maintain pointing, or has reached a regulatory disposal deadline. A servicing vehicle can act as a tow truck, inspection drone, repair tool, fuel truck, or disposal tug. The idea appeals to satellite owners because it could stretch revenue, reduce premature replacement, and lower debris risk. It also appeals to governments because it could improve resilience for weather, communications, navigation, intelligence, and defense and security missions.

The concern is just as direct. A spacecraft able to approach another satellite in orbit can inspect it, help it, move it, or interfere with it. The same rendezvous and proximity operations that make servicing valuable also make other satellite operators nervous. A camera pass near a dead rocket body looks very different from a close pass near an active military, civil, or commercial satellite. The technology does not announce its intention by shape alone. Trust depends on who owns the servicer, what the target is, how transparent the mission is, which regulator licensed it, and whether the target operator consented.

Commercial activity is now advancing faster than global governance. The Consortium for Execution of Rendezvous and Servicing Operations has published recommended practices for rendezvous, proximity operations, and on-orbit servicing, and regulators such as the Federal Communications Commission have tightened disposal rules for many low Earth orbit satellites. These steps help, but they do not yet create a single global rulebook for how close one satellite may approach another, what notification is required, what data must be shared, or how operators should prove that a servicing mission is benign.

The Business Case Starts With Life Extension and End-of-Life Disposal

Commercial servicing has a clearer business case when it solves a balance-sheet problem rather than an abstract sustainability problem. A geostationary communications satellite can earn revenue for years after its original planned life, if another spacecraft can keep it pointed and positioned. Northrop Grumman’s SpaceLogistics business built its first market around that logic. Its Mission Extension Vehicles docked with Intelsat satellites and provided propulsion support, proving that a third-party servicing vehicle could work with satellites that were never designed to be refueled or repaired.

This business model matters because many older geostationary satellites have a similar weakness. They were designed for launch, deployment, station-keeping, and retirement, not for later docking. A servicing company that can safely work with unprepared spacecraft can reach a much larger legacy market than one limited to newly designed satellites. That is why the phrase “unprepared satellite” appears often in this field. It means the client spacecraft lacks a standard docking port, refueling interface, or capture fixture intended for servicing. The servicer must use existing physical features, such as an engine nozzle or adapter structure, rather than a purpose-built service interface.

Northrop’s next-generation approach moves from a full Mission Extension Vehicle toward smaller Mission Extension Pods. The company says these pods can augment an aging satellite’s propulsion system, with a Mission Robotic Vehicle installing them on client satellites in geosynchronous orbit. A company fact sheet says the Mission Extension Pod can provide up to eight years of life extension for a typical 2,000 kilogram satellite in geosynchronous orbit. That is not repair in the broad science-fiction sense. It is targeted propulsion support, which is easier to price, contract, insure, and explain.

Low Earth orbit creates a different payment logic. Many satellites there are smaller, cheaper, and part of constellations. Extending one satellite’s life may be less valuable than removing it at the end of service, especially if disposal rules tighten or if constellation operators want to use satellites until close to the end of available propellant. Starfish Space announced a $52.5 million U.S. Space Force Space Development Agency contract in January 2026 to provide Deorbit-as-a-Service for satellites in the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture. The company described it as the first contracted end-of-life disposal mission for a low Earth orbit constellation.

A market built on disposal can support sustainability and fleet management at the same time. Operators may avoid overdesigning every satellite with excess propellant if they can buy a disposal service for satellites that fail late in life or fall short of planned end-of-life performance. Insurers may also view disposal support as a way to reduce long-term risk. Regulators could reward operators that have credible backup disposal plans, especially for large fleets. The challenge is price. A disposal tug must cost less than the value it protects, the penalty it avoids, or the risk it reduces.

The market functions can be separated into distinct service categories, each with a different buyer and a different security concern.

Debris Pressure Is Turning Inspection Into an Operational Service

The debris problem gives satellite inspection a practical reason to exist. Ground-based tracking can identify many objects, but it cannot always show whether a satellite is tumbling, fractured, leaking, missing insulation, carrying damaged solar arrays, or safe to approach. Close inspection can provide visual evidence before removal, repair, or insurance decisions. That is why inspection may become a gateway service. Before an operator pays to remove, refuel, dock, or relocate a spacecraft, it may first need to know what the object actually looks like.

The European Space Agency’s 2025 Space Environment Report said roughly 40,000 objects were being tracked by space surveillance networks, with about 11,000 active payloads. ESA’s space environment statistics also estimate far larger untracked populations, including about 54,000 objects larger than 10 centimeters, 1.2 million objects between 1 and 10 centimeters, and 140 million objects between 1 millimeter and 1 centimeter. These figures show why inspection services matter for specific objects, even though inspection alone cannot solve the debris problem.

Astroscale’s ADRAS-J mission is a useful marker. The spacecraft launched in February 2024 for a Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency program focused on inspecting a defunct upper stage. Astroscale reported in March 2026 that ADRAS-J had completed operations and begun controlled deorbit after 293 days of mission life. The company described the mission as a commercial debris inspection milestone. That phrasing matters because the mission’s value was not removal. It was close approach, characterization, imagery, navigation, and operational learning.

Inspection can also help separate real hazards from perceived hazards. A nonresponsive satellite may be stable enough for a servicing attempt, or it may be tumbling in a way that makes docking unsafe. A rocket body may have visible features suitable for capture, or it may require a mission redesign. A spacecraft that suffered an anomaly may reveal whether a failure came from collision, component breakage, deployment failure, thermal damage, or unknown causes. This data has value for insurers, manufacturers, regulators, and operators planning similar spacecraft.

Active debris removal needs this kind of pre-removal intelligence. ESA’s ClearSpace-1 mission is intended to demonstrate technologies for active debris removal and support a commercial sector in space sustainability. ESA frames the mission as an in-orbit demonstration rather than a mature routine service. That distinction should stay in view. The technology is advancing, but the market is still moving from demonstrations to recurring contracts.

Security Concerns Come From the Same Capabilities That Create Value

Satellite servicing and satellite inspection raise security concerns because they involve controlled close approach. The core capability is rendezvous and proximity operations, often shortened to RPO. RPO means one spacecraft can maneuver near another spacecraft in a planned, controlled manner. That can support docking, inspection, refueling, relocation, debris removal, and repair. It can also create unease because proximity to a satellite may expose sensitive design features, mission payloads, antennas, propulsion layouts, or operational behavior.

Defense and security operators treat satellites as strategic infrastructure. Communications satellites carry military and civilian traffic. Weather satellites support planning, emergency response, and military operations. Navigation spacecraft support timing, logistics, aviation, finance, and positioning. Earth observation satellites support mapping, disaster response, border monitoring, and intelligence. A servicer that approaches one of these assets may be performing a lawful inspection with consent, or it may be testing another state’s tolerance for close operations. The same physical act can carry different meaning based on authorization and transparency.

The U.S. Space Force’s Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program illustrates the military value of space-based observation in high orbits. Its official fact sheet describes GSSAP satellites as space-based sensors operating in the near-geosynchronous orbit regime to support U.S. Space Command space surveillance operations. These spacecraft are not commercial servicing vehicles, but they show why close or near-neighbor observation in geosynchronous orbit matters to national security.

Commercial inspection missions can become entangled with these concerns even when the operator’s business purpose is benign. A servicing company may carry cameras for docking, sensors for navigation, software for autonomous approach, and propulsion for repeated maneuvers. Those are ordinary mission requirements. They also generate questions about imaging rights, remote sensing licensing, target consent, data retention, customer confidentiality, export controls, and government access. In the United States, the Office of Space Commerce explains that NOAA’s commercial remote sensing licensing program covers private remote sensing satellite systems, which can become relevant when servicing spacecraft collect imagery.

The security issue does not mean servicing should be treated as hostile. It means mission transparency becomes part of the product. Operators that publish mission profiles, notify affected parties, use clear approach rules, coordinate with space traffic authorities, and secure consent from target owners can reduce suspicion. Operators that conduct surprise maneuvers near active spacecraft, limit disclosure, or blur commercial and military objectives will face a higher trust barrier. The technical capability may be similar in both cases; market acceptance depends on behavior.

Regulation Is Still Catching Up to Rendezvous Operations

Space law has long recognized jurisdiction and responsibility, but routine commercial servicing demands more detailed operational rules than traditional launch-and-operate licensing. A communications satellite can be licensed to transmit, a remote sensing spacecraft can be licensed to image Earth, and a launch vehicle can be licensed to reach orbit. Servicing crosses categories. It may transmit, image, maneuver close to other objects, dock, carry third-party payloads, handle disposal, and change another spacecraft’s orbital behavior.

The FCC’s five-year disposal rule is one of the clearest U.S. examples of regulation shaping demand. In 2022, the FCC adopted rules requiring satellites in low Earth orbit under its jurisdiction to dispose of themselves no later than five years after mission completion, much shorter than the older 25-year benchmark used in many debris mitigation practices. The rule does not create a servicing market by itself, but it gives operators a stronger reason to design reliable disposal plans and consider backup deorbit services.

International practice remains less unified. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee guidelines identify debris mitigation measures such as limiting debris released during normal operations, minimizing breakups, post-mission disposal, and preventing on-orbit collisions. These guidelines have influenced national rules and mission design, yet they do not function as a single enforceable global traffic code. Servicing adds a harder layer because it involves deliberate close approach rather than ordinary collision avoidance.

CONFERS has tried to fill part of that gap through industry practices. Its 2022 recommended design and operational practices cover commercial rendezvous, proximity operations, and on-orbit servicing. Such voluntary practices can move faster than treaties and formal regulations. They also help insurers, customers, and regulators ask better questions. A company that follows recognized practices can show how it plans approaches, safety zones, fault responses, operator communication, and mission termination.

Insurance may become an informal regulator. A satellite operator buying servicing will want to know who bears liability if the servicer damages the target, creates debris, loses command, or causes a collision threat. A servicing provider will want contractual limits and clear mission success criteria. An insurer will want proven navigation, fail-safe procedures, documented software validation, and clear target condition data. As repeat missions accumulate, insurance pricing may separate credible operators from demonstration-stage companies.

Prepared satellites could simplify future regulation. If new spacecraft carry standardized docking interfaces, refueling ports, fiducial markers, cooperative navigation aids, and published servicing modes, regulators can treat servicing as a planned operation rather than an improvised rescue. Orbit Fab’s RAFTI refueling interface is one example of this prepared-spacecraft approach. The company describes RAFTI as an open-license cooperative docking and refueling interface intended to replace a traditional fill-and-drain valve, enabling ground and on-orbit fueling.

The Companies and Programs Defining the Market

Northrop Grumman has the strongest commercial heritage because its MEV missions operated with real customers, not only demonstrations. The company’s direction also shows how the market may mature. A large vehicle proved the service. Smaller pods may lower cost and broaden the addressable customer base. A robotic installation vehicle may allow repeated service calls. Each step moves the business model from custom mission to repeatable space logistics.

Astroscale represents another side of the market: inspection, debris removal, and sustainability missions. The company’s ELSA-d mission demonstrated capture-related technologies with a servicer and client satellite launched together, and ADRAS-J moved closer to real debris inspection by approaching a pre-existing object. The distinction is important. Demonstrating capture with a prepared client is valuable, but approaching an old object with unknown behavior is closer to the debris problem operators face in orbit.

Starfish Space is drawing attention because it targets relatively affordable servicing and disposal in low Earth orbit. Its Otter Pup 2 mission page says the mission conducts rendezvous, proximity operations, and attempt docking with an unprepared commercial satellite in low Earth orbit. The company also announced two U.S. Space Force-related contracts in early 2026: a $52.5 million Space Development Agency disposal contract and a $54.5 million contract to deliver another Otter satellite servicing vehicle for Space Systems Command.

D-Orbit sits near the boundary between orbital transfer, hosted payload operations, last-mile deployment, and future servicing. The company’s ION Satellite Carrier provides orbital transportation and hosted payload services, and D-Orbit describes its business as space logistics and orbital transportation. That is relevant because the servicing market may not grow as a single category. It may grow from companies already operating maneuverable vehicles, mission control services, hosted payload platforms, and orbital delivery systems.

Orbit Fab focuses on fuel availability and interfaces. Refueling has a different business hurdle than life extension by attachment. A servicer needs fuel supply, customer spacecraft need compatible hardware, and mission designers must plan around refueling from the start. The benefit is long-term: a satellite designed for refueling may need less margin at launch, may maneuver more freely during its service life, and may support new operating patterns. The risk is adoption speed. Standards matter most when many builders agree to use them before a market fully exists.

The market participants can be grouped by the service problem they are trying to solve, rather than by company identity alone.

What Would Make the Market Credible

A credible servicing market needs recurring missions, not isolated demonstrations. Customers must believe a servicer can launch on schedule, reach the target, operate safely, meet insurance requirements, satisfy regulators, and price the service below the customer’s expected benefit. Demonstrations are valuable because they prove navigation, docking, imaging, capture, and operations. Markets form when buyers can compare offers, negotiate standard contracts, and rely on a service timeline.

The strongest near-term market may remain geostationary life extension because the assets are expensive, the revenue streams are familiar, and the orbital regime supports long service lives. A satellite that earns millions of dollars per year can justify a servicing contract if the alternative is replacement, loss of orbital slot value, or premature retirement. The customer can calculate the benefit in added service years. The operator can also plan servicing well before failure, which reduces emergency risk.

Low Earth orbit disposal may grow through regulation and government procurement. Large constellations create many satellites with shorter lives, and disposal reliability has become a planning issue. Commercial buyers may resist paying for disposal when replacement satellites are cheap, but governments and regulators can change that calculation. A contract such as the Starfish Space Space Development Agency award matters because it creates a paid service path for a constellation, rather than treating disposal as a mission operator’s internal task.

Inspection may become a supporting market rather than a standalone mass market. A satellite operator might pay for inspection after an anomaly, suspected debris strike, failed deployment, or end-of-life planning event. Insurers may pay when imagery affects a claim. Agencies may pay to characterize debris before removal. Defense and security customers may pay for awareness in congested orbits. The addressable market depends on incident frequency, inspection price, and whether inspection data changes a decision enough to justify the mission.

Standards could decide whether refueling scales. Orbit Fab’s approach shows why a fuel market needs compatible client spacecraft. A refueling vehicle has little value if satellites cannot receive fuel safely. The same principle applies to docking markers, capture points, standardized servicing modes, software interfaces, and published safety behaviors. Future satellites designed for servicing could be cheaper to support than legacy spacecraft, but that requires manufacturers and operators to accept design changes before the service market is mature.

Trust is a commercial asset. A servicing company that becomes known for transparent operations, careful licensing, accurate mission updates, and responsible data handling can reduce the perceived security risk. Customers will also ask whether a provider serves military clients, foreign governments, or competitors. The answer does not automatically disqualify a provider, but it can affect contract terms, data rules, and disclosure obligations.

The Likely Direction Through the Late 2020s

The late 2020s will likely separate three ideas that are often mixed together: servicing, inspection, and debris removal. Servicing will focus on preserving active spacecraft value. Inspection will focus on data about objects in orbit. Debris removal will focus on removing nonfunctional objects or lowering long-term collision risk. The same company may work across all three, but buyers and regulators will treat them differently.

NASA’s OSAM-1 cancellation remains a caution point. NASA discontinued the On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1 project in 2024 after technical, cost, and schedule challenges, and the agency cited a broader community shift away from refueling unprepared spacecraft as one reason. That decision did not end the market. It narrowed the lesson: complex servicing of legacy spacecraft can become costly when mission design, customer commitment, and technology maturity do not align.

Commercial companies are responding by narrowing the first paid services. Northrop’s pods emphasize orbit control rather than full repair. Starfish emphasizes docking, disposal, and service vehicles. Orbit Fab emphasizes refueling interfaces. Astroscale emphasizes inspection and removal demonstrations. D-Orbit emphasizes transportation and logistics services that may support later servicing. The pattern is practical: build a paid business around a specific task, then expand after operational confidence grows.

Government procurement will remain an important accelerator. Civil agencies want debris reduction and mission assurance. Defense organizations want resilience, maneuver support, asset protection, and inspection. Regulators want operators to reduce orbital risk. These public needs can fund early missions before purely commercial demand is deep enough. The same dependence on government demand also keeps security questions near the center of the field.

International coordination will become harder as more actors operate maneuverable spacecraft. A servicing mission near a commercial satellite may be a contract matter. A servicing mission near a national security satellite may become a diplomatic issue. A debris mission involving an object registered by another state may require consent and careful legal treatment. A refueling mission involving a foreign-built satellite may raise export control questions. The technology may look routine to engineers before it feels routine to governments.

The commercial answer is probably not a single market or a single concern. In-space servicing and satellite inspection will develop as a set of related services: some routine, some government-funded, some tightly regulated, and some politically sensitive. The companies that succeed will make close operations look ordinary, transparent, insurable, and worth paying for. The operators that fail to build trust may discover that the hardest part of satellite servicing is not the docking mechanism, but the permission to get close.

Summary

In-space servicing and satellite inspection now sit between space sustainability, commercial fleet management, and defense and security policy. The field has proof points, including Northrop Grumman’s MEV operations, Astroscale’s ADRAS-J inspection mission, new disposal contracts for low Earth orbit, and growing interest in refueling interfaces. It also has setbacks, including NASA’s OSAM-1 cancellation and the unresolved legal and diplomatic questions around close approach to another owner’s spacecraft.

The market will be strongest where a service has a clear buyer and a measurable benefit. Life extension can protect revenue. Disposal can support compliance and fleet planning. Inspection can support anomaly diagnosis, insurance, and debris characterization. Refueling can change spacecraft design, but it depends on standards and customer adoption. Repair remains the most difficult category because it requires more complex robotics, more mission-specific planning, and higher confidence in target condition.

Security concerns will remain attached to the field because servicing capabilities are inherently dual-use. A spacecraft that can inspect, dock, tow, or refuel can also gather sensitive information or create anxiety if its mission is unclear. That does not make servicing unsafe by definition. It makes transparency, target consent, licensing, operational norms, and post-mission accountability part of the business model.

The likely outcome is a market that grows unevenly. Geostationary life extension, low Earth orbit disposal, debris inspection, and prepared-spacecraft refueling will mature at different speeds. Government contracts will shape early demand, and commercial adoption will depend on price, reliability, insurance, and trust. The winners will be the firms that turn a technically impressive close approach into a service that customers, regulators, insurers, and other satellite operators can accept as normal orbital business.

Appendix: Useful Books Available on Amazon

• Space Debris: Models and Risk Analysis
• Handbook of Space Security
• The Politics of Space Security
• Space Law: A Treatise
• Space Security and Legal Aspects of Active Debris Removal
• War in Space

Appendix: Top Questions Answered in This Article

What Is In-Space Servicing?

In-space servicing refers to operations performed by one spacecraft to support another spacecraft after launch. Services can include life extension, inspection, refueling, relocation, repair, or disposal. The best-known commercial examples involve spacecraft that dock with an aging satellite and provide propulsion or attitude support.

Why Does Satellite Inspection Matter?

Satellite inspection provides close-up information that ground sensors may not reveal. It can show whether a satellite is tumbling, damaged, stable, leaking, or suitable for servicing. This information helps operators, insurers, agencies, and removal providers decide whether a follow-on mission is technically safe and commercially justified.

Why Are Servicing Spacecraft Viewed as Dual-Use?

Servicing spacecraft are dual-use because the same tools can support helpful or sensitive missions. Cameras, autonomous navigation, docking systems, and propulsion can enable repair or debris removal. They can also allow close observation of another satellite, which raises security concerns when the target is active or strategically valuable.

What Made Northrop Grumman’s Mission Extension Vehicle Important?

Northrop Grumman’s Mission Extension Vehicle showed that commercial life extension could work with an operating customer satellite. MEV-1 docked with Intelsat 901, supported service for five years, then undocked after moving the satellite to a graveyard orbit. That mission gave the industry a real commercial proof point.

Why Was NASA’s OSAM-1 Cancellation Significant?

NASA’s OSAM-1 cancellation showed the difficulty of complex servicing for unprepared spacecraft. The agency cited technical, cost, and schedule problems, along with a shift away from refueling spacecraft that were not designed for servicing. The decision did not end the field, but it narrowed expectations.

What Is the Difference Between Inspection and Debris Removal?

Inspection gathers data about an object in orbit. Debris removal changes the object’s orbit or captures it so it can be disposed of safely. Inspection often comes first because operators need to understand the target’s condition before attempting a more complex removal, docking, or relocation mission.

How Can Regulation Create Demand for Servicing?

Regulation can create demand by requiring faster or more reliable disposal after satellites end their missions. The FCC’s five-year low Earth orbit disposal rule gives operators a stronger reason to plan for end-of-life performance. Backup disposal services may become attractive if they reduce compliance and debris risk.

Why Does Refueling Depend on Standards?

Refueling works best when satellites are designed for it before launch. A standard interface gives refueling spacecraft a safe, predictable way to dock and transfer propellant. Without common interfaces, refueling becomes more mission-specific, more expensive, and harder to insure.

Which Customers Are Most Likely to Buy Servicing?

Near-term customers include geostationary satellite operators, government agencies, defense organizations, constellation operators, and insurers involved in anomaly assessment. The strongest buyers are those with expensive assets, disposal obligations, or mission needs that justify paying for close operations in orbit.

Will Satellite Servicing Reduce Space Debris?

Satellite servicing can reduce some debris risk, especially through disposal, relocation, and inspection before removal. It cannot solve the entire debris problem alone. Debris reduction also requires better mission design, collision avoidance, disposal compliance, launch practices, tracking, and international coordination.

Appendix: Glossary of Key Terms

Active Debris Removal

Active debris removal means sending a spacecraft to capture, move, or deorbit an existing nonfunctional object in space. It differs from ordinary post-mission disposal because the removal action is performed by another spacecraft after the target has already become debris or a retired object.

ADRAS-J

ADRAS-J is an Astroscale inspection mission developed under a Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency program. Its purpose was to approach and characterize a defunct upper stage, helping demonstrate close inspection techniques that can support future debris removal planning.

Deorbit

Deorbit means lowering a spacecraft’s orbit so it reenters Earth’s atmosphere. Some objects burn up fully during reentry, and some large objects may require controlled reentry planning. Deorbit services can help operators remove satellites that cannot complete disposal on their own.

Geosynchronous Orbit

Geosynchronous orbit is an orbit with a period matching Earth’s rotation. Many communications and weather satellites operate near this orbital regime because it allows them to maintain a consistent relationship with points on Earth, especially when positioned in geostationary orbit.

In-Space Servicing

In-space servicing means using one spacecraft to support another spacecraft after launch. It can include inspection, life extension, refueling, relocation, repair, payload installation, or end-of-life disposal. The market is growing through targeted services rather than broad repair missions.

Life Extension

Life extension means keeping a satellite useful beyond its original planned service life. In servicing markets, this often involves attaching a vehicle or pod that provides propulsion, station-keeping, or attitude support after the client satellite’s own fuel margin becomes limited.

Low Earth Orbit

Low Earth orbit is the region of space relatively close to Earth, commonly used by imaging satellites, crewed spacecraft, scientific missions, and broadband constellations. Satellites in this region may reenter naturally, but disposal timelines vary with altitude, design, and solar activity.

Mission Extension Vehicle

A Mission Extension Vehicle is a Northrop Grumman SpaceLogistics spacecraft designed to dock with a client satellite and provide life-extension support. MEV missions helped prove commercial satellite servicing in geosynchronous orbit through operational service with Intelsat satellites.

Rendezvous and Proximity Operations

Rendezvous and proximity operations describe controlled spacecraft maneuvers near another object in orbit. RPO is necessary for docking, inspection, refueling, repair, and debris removal. It also raises safety and security questions because close approach can affect another operator’s asset.

Satellite Inspection

Satellite inspection means using a spacecraft to observe another spacecraft or space object from close range. Inspection can help diagnose anomalies, characterize debris, support insurance claims, plan removal, or assess whether a target is safe for docking or capture.