Space sustainability includes the continued availability of satellite services and the consequences of building, launching, operating, and disposing of spacecraft. A new EPFL author manuscript, posted on October 15, 2026, examines these connected responsibilities through the idea of shared resources. Its subject extends from orbital congestion to atmospheric effects, access to information, and the distribution of benefits.
In Space Sustainability: The Global Commons, Angelina Frolova and seven coauthors argue that technical improvements need governance arrangements that account for consequences beyond an individual operator. The chapter is an author manuscript for a World Scientific reference scheduled for 2027. It combines existing research and policy analysis; it is not a new environmental measurement campaign.
The authors distinguish sustainability enabled by space services, sustainability within the space environment, and the effects of space activities on Earth. These categories address different questions. Satellite observations can help manage a flood, but producing and operating the satellite also requires materials, energy, infrastructure, and eventual disposal. Evaluating the service and its production together provides a more complete account.
The practical value of that distinction is that benefits and impacts occur at different locations and times. A weather observation may improve decisions immediately. Manufacturing effects arise before launch, and disposal happens later. An assessment focused only on the operational phase would omit parts of the activity that made the service possible.
EPFL’s analysis also identifies competing objectives. Additional satellites can provide service redundancy and increase congestion. Removing a spacecraft from orbit reduces its time as a collision hazard but sends material into the atmosphere. The authors recommend international coordination, transparency, and equitable access. These are policy recommendations informed by their synthesis, rather than findings that establish one optimal constellation size.
Evidence of atmospheric effects supplies a specific example of the broader approach. In a 2023 aircraft measurement study, researchers led by NOAA’s Daniel Murphy identified metals associated with spacecraft reentry in stratospheric aerosol particles. The team matched combinations of elements to alloys used in rockets and satellites. This connected a measurable atmospheric signature to space hardware returning to Earth.
NOAA reported spacecraft-associated metals in about 10% of the stratospheric sulfuric-acid particles considered in the research. That figure describes particle composition, not a percentage loss of ozone or a quantified climate effect. The researchers identified further work needed to understand how those metals interact with atmospheric chemistry. The measured presence and the resulting environmental consequences are related but separate scientific questions.
This distinction matters for disposal policy. A spacecraft that leaves orbit no longer presents the same long-term orbital hazard. Its material has entered another environment. A complete assessment can recognize the collision-reduction benefit and investigate the atmospheric consequences without treating either as a reason to ignore the other.
ESA’s ecodesign methodology provides an existing method for examining such connections. Life-cycle assessment considers raw-material extraction, manufacturing energy, development, operations, and end-of-life activities. ESA adapts this approach to space projects and assesses multiple environmental categories, including climate effects, toxicity, and mineral-resource depletion.
The method is useful during design because alternatives can change several outcomes at once. A different material can change manufacturing impacts, component mass, and disposal behavior. Extending service life can change replacement demand. These comparisons need a defined mission and consistent boundaries, so that the alternatives deliver comparable functions. Counting only the mass launched or only the number of satellites would not capture the whole comparison.
Shared-resource governance adds an economic question to those engineering assessments. An operator receives revenue from its service, but some effects of its decisions are experienced by other operators and communities. New Space Economy’s commons governance explanation describes this as an externality: a benefit or cost that is not fully reflected in the decision-maker’s own transaction.
In an orbital setting, another organization may have to monitor a close approach, assess collision risk, or change a planned maneuver. The affected organization did not necessarily participate in the deployment decision that created the interaction. This provides a practical reason for shared information and coordinated operating practices. Governance concerns the relationship among users, as well as the technical characteristics of individual spacecraft.
The term commons does not require assuming that shared resources must be mismanaged. Elinor Ostrom’s research on collective governance examined successful and unsuccessful arrangements for shared resources. Its relevance here is analytical: institutional design, participation, and rules affect outcomes. Findings from terrestrial communities are useful context, rather than a ready-made operating code for global satellite fleets.
International space institutions already address parts of this problem. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space adopted 21 long-term sustainability guidelines in 2019. They cover policy and regulatory frameworks, operational safety, cooperation, capacity-building, and scientific and technical work. Their voluntary character distinguishes them from a single globally enforced licensing system.
The distribution of benefits deserves comparable attention. Data can exist without being accessible in a form that an institution can use. Effective access can depend on technical skills, processing capacity, and the terms under which information is shared. This means that evaluating a space service involves its users and delivery arrangements, alongside the spacecraft’s ability to collect or transmit information.
For agencies and companies, the resulting assessment is more specific than a general sustainability claim. It identifies the service delivered, the resources consumed, the operational effects, the disposal pathway, and the people or organizations affected. Different missions will produce different combinations of these outcomes. Evidence can then be attached to each part instead of compressed into a single unsupported judgment.
The chapter’s practical contribution is to connect decisions that are often evaluated separately. Spacecraft disposal, atmospheric research, manufacturing choices, and access to services concern different specialists, but they belong to the same activity. Assessing them together allows a mission’s demonstrated benefits to be described alongside the resources and operating conditions required to continue providing them.
Useful Books Available on Amazon
