SpaceTech: what are the biggest unsolved problems?
In our space economy deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
The biggest unsolved problems in SpaceTech are the ones that stand between successful missions and permanent space infrastructure: large-scale orbital refueling, long-duration lunar power and survival, trusted autonomy, debris cleanup, heavy planetary landing and Earth-independent human support.
Launch is no longer the universal bottleneck it once was. Conventional access to low Earth orbit is becoming routine enough that the harder questions have shifted toward what happens after launch: storage, maintenance, mobility, survival and repeat operations.
The commercial space economy is still overwhelmingly Earth-facing. Ground equipment and satellite services generate nearly 90% of commercial satellite-industry revenue, while depots, repair vehicles, orbital construction and lunar production still serve thin markets with limited repeat demand.
Orbital traffic management is scaling much faster than orbital cleanup. Operators are increasingly automating conjunction screening and maneuver coordination, while routine removal of dead hardware remains at the demonstration stage.
In-space servicing shows the value of designing spacecraft for help from the start. Life extension already works commercially for selected satellites, but arbitrary repair becomes far more expensive when there is no standard docking point, refueling connector or accessible component.
Orbital refueling could change the economics of deep-space transport more than almost any single technology. The difficult part is still the operational chain: keeping cryogenic propellant cold, controlling it in microgravity, transferring it repeatedly and doing all of that at tanker or depot scale.
Lunar infrastructure has a reliability problem before it has a scale problem. Power systems, excavators, electronics, seals, radiators and moving parts must survive dust, radiation, extreme thermal cycles and long periods without easy maintenance.
Lunar resource processing is further along in chemistry than in operations. Oxygen and useful materials can already be extracted from regolith simulants, but nobody has yet shown a dependable end-to-end production system working on the Moon at industrially useful scale.
Autonomy becomes more important as distance and fleet size increase. Starling shows that spacecraft can coordinate, replan and navigate with less help from Earth, but deep-space systems still need to make high-stakes decisions on radiation-tolerant computers with limited failure data.
Mars landing remains one of the clearest raw engineering gaps. Current heritage is around the tonne class, while serious human missions are expected to need payloads measured in tens of tonnes.
The broad pattern is that SpaceTech has become good at proving missions can work. The next frontier is making the underlying systems reliable, repeatable and cheap enough to behave like infrastructure rather than one-off projects.
This market map, featured in our space economy deck, highlights top companies and startups in the space economy
What actually makes a SpaceTech problem “unsolved” today?
A SpaceTech problem is still unsolved when the technology works in demonstrations but cannot yet be used reliably, repeatedly and at the scale that future space activity needs.
That distinction matters more today than it did a decade ago. SpaceX has landed orbital-class boosters hundreds of times. Spacecraft can dock autonomously. Electric propulsion is common on satellites. NASA has recycled almost all the water used aboard the International Space Station. Laser communications have sent data across deep space at broadband-like speeds.
The gaps now sit one level higher. Can a system work for years? Can operators repeat the mission dozens of times? Can hardware survive without a repair team nearby? Can the economics close once a government demonstration turns into a commercial service?
NASA's latest Civil Space Shortfall exercise is useful here because it asked hundreds of people across industry, academia, government and NASA itself to rank the technologies still holding missions back. NASA received 454 external responses and consolidated the results into 32 broad shortfalls. Extended lunar operations ranked first, lunar surface mobility and logistics second, and advanced onboard computing third. Deep-space transportation, navigation, autonomous maintenance, large-scale landing and lunar resource production also ranked high.
Getting somewhere in space is becoming easier. Staying there, moving things around, fixing failures and building infrastructure is where the hard work has shifted.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
Has SpaceTech basically solved getting to orbit?
SpaceTech has largely solved routine access to low Earth orbit, although extremely cheap, rapidly reusable launch is still unfinished.
The scale has changed dramatically. The FAA says it authorized more commercial space operations during the past five years than during the previous three decades combined. Fiscal 2025 reached a record 204 operations, and the FAA currently expects that number to rise from roughly 214 this year to 507 annually by 2036.
Satellite deployment has moved even faster. The Satellite Industry Association's latest annual study, based on BryceTech data, counted 4,434 commercially manufactured satellites launched during 2025, up 65% in a year. Global commercial launch revenue reached $12.4 billion, 33% higher than the previous year.
That means a company building a fairly conventional LEO satellite today usually spends more time worrying about launch timing, integration, destination and price than wondering whether orbital access exists at all.
Full reusability is a different problem. Falcon 9 routinely reuses its first stage, while upper stages are discarded. Starship is designed to reuse both stages, and its larger ambitions depend on rapid turnaround and much higher flight rates. Those capabilities are still being proven.
Launch infrastructure is also feeling the pressure. A U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation found that federal launch ranges were being strained by higher cadence, larger vehicles and reusable rockets.
Conventional access to LEO now sits well below the biggest SpaceTech problems. Cheap, rapidly reusable launch at much larger volumes remains unfinished.
As this chart shows, and as featured in our space economy deck, search interest in the space economy has been rising steadily
Why is so much of the space economy still tied to Earth?
The space economy is already huge, but most commercial revenue still comes from services ultimately consumed on Earth.
The latest Satellite Industry Association report puts the commercial satellite industry at $303 billion in annual revenue. Ground equipment alone generated $165.2 billion. Satellite services added another $105 billion. Together they represent almost 90% of the industry's revenue.
That money comes from things such as navigation equipment, broadband, television, communications, remote sensing and the hardware customers use to access those services. The satellites happen to sit in space; the paying customer usually sits on Earth.
Launch generated $12.4 billion and satellite manufacturing $20.4 billion. SIA estimated only about $500 million for the entire commercial space-sustainability category, which includes more than debris removal alone.
This helps explain why so many futuristic SpaceTech businesses remain awkward economically. A propellant depot needs spacecraft that regularly buy propellant. A repair vehicle needs satellites worth repairing. A lunar refinery needs customers for its oxygen. An orbital construction company needs structures that are genuinely cheaper to build in space.
NASA's long-term Moon-to-Mars architecture explicitly talks about creating a lunar economy where NASA is no longer the sole user. The wording gives away how early that market still is.
| Commercial satellite segment | 2025 revenue | Share of $303B industry |
|---|---|---|
| Ground equipment | $165.2B | 54.5% |
| Satellite services | $105.0B | 34.7% |
| Satellite manufacturing | $20.4B | 6.7% |
| Launch services | $12.4B | 4.1% |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
Can low Earth orbit stay safe and can we actually clean up the debris?
Low Earth orbit can still be operated safely today, but satellite growth is forcing traffic management to scale much faster while routine debris removal barely exists.
ESA's most recent environment statistics count roughly 16,000 functioning satellites in orbit. Surveillance networks regularly track about 46,770 objects. ESA's models estimate around 68,450 objects larger than 10 centimeters.
Then the numbers get much uglier. ESA estimates roughly 1.5 million objects between one and ten centimeters and about 230 million between one millimeter and one centimeter.
Many of those smaller objects are too difficult to track continuously with enough accuracy for a satellite operator to dodge them. At orbital velocity, even a small fragment can cause severe damage.
The encouraging part is that traffic coordination is scaling quickly. NOAA's TraCSS system currently has 70 pilot users representing more than 11,345 satellites. Earlier this year there were only 17 participating organizations. Operators can increasingly share predicted trajectories, screen conjunctions automatically and coordinate maneuvers without relying entirely on manual exchanges.
NASA's Starling mission has gone a step further and tested automated coordination between its own spacecraft and SpaceX's Starlink system. During the experiment, spacecraft exchanged conjunction information and Starling autonomously planned and executed a simulated avoidance maneuver.
Physical cleanup is much further behind. ESA has long cited research suggesting that stabilizing the LEO debris population may eventually require removing roughly five to ten carefully selected large objects every year.
Astroscale's ADRAS-J mission approached an abandoned Japanese H-IIA upper stage weighing roughly three tonnes, inspected it closely and eventually came within about 15 meters. The target rocket stage stayed where it was. JAXA's follow-on ADRAS-J2 program is meant to attempt the actual capture and removal.
Europe's ClearSpace-1 remains under development and is designed to capture the roughly 100-kilogram Proba-1 spacecraft even though it has no docking interface.
Avoiding cooperative spacecraft is becoming automated. Capturing several different pieces of dead hardware every year is much further away.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, illustrates yearly venture capital funding for space economy startups
Can satellites really be repaired and upgraded in orbit?
SpaceTech can already extend the life of selected satellites, while complex robotic repair and upgrade missions remain expensive and highly customized.
Northrop Grumman's Mission Extension Vehicles provide the clearest commercial proof. An MEV can dock with an aging geostationary satellite and effectively provide a new propulsion system, allowing a valuable spacecraft to remain useful after its own fuel situation becomes limiting.
That is a real service with a real customer.
Repairing arbitrary satellites gets much harder. NASA's OSAM-1 program was supposed to autonomously rendezvous with Landsat 7 and refuel it even though the satellite had never been designed for servicing. NASA eventually cancelled the mission after technical problems, schedule delays and rising costs. The agency also said the market had been shifting toward servicing spacecraft that are designed from the beginning to accept help.
A known docking point, standardized refueling connector and accessible component turn a difficult robotics mission into something much more predictable.
NASA's 2025 survey of in-space servicing, assembly and manufacturing found 524 capability entries across 145 developers. The field covers inspection, life extension, refueling, robotics, assembly, additive manufacturing and component replacement.
Today we can extend the life of carefully chosen assets. A broader servicing market still depends on standardized interfaces and vehicles that can handle more than one customized job.
Can we refuel spacecraft and make Moon-Mars transport routine?
Large-scale orbital refueling and efficient deep-space transport remain two of the biggest connected problems in SpaceTech.
Cryogenic fuels create the immediate refueling challenge. Liquid oxygen, methane and hydrogen must remain extremely cold. Heat leaking into a tank creates boil-off, while microgravity makes fluid positioning and transfer much harder than on Earth.
NASA is currently preparing one of the most useful tests yet. LOXSAT, developed with Eta Space and hosted on a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft, is designed to spend nine months demonstrating technologies for storing, controlling, pressurizing and transferring liquid oxygen in LEO. NASA still classified LOXSAT as an active technology project in its latest TechPort update.
The scale is deliberately modest. Starship pushes the problem much further. SpaceX's lunar and deep-space architecture relies on launching tanker spacecraft and transferring large quantities of liquid methane and oxygen into another Starship in orbit.
Refueling also connects directly to propulsion. Chemical engines offer high thrust but consume enormous amounts of propellant. Electric propulsion is much more efficient but works best when missions can tolerate low thrust and long transfer times.
That is why NASA is still studying chemical, solar electric, nuclear thermal, nuclear electric and hybrid systems for Mars.
Nuclear electric propulsion shows how much work remains. NASA has explored megawatt-class systems for heavy deep-space transport, but the reactor, power conversion, heat rejection and propulsion hardware remain relatively immature as one integrated vehicle. Some concepts require radiator structures with areas comparable to a football field.
There has been fresh component-level progress. JPL recently operated a lithium-fed magnetoplasmadynamic thruster above previous U.S. power records for that technology.
The difficulty is getting propulsion, power, radiators and propellant storage to work together. Routine orbital refueling would make almost every option more useful by allowing spacecraft to take on fuel after launch.
| Transport step | Current state | Remaining jump |
|---|---|---|
| Cryogenic fluid control | Ground tests and small-scale orbital demonstrations | Long-duration, low-loss operation |
| LOXSAT | Current small-scale liquid-oxygen flight demonstration | Depot-scale storage and repeated transfers |
| Starship-class refueling | Required for future architecture | Large transfers repeated across many tanker flights |
| High-efficiency propulsion | Multiple systems under development | Flight-ready systems at heavy transport scale |
| Commercial deep-space logistics | Early concepts and government demand | Repeated missions with viable economics |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, shows why SpaceX is leading in the space economy
Can spacecraft really run themselves far from Earth?
Spacecraft autonomy is becoming much more capable, but we still cannot hand a complex deep-space operation to software and trust it to solve every serious problem alone.
The newest NASA Starling results make the progress clear. Four small satellites have already demonstrated distributed planning, autonomous task allocation and collaborative decision-making. NASA recently added another milestone: Starling used onboard optical observations to determine spacecraft position without relying on GPS, an important step toward navigation farther from Earth.
Starling has also demonstrated autonomous maintenance functions. NASA's software allowed the swarm to manage routine operations, respond to some problems and distribute software updates between spacecraft.
The environment was still low Earth orbit, the fleet contained four CubeSats, and humans remained close enough to supervise the experiment.
A Mars mission changes the stakes. Communication delays mean crews and robots cannot wait for Earth whenever something unexpected happens. A large lunar constellation also becomes expensive to operate if every spacecraft requires its own team of controllers.
NASA therefore ranked advanced onboard computing third in its latest civil-space shortfalls. Navigation came eighth and autonomous monitoring, inspection, maintenance and repair ninth.
The remaining challenge is trust. Spacecraft computers have limited power, must survive radiation and encounter failures for which very little real training data exists. A wrong autonomous decision can destroy extremely expensive hardware.
Can lunar machines survive for years with reliable power?
Long-term lunar survival and continuous power are currently among the hardest practical problems in SpaceTech.
A lunar landing can last hours or days and still be successful. Permanent infrastructure has to survive repeated thermal cycles, abrasive dust, radiation and long periods when solar power becomes difficult.
Away from the poles, lunar daylight and darkness each last roughly two Earth weeks. NASA gives nighttime temperatures near the equator of about -292°F, while permanently shadowed regions near the poles can fall toward -418°F.
Electronics need heat. Batteries lose capability in extreme cold. Lubricants, seals and mechanical systems become harder to use. Keeping hardware warm also consumes power when solar energy may be unavailable.
Dust adds another problem. Lunar regolith can cover solar cells, damage seals, contaminate optics and work its way into moving mechanisms. During Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost mission, NASA successfully demonstrated an electrodynamic dust shield that uses electric fields to push dust away from selected surfaces.
A permanent base still has to protect excavators, wheels, bearings, radiators, antennas, cables, connectors and spacesuits.
Power determines how much of that infrastructure can operate. Solar panels work well where sunlight is available, but long nights and permanently shadowed regions make continuous supply harder. NASA and industry are developing vertical solar arrays, batteries, regenerative fuel cells and radioisotope systems.
For larger installations, nuclear power is moving closer to the center of NASA's strategy. NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy renewed their joint program this year with the goal of developing a lunar fission surface reactor for deployment around 2030.
A particularly fresh clue came this week. NASA opened a new industry solicitation covering vertical solar arrays, energy storage and radioisotope power, alongside oxygen production and manufacturing.
NASA ranked extended lunar operations first among its 32 current civil-space shortfalls. Power, thermal control and physical survival are closely tied inside that problem.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, illustrates yearly funding for space economy startups
Can we really make useful fuel and materials from lunar soil?
SpaceTech can already extract useful materials from simulated lunar soil on Earth, but nobody has demonstrated a working lunar production chain at useful scale.
NASA and Lunar Resources have used molten regolith electrolysis in vacuum to separate oxygen from simulated lunar soil while producing metal-rich material. NASA and Sierra Space have also tested a carbothermal system that concentrates sunlight onto regolith and drives reactions that can ultimately release oxygen.
NASA's latest CaRD prototype connected several pieces together: solar concentration, a reactor, fluid handling, gas analysis, avionics and software.
Blue Origin's Blue Alchemist program goes further by developing a process that starts with regolith and aims to produce oxygen, metals, silicon, wiring and eventually solar cells.
A useful lunar production system has to excavate regolith, move it, control dust, feed a reactor, supply large amounts of energy, separate products, store them and keep the machinery alive. That's a long chain, and every weak link counts.
NASA's newest lunar-infrastructure solicitation reflects this stage of development. The agency is asking industry to mature oxygen-from-regolith systems toward real lunar use.
Economics will decide which resources matter first. Oxygen is particularly attractive because it can support breathing and makes up most of the mass in common chemical rocket oxidizer. Water near the lunar poles could support crews and be split into hydrogen and oxygen.
Several extraction methods now work in controlled tests. Tonne-scale production on the lunar surface has not been demonstrated.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
Can the Moon get its own GPS and broadband?
The Moon can technically support GPS-like navigation and high-speed communications, but the shared network that makes those services routine is only starting to appear.
NASA's Deep Space Optical Communications experiment sent data from the Psyche spacecraft at up to 267 megabits per second when Psyche was around 31 million kilometers from Earth. Across the demonstration, ground terminals received 13.6 terabits.
A useful lunar network needs continuous coverage, multiple relay satellites, common standards, navigation signals, compatible terminals and enough redundancy to keep users connected.
NASA's Lunar Communications Relay and Navigation Systems program is building toward that. Intuitive Machines was selected as the first commercial provider, and NASA recently delivered its NavCube3-mini navigation payload for integration into Altus-1, the company's first planned lunar relay satellite.
LunaNet provides the standards layer, with the aim of letting spacecraft, rovers and astronauts from different organizations use compatible communications and navigation services.
Mars pushes the same idea much further because local networks will eventually need to function despite long delays to Earth.
The links are increasingly capable. Persistent shared infrastructure is still sparse.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, compares the main business model options for Earth observation satellite operators
Can we land 20-ton payloads on Mars?
SpaceTech cannot yet land the payloads needed for a serious human Mars program, and the jump from current missions is enormous.
Curiosity and Perseverance each put roughly one-tonne-class rovers onto Mars. Human-mission architecture studies have commonly examined landed payloads around 20 tonnes.
Mars makes landing unusually awkward. Its atmosphere is thick enough to create intense heating during entry, while remaining too thin for parachutes to slow a very heavy vehicle all the way to a safe landing.
NASA has consequently spent years studying supersonic retropropulsion, where engines fire while the spacecraft is still moving at supersonic speed through the Martian atmosphere. SpaceX's terrestrial booster landings have provided valuable real-world data for similar flow regimes, although Mars brings different atmospheric density, gravity, vehicle geometry and landing constraints.
Large engines also create plume problems close to the surface by excavating soil and throwing debris. Accuracy becomes more demanding once cargo has to land close to an existing base without damaging it.
NASA still ranks reliable precision landing of large Mars systems among its major civil-space shortfalls. Mars landing heritage remains around the tonne class; human-scale cargo requires tens of tonnes.
Can humans live far from Earth without constant resupply?
Human deep-space missions can already recycle an impressive amount of water and air, but a Mars crew would still depend on several systems that are not closed or reliable enough for years of isolation.
Water is the strongest result so far. NASA has demonstrated about 98% water recovery in the U.S. segment of the International Space Station. That is essentially the target needed for long-duration exploration.
Oxygen is further behind. The current ISS system recovers roughly 50% of the oxygen contained in the crew's metabolic carbon dioxide. NASA's advanced life-support work targets at least 75%.
Food is easy to underestimate. NASA's current Space Food Systems work says exploration food may need to remain safe, nutritious and acceptable for up to five years because part of a Mars supply could be positioned before the crew arrives.
Radiation remains one of the nastier gaps. Additional shielding can provide useful protection during solar particle events. Galactic cosmic rays are much harder because their high-energy particles can penetrate shielding and create secondary radiation.
Maintenance is another major difference from the ISS. A Mars crew may go months without any possibility of receiving a replacement pump, filter, medical device or electronics box from Earth.
High recycling rates therefore solve only part of the problem. The systems also have to keep working for years with far less outside support.
| Human-support problem | Best current evidence | What Mars still needs |
|---|---|---|
| Water | About 98% recovery demonstrated on ISS | Very high reliability for years |
| Oxygen | About 50% recovered from metabolic CO₂ | At least 75%, preferably higher |
| Food | Current exploration work targets up to 5-year stability | Nutrition and acceptability after long storage |
| Radiation | Solar-event sheltering is practical | Better protection from galactic cosmic rays |
| Repairs | ISS can receive replacement hardware | Much greater local repair and manufacturing capability |
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, shows revenue breakdown by customer segment in the space economy
So what are the biggest unsolved problems in SpaceTech?
The biggest unsolved problems in SpaceTech today are the technologies that turn occasional missions into permanent infrastructure: refueling, long-duration power and survival, autonomy, orbital cleanup, heavy landing and Earth-independent human support.
Launch used to dominate almost every discussion of space technology because everything depended on getting mass off Earth. Launch is still expensive, and full reusability could change the economics again. Yet the industry already launches hundreds of missions and thousands of satellites a year.
Orbital refueling sits near the top because it changes deep-space transportation at the architectural level. Long-duration lunar power and survival come next because almost every surface activity depends on them. Trusted autonomy becomes essential once communications delays and fleet size make constant ground control unrealistic.
Orbital sustainability presents a different bottleneck. Avoidance systems are improving quickly, while regular physical debris removal has barely started.
Heavy planetary landing has a brutally clear numerical gap: Mars heritage sits around the one-tonne class, while serious human architectures need payloads measured in tens of tonnes.
Human self-sufficiency is broader. Water recycling is already excellent, while oxygen recovery, food lifetime, radiation protection and repair capability still leave a Mars crew dependent on Earth-developed support systems.
As seen above, NASA's latest civil-space ranking lands in much the same place. Extended lunar operations, surface logistics and onboard computing occupy the first three positions.
Many of these technologies also need a larger space-to-space economy before companies can manufacture them repeatedly and push costs down. The Earth-facing satellite economy already generates hundreds of billions of dollars; depots, servicing vehicles and lunar infrastructure still serve much thinner markets.
SpaceTech has become good at missions. Building infrastructure is the unfinished part.
| Rank | Biggest unsolved SpaceTech problem | Why it is still hard |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Large-scale orbital refueling and propellant storage | Cryogenic fuel still has to be stored and transferred repeatedly at operational scale |
| 2 | Long-duration lunar power and survival | Machines must survive extreme cold, dust and long operating periods |
| 3 | Trusted spacecraft autonomy | Deep-space fleets need to diagnose failures and replan with limited help from Earth |
| 4 | Space debris cleanup and traffic management | Satellite populations are growing much faster than physical debris-removal capacity |
| 5 | Heavy Moon and Mars landing | Mars needs a leap from roughly tonne-class heritage to tens-of-tonnes payloads |
| 6 | Earth-independent human life support | Oxygen, food, radiation protection, maintenance and medical independence remain incomplete |
| 7 | Lunar resource production at industrial scale | Extraction chemistry works; dependable end-to-end production does not yet exist |
| 8 | Routine in-orbit servicing, repair and assembly | Commercial life extension exists, while complex servicing remains highly customized |
| 9 | Better deep-space propulsion systems | Current options force large trade-offs between thrust, efficiency, power and mass |
| 10 | Lunar and Mars communications and navigation infrastructure | Individual links work; persistent shared networks are only starting to emerge |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis asks which SpaceTech problems remain genuinely unsolved today. We break the topic into the main capabilities needed for sustained activity in space, then compare how far each one has moved from a successful demonstration toward reliable, repeatable operation at useful scale.
We prioritized recent first-hand evidence: flight results, operational data, program status, technology demonstrations, commercial activity and current agency priorities. NASA, ESA, the FAA and the U.S. Office of Space Commerce carried particular weight because they provide direct technical, regulatory or operational evidence rather than commentary about somebody else's work.
NASA's Civil Space Shortfall exercise is used as an external check rather than as the ranking itself. Its current process consolidated 454 external responses into 32 broad shortfall categories, giving us a useful comparison point for priorities such as extended lunar operations, surface logistics, onboard computing, navigation, maintenance, deep-space transport and large-scale landing.
For launch and the space economy, we use the FAA's commercial-space operations data and the Satellite Industry Association's annual industry figures. For orbital sustainability, we rely on ESA's Space Environment Statistics and the U.S. Office of Space Commerce's TraCSS program. Those sources let us compare growing launch and satellite activity with the much slower development of debris-removal capacity.
For autonomy, servicing, refueling and deep-space infrastructure, key sources include NASA's Starling program, NASA's 2025 ISAM State of Play, Northrop Grumman's SpaceLogistics work, NASA TechPort's LOXSAT project, NASA and DOE work on lunar fission power, NASA lunar-surface technology programs, JPL's Deep Space Optical Communications demonstration and NASA's LunaNet program.
For lunar resources, Mars landing and human self-sufficiency, we use NASA and NASA TechPort material on molten regolith electrolysis, the CaRD prototype, Mars supersonic retropropulsion, ISS water recovery, spacecraft oxygen recovery and Space Food Systems, alongside Blue Origin's Blue Alchemist program where commercial development adds useful mission-level detail.
We gave the most weight to measurable gaps: demonstrated versus required scale, current versus targeted performance, one-off success versus repeated operations, and technical capability versus a viable commercial market. The final top-ten ranking comes from aggregating those gaps across the article rather than starting with a ranking and working backward.
Key sources include: NASA's Civil Space Shortfalls, FAA commercial-space operations data, the Satellite Industry Association's State of the Satellite Industry report, ESA Space Environment Statistics, the U.S. Office of Space Commerce on TraCSS, NASA Starling, NASA TechPort on LOXSAT, JPL's Deep Space Optical Communications program, NASA LunaNet, and NASA's ISS life-support work.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, shows how satellite internet platform technology has evolved over time
Related blog posts
- SpaceTech: what are the biggest challenges now?
- SpaceTech: what are startups building now?
- SpaceTech: what’s changing now?
- The most recent funding news in the space economy
