ORIGINAL ARTICLE
What Is New Space? The Changing
Ecosystem of Global Space Activity
Deganit Paikowsky
Yuval Ne’eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security,
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
ABSTRACT
Traditionally, the ecosystem of space was controlled by national
activity and was a state-only playground. In the past several years,
we have witnessed dramatic changes in global space activity
toward greater involvement by the private sector. These changes
come together under the overarching expression, ‘‘New Space.’’
New Space is drawing considerable attention by many in the
space sector. Nevertheless, what does it mean? This question may
be answered in many different ways: innovative technologies,
entrepreneurial activity, new models for R&D, commercialization,
financing, new frontiers and explorations, etc. Understanding the
complexity of the changes in the ecosystem of space is important
to better forecast its implications, opportunities, and challenges.
This article provides an overview and analysis of the differences
between the ecosystems of ‘‘Old’’ and New Space.
Keywords: entrepreneurial activity, private sector, commer-
cialization
INTRODUCTION
I
n the past several years, we have witnessed dramatic
changes in global space activity toward greater involve-
ment by the private sector. These changes come together
under the overarching expression, ‘‘New Space’’. New
Space is drawing considerable attention by many in the space
sector. Nevertheless, what does it mean? This question may be
answered in many different ways. Some experts focus on in-
novative technologies and on new models for performing
R&D and project management, others emphasize entre-
preneurial activity, commercialization, and new models of
financing. New services, new frontiers, and explorations
constitute aspects of New Space. All of these elements have
combined to create a new environment for global space ac-
tivity that is currently being developed.
Manuscript presented at the 67th International Astronautical Congress, Guadalajara, Mexico, September 26–30, 2016. Copyright ª 2017 by IAF.
DOI: 10.1089/space.2016.0027
The primary objective of this article is to provide a com-
prehensive overview and analysis of the various elements and
aspects of ‘‘New Space’’. The primary premise of this article is
that ‘‘New Space’’ should be referred to as a new ecosystem for
global and local space activities. An ecosystem is a system or a
network of connected and interacting parts. Observing ‘‘Old
Space’’ and ‘‘New Space’’ through the prism of an ecosystem
means that no one element defines the differences between old
and new. Instead, it demonstrates that the changes are a result of
an overall mix of elements that have changed; their connections
and interactions form a new ecosystem. Understanding the
complexity of this evolving ecosystem is important to better
forecast its implications, opportunities, and challenges.
The article is composed of 4 sections. Geopolitics and the
issue of dual-use in the changing ecosystem of space are
discussed in the first section, focusing on the dominant role
played by states. The rationales for involvement in space ac-
tivity in ‘‘Old Space’’ and ‘‘New Space’’ ecosystems are ex-
plained in the second section. The third section provides an
overview of the differences in R&D, finance, and project
management between Old Space and New Space. Challenges
to the space environment are discussed in the fourth section.
OLD SPACE–NEW SPACE: GEOPOLITICS
AND THE ISSUE OF DUAL USE
IN THE CHANGING ECOSYSTEM OF SPACE
The ecosystem of ‘‘Old Space’’ is highly associated with the
Cold War during which it was created and has been shaped.
Nevertheless, even though the Cold War ended 25 years
ago, the ecosystem of ‘‘Old Space’’ continued to exist. In fact,
currently, we are in a period in which the two sets of eco-
systems coexist.
‘‘Old Space’’ ecosystem refers to space activity that is being
controlled by national activity and is mainly a state-only
playground. The primary actors in this ecosystem are the su-
perpowers and their close allies, who are motivated by na-
tional considerations. Space activity as a national objective
developed during the Cold War, when in their quest to
avoid a potential direct military conflict that could escalate
to a nuclear war, the superpowers initiated national space
MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.  VOL. XX NO. XX  2017 NEW SPACE 1
PAIKOWSKY
programs. The rationale was twofold. First, the two super-
powers each developed and used space-based intelligence
gathering capabilities to obtain important information re-
garding their opponents’ capabilities and developments and to
monitor arms control agreements. Second, the superpowers
aimed to channel hostilities to nonviolent public competitions
through a technological and scientific race to space.
Space technology is dual use. Dual-use technology supports
applications that can be used for both civil peaceful purposes
and defense purposes. The fact that space technology is dual
use and as such has significant military implications played a
significant role in space activity during the Cold War. The
strong link between space development and nuclear devel-
opment, particularly the technological relationship regarding
the means of launching, led the superpowers to perceive space
capability as complementary to nuclear capability.
Under these circumstances, the dual use of space technol-
ogy was perceived as a major challenge.* For this reason, each
of the two superpowers placed strict restrictions on prolifer-
ation of know-how and technology of launch vehicles as well
as on other dual-use sensitive space technologies that were
considered strategically valuable, such as high-resolution
imagery, satellites, systems and subsystems, and components.
In addition to achieving nuclear nonproliferation, the ratio-
nale was that the use of such technologies by other countries
could reduce the military advantage that the superpowers had
over their allies and adversaries. As a result, space activity
became a strategic and prestigious practice, which powerful
countries are expected to take upon themselves. State actors
became dominant and commercial activity was very low.
The change in the security environment in the aftermath of
the Cold War allowed many of the strategic restrictions on
proliferation of knowledge and technology to be removed.
This process triggered a shift in favor of the dual-use aspect of
space technology, which became an opportunity. The option
to use the same technologies for both commercial and military/
civil applications carried the potential for more efficient and
low-cost projects in the context of public–private partner-
ships (PPPs).
Under the guiding principle of PPP, civil and defense
government agencies cooperate with commercial entities to
develop and operate advanced space technologies. These
*Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles and Space Launch Vehicles share funda-
mental core technologies, and thus are characterized as dual use. For a com-
prehensive discussion of the dual use of space technologies, see Johnson-Freese J.
Space as a Strategic Asset. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007 and
Mineiro MC. Space Technology Export Controls and International Cooperation in
Outer Space. New York: Springer Press, 2012.
2 NEW SPACE 2017
provide tangible goods and benefits to the public as well as to
the commercial market, while reducing costs for both sides.
This change generated greater international cooperation,
commercialization, and expansion of the global space market.
The global economic crisis, which began in 2007, further in-
tensified this process. Gradually, space capabilities became
more accessible, new technologies were introduced, the cost of
access to space declined, and the space market further ex-
panded. At the beginning of the 1980s, the space market ac-
counted for a few billion dollars of the world’s economy. By
2014, the space market, including ancillary services, was es-
timated at 330 billion U.S. dollars.{
As a result of these developments, two new types of players
joined global space activity: (1) small and developing coun-
tries and (2) private sector players. Together, they introduced
significant changes on the interconnections and interactions
in the ecosystem of space. In this context, a significant change
caused by the rapidly growing private sector is that in many of
the PPPs, there has been a shift of governmental actors from
the driver’s seat to the adjacent seat, where they remain active
and involved but no longer play a dominant role in directing
activities. This shift is especially evident (but not limited to) in
missions to low Earth orbit (LEO), where most space activity
currently takes place.
Gradually, governmental actors switch their focus to mis-
sions into deeper space. By embarking on long-distance hu-
man space missions deeper into space, governments redesign
and look to differentiate between their activities and those of
the private sector. Further support for this analysis came in
January 2016, when Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Adminis-
trator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA, an-
nounced that to focus its actions on longer distance missions,
NASA would gradually decrease its activities and investments
in human spaceflight activities in LEO.{ Gerstenmaier’s
statement was aimed at drawing a line between public and
private human spaceflight activities, while simultaneously
encouraging the private sector to develop independent and
separate platforms in LEO.
OLD–NEW: RATIONALES TO GO TO SPACE
Another important change constituting the difference from
the Old Space ecosystem to the New Space ecosystem is the
{
Overall, even during the global recession, average growth was 6% per annum
during the last decade. The Space Report 2015. Arlington, VA: The Space Foun-
dation, July 2015.
{
Berger E. NASA official warns private sector: We’re moving on from low-earth
orbit. ARS Technica, December 7, 2015, http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/
nasa-official-warns-private-sector-were-moving-on-from-low-earth-orbit/ (Last
accessed on December 9, 2015).
MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.

change in the rationale for going to space. The rationale of state
actors to engage in indigenous development of large-scale
space programs usually falls into three main categories:
national security and military considerations; economic
growth, prosperity, development, and benefit to society; and/
or the aspiration to sustain and upgrade international status.x
It should be stressed that these considerations are not neces-
sarily of a cost–benefit nature. On the contrary, because of
the high costs involved and indirect tangible benefits, it is
difficult to prove that national space activity provides cost-
effective direct benefits.
In the post-Cold War era, as far as states are concerned,
these rationales are still very relevant. Therefore to a large extent,
their activities are still compatible with the ecosystem of ‘‘Old
Space’’. Nevertheless, for nonstate actors, cost–benefit consider-
ations are extremely important, if not the most important factor
in their activities. For many of them, space first and foremost is a
source of profit—they perceive their activity as a business.
OLD–NEW: R&D, FINANCE, AND MANAGEMENT
The New Space ecosystem also features new and different
models of R&D, finance, and management. In the Old Space
ecosystem, because of geopolitical circumstances and tech-
nological difficulties, research and development is usually
characterized by long and expensive projects involving large
satellites, planned for long periods of time in orbit, and fi-
nanced in a cost plus model. In addition, the fact that satellites
are required to operate in the highly difficult environment of
space, with the agencies operating them barely able to provide
maintenance, intensifies the need to assure sustainable and
successful operations in orbit. As a result, project manage-
ment for such projects was, and still is, low on risk taking,
making R&D relatively conservative.
Under the New Space ecosystem that is focused on space as
a resource and venue for a profitable business, new companies
and well-established industries are working to develop low-
cost access to space and affordable space technologies and
services. Most New Space undertakings are private and com-
mercial, offering various developmental and business models
for innovative initiatives. They are very different from the
x
For a comprehensive discussion of the reasons and motivations for countries to
be involved in space activity, see: Ezell EC. Space activities in the Soviet Union,
Japan, and The People’s Republic of China. In: Roland A (eds.). A Space-faring
People: Perspectives on Early Spaceflight. Washington DC: The NASA History
Series, 1985, pp. 118–130; Parkinson RC. Review of rationales for space activity. J
Br Interplanet Soc. 1998;51:275–280; Kazuto S. Policy Logics and Institutions of
European Space Collaboration. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2003; Stein-
berg G. Large scale national projects as political symbols. Comp Polit. 1987;19(3):
331–346.
WHAT IS NEW SPACE?
traditional approaches to space activities. The fact that clients
and investors are private actors triggers a shift in the financial
models from cost plus to fixed price. This change requires
different methods of management and demands shorter du-
rations of time devoted to research and development.
In this context, the technological miniaturization of satel-
lites enabled a decrease in the costs of developing and
launching satellites. Satellites, systems, and components can
now be purchased off the shelf. Development processes are
shorter, and satellites spend relatively less time in orbit. As a
result, project management in these fields is more inclined to
take risks. It is tuned toward a ‘‘good enough’’ R&D model and
performing technological demonstrations while in service,
instead of aiming for 100% success in orbit, as was the case for
satellite development under the Old Space ecosystem. As a
result, New Space R&D is relatively much more innovative.
It should be noted that this principle does not apply for all
activities under the New Space ecosystem. For example, this is
obviously not the case in commercial human spaceflight, espe-
cially space tourism. The business model of space tourism re-
quires flight safety and cannot settle for ‘‘good enough’’.
The New Space ecosystem also features new types of ap-
plications and services that were not part of the Old Space
ecosystem, reusable rockets, commercial human spaceflights,
constellations of commercial small satellites, earth observa-
tion, in-orbit service, and so on.
NEW SPACE ECOSYSTEM CHALLENGES—TRAFFIC
SAFETY, SUSTAINABILITY, AND THE ROLE
OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR
One of the primary trends of the New Space ecosystem is the
growth in the development and use of small satellites. In the
past several years, the number of small satellites (up to 50 kg.)
launched has increased dramatically; they constitute a sig-
nificant portion of the satellites launched annually. This trend
raises a significant challenge about the sustainability and
safety of the space environment, the implications of crowded
orbits, regulation issues, and their possible effects on the New
Space ecosystem.**
One of the most urgent issues is the quantity of space debris,
which is constantly increasing and which poses a real threat to
every active satellite in orbit. The increased number of small
satellites will further exacerbate the problem; because of their
small size and low weight, small satellites do not have deor-
biting capabilities. Therefore, once their mission is completed,
**de Selding PB. Signs of a satellite internet gold rush in burst of ITU filings. Space
News, January 23, 2015. http://spacenews.com/signs-of-satellite-internet-gold-
rush/?_wcsid=F74CC0BF4C22D3FF83FC59B6FB3D476433FDA26192541BE0B26
D1F549ADA3DE0 (Last accessed on January 25, 2015).
MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.  VOL. XX NO. XX  2017 NEW SPACE 3
PAIKOWSKY
they become dangerous debris. If their altitude is high, they
are likely to remain in orbit for decades.
The rapidly growing commercialization of space activity
enhances the demand for a secure and sustainable space en-
vironment and responsible activity by all space actors, private
and governmental. In recent years, a number of international
efforts have been undertaken, with the purpose of drawing up
rules of operation and agreements, so as to ensure sustainability
in the space environment. In the spring of 2014, progress was
seen in the announcement of the fourth draft of the Interna-
tional Code of Conduct for Space Activities. A year later, in July
2015, a discussion was held in New York regarding the code.
Unfortunately, the strategic tensions between the United States,
Russia, China, and other less powerful countries have affected
these processes, making an international agreement (binding or
nonbinding) on this issue only a distant possibility.
Progress at the multilateral diplomatic level suffers from
deceleration and even stagnation. Nevertheless, the most
significant contribution of the code, and other initiatives, to
the dialogue on security and sustainability in space is the
setting of norms against creating space debris. In addition,
increasing awareness in various countries of the necessity of
taking responsibility and dealing with subjects important to
the space environment can be discerned. Some countries have
been acting independently to reduce the space debris that they
generate or to monitor the objects floating around in space.
Space situational awareness (SSA) systems that provide data
and warnings of expected collisions have been updated and
improved. Several countries have signed cooperative agree-
ments.{{ For example, in May 2014, the United States, Aus-
tralia, Great Britain, and Canada signed a memorandum of
understanding to cooperate on SSA activities.{{ Russia an-
nounced that it was working on improving its capabilities to
identify objects in space.xx
{{
Paikowsky D, Baram G, Ben-Israel I. Trends in space activities in 2014: The
significance of space activities of governments. Acta Astronautica. 2016;8:187–
198; Paikowsky D, Reichard A, Baram G, Ben-Israel I. Space 2015: A Year in
Review. Yuval Neeman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security, Tel Aviv
University. https://spi.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/spi.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/
2015%20A%20year%20in%20review%20-%20Paikowsky.pdf (Last accessed on
December 23, 2016).
{{
Gruss M. UK joins list of US allies agreeing to strengthen space surveillance
haring. Space News, September 25, 2014. www.spacenews.com/article/military-
space/41995uk-joins-list-of-us-allies-agreeing-to-strengthen-space-surveillance
(Last accessed on September 27, 2014).
xx
Staff Writers. Russia plans to boost space monitoring capability by 2018. Space
Daily, September 22, 2014. www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_Plans_to_Boost_
Space_Monitoring_Capability_by_2018_999.html (Last accessed on September
24, 2015).
4 NEW SPACE 2017
Efforts are underway in Europe to develop European cap-
abilities for monitoring objects in space. The ESA announced
that as part of its SSA program, it is developing an automatic
telescope, nicknamed the Fly-Eye, that will scan the night
skies and automatically identify new near-Earth objects.*** In
September, Japan’s space agency announced that when it
launches ‘‘[I]ts new Epsilon small-satellite rocket, its upper
stage will be discarded in an orbit low enough to re-enter
Earth’s atmosphere..’’. Thus, it will not be left in space to
disintegrate over a long period of time.{{{
France passed a law that limits the creation of space debris
from its launches and requires that launch providers ensure
that the upper stages of their rockets return to the Earth’s
atmosphere quickly, and come down over water.{{{ China, too,
announced that it was promoting policies and regulations
concerning civil space launches and registration of objects in
space to prevent and reduce the creation of space debris.xxx
Under the New Space ecosystem, greater regulation and
standardization may be driven by the private sector. It is
logical to assume that a bottom-up demand would be made by
the commercial sector to pressure governments to coordinate
space activity. They may well demand that explicit guidelines
and definitions of legitimate uses of space assets in the space
environment be set at either the national or international
levels. Such guidelines would ensure greater responsibility by
all actors in space.****
This trend is already evident. For example, to meet concerns
raised by various commercial actors regarding the safety and
sustainability of the space environment, as well as their own
concerns, OneWeb reported that it is working to prevent the
proliferation of the space debris it might generate. The com-
pany even promised that its satellites will deorbit 5 years after
***Staff Writers. ESA’s bug-eyed telescope to spot risky asteroids. Space Daily,
September 12, 2014. www.spacedaily.com/reports/ESAs_bug_eyed_telescope_
to_spot_risky_asteroids_999.html (Last accessed on September 14, 2014).
{{{
de Selding PB. JAXA addresses debris issue with epsilon small-satellite
launcher. Space News, September 30, 2014. www.spacenews.com/article/launch-
report/4203865th-international-astronautical-congress-jaxa-addresses-deb-
ris-issue (Last accessed on October 2, 2014).
{{{
de Selding PB. French debris-mitigation law could pose issue for Arianespace.
Space News, April 10, 2014. www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/
40171french-debris-mitigation-law-could-pose-issue-for-arianespace (Last ac-
cessed on April 11, 2014).
xxx
Staff Writers. China expects to introduce space law around 2020. Space Daily,
November 19, 2014. www.spacedaily.com/reports/China_expects_to_introduce_
space_law_around_2020_999.html (Last accessed on November 21, 2014).
****Moltz JC. Next steps towards space security. In: Logsdon JM, Moltz JC, Hinds E.
Collective Security in Space: European Perspectives. Washington, DC: Space Policy
Institute, 2007, pp. 110–111.
MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.
 WHAT IS NEW SPACE?

the end of their service, and not 25 years, which current in- financing and the allocation of funds, and regulation of space
ternational guidelines require.{{{{ In 2016, Planet Labs Inc. activity: specifically space traffic management, addressing
(now Planet), a cubesat manufacturer and operator, reported the increasing congestion in the electromagnetic spectrum,
that it adopted NASA’s guidelines for limiting orbital debris as space debris, export controls, and international cooperation.
its policy.{{{{
AUTHOR DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
OLD SPACE VERSUS NEW SPACE—SUMMARY No competing financial interests exist.
The entrepreneurial and commercial undertakings of ‘‘New
Space’’ introduce a new spirit to the ecosystem of space. The
New Space ecosystem is more energetic, creative, and dy- Address correspondence to:
namic than the Old Space ecosystem. It is likely to continue to Deganit Paikowsky
effect dramatic changes in space activities, which in turn will Yuval Ne’eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security
be very significant for governmental space activities. Gov- Tel Aviv University
ernmental actors and nongovernmental actors will have to Tel Aviv 69978
learn to work together to address the questions and challenges Israel
that will inevitably arise. Among the issues to be addressed are
the current and future roles of countries in the space economy, E-mail: deganit.paik@gmail.com

{{{{
de Selding PB. OneWeb pledges vigilance on orbital debris issue. Space News,
October 15, 2015. http://spacenews.com/oneweb-pledges-vigilance-on-orbital-
debris-issue/ (Last accessed on October 19, 2015).
{{{{
Planetlabs. medium.com/@planetlabs/keeping-space-clean-cubesat-
constellations-space-debris-f30fcf9ca85b#.j4chaezbo (Last accessed on
January 15, 2016).

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC.  VOL. XX NO. XX  2017 NEW SPACE 5