Research Report: The Circular Orbit: Economic Viability Thresholds and Regulatory Frameworks for a Sustainable Space Industry

Report Date: 2025-12-07 06:29:14

Executive Summary

The global space industry is at a critical inflection point, transitioning from a linear, single-use paradigm to a sustainable, circular framework. This report synthesizes extensive research to define the economic viability thresholds and regulatory prerequisites for this transformation, which is centered on On-Orbit Servicing (OOS), Assembly (OOA), and Recycling (OOR). The findings indicate that this transition is not contingent on a single technological breakthrough but on the co-evolution of innovative economic models and a modernized legal architecture for space.

Key Economic Findings: Economic viability is not a universal metric but a phased progression. On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) has already crossed the viability threshold for high-value assets, with a projected market of over $4.³ billion by 2028, driven by the immediate return on investment from satellite life extension. On-Orbit Assembly (OOA) is reaching viability, enabling capabilities and revenue streams (e.g., an estimated $80 million annual increase per satellite) impossible with monolithic launch constraints. The long-term vision, On-Orbit Recycling (OOR), holds the most transformative potential, reframing the estimated 19,000 tonnes of orbital debris from a catastrophic liability into a resource mine valued between $570 billion and $1.² trillion. This progression is commercially enabled by a fundamental shift from selling hardware to providing capabilities "as-a-Service," which lowers entry barriers and creates a competitive market ecosystem.

Key Regulatory Findings: The most significant barrier to this transition is a legal and regulatory framework that is fundamentally obsolete. The foundational international space treaties, conceived during the Cold War, lack the specificity to govern complex commercial on-orbit activities. This creates paralyzing uncertainty in three critical areas: ownership of defunct satellites and debris, liability for proximity operations and servicing failures, and intellectual property rights for inventions created in space. This ambiguity elevates risk, inflates the cost of capital, and suppresses the very markets the circular economy seeks to create.

Core Synthesis: The economic thresholds and regulatory prerequisites are inextricably linked. Regulatory uncertainty directly raises the economic viability thresholds by increasing risk for investors and insurers. Conversely, demonstrated economic success creates the political impetus to resolve complex legal challenges. The path forward requires a dual-pronged, iterative strategy. First, the implementation of sophisticated financial de-risking mechanisms—including Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), Advanced Market Commitments (AMCs), and venture financing—is essential to bridge the gap between high upfront R&D costs and commercial revenue. Second, a concerted international effort is required to modernize space governance, moving from abstract principles to prescriptive rules for on-orbit operations. This includes establishing clear legal pathways for salvage, creating nuanced liability regimes, and developing a harmonized, international framework for licensing and IP protection.

In conclusion, achieving a circular space economy is a grand challenge of socio-economic and legal engineering. Success hinges on a synergistic approach where financial incentives and regulatory clarity unlock the private investment and innovation needed to build a sustainable and self-sufficient human presence in orbit.

Introduction

The 21st century has witnessed an unprecedented expansion of the global space industry. Driven by plummeting launch costs and the proliferation of commercial satellite constellations, low-Earth orbit (LEO) and beyond are becoming bustling domains of economic activity. This rapid growth, however, has been built upon a fundamentally unsustainable, linear model: "build, launch, operate, abandon." This paradigm has not only led to significant economic inefficiencies but has also created the existential threat of orbital debris, which jeopardizes the future of space operations.

In response, a transformative new vision is emerging: the circular space economy. This framework seeks to replace the single-use model with a sustainable ecosystem based on On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) for life extension and repair, On-Orbit Assembly (OOA) for creating larger and more capable structures, and On-Orbit Recycling (OOR) to convert hazardous debris into valuable resources. The full realization of this vision, often grouped under the umbrella of In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM), promises to enhance the resilience, capability, and economic output of space infrastructure while ensuring its long-term sustainability.

This report addresses the central research query: What are the economic viability thresholds and regulatory prerequisites required to transition the global space industry from single-use satellite deployment to a circular framework utilizing on-orbit servicing, assembly, and recycling?

Based on an expansive research strategy encompassing 196 sources over 10 research steps, this comprehensive report synthesizes findings on the intricate interplay between economic incentives, business models, financial mechanisms, and the legal frameworks that govern space. It provides a detailed analysis of the conditions required to unlock private investment and enable the widespread adoption of circular practices, outlining a roadmap for a more sustainable and economically robust future in orbit.

Key Findings

The transition to a circular space economy is contingent upon overcoming a series of interconnected challenges. The research has been organized thematically to illuminate the critical economic drivers, the paralyzing regulatory gaps, and the enabling mechanisms required for progress.

1. The Compelling Economic Case for a Circular Space Economy

The foundational driver for the shift to a circular model is a clear and strengthening economic argument. This case is built upon direct cost savings, new revenue opportunities, and the immense long-term value of in-situ resources.

• Significant Market Growth Projections: The overall market for circular activities is poised for explosive growth, signaling strong investor confidence. The in-space manufacturing, servicing, and transportation market is projected to grow from $21.3 billion in 2030 to $135.3 billion by 2040, representing a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 20.3%. The more immediate on-orbit servicing market is estimated at $2.7 billion in 2024 and is expected to grow at an 11% CAGR through 2034.
• Demonstrable Cost-Benefit Advantages: The economic viability of circular practices is most clearly seen in direct comparisons to the traditional single-use model.
  • Life Extension: Northrop Grumman's Mission Extension Vehicle (MEV) service successfully extended a satellite's life by five years for a reported cost of around $140 million, avoiding a replacement cost estimated between $50 million and $500 million. This establishes a clear positive return on investment.
  • Contextual Viability: For geosynchronous (GEO) communication satellites, analysis shows that OOS becomes commercially viable when the satellite's initial cost exceeds $242 million and the servicing mission costs less than $140 million, highlighting a specific, quantifiable threshold for high-value assets.
• Vast Untapped Resource Value: The long-term economic case is anchored by the potential to recycle orbital debris. The net value of the existing 5,312 to 19,124 tonnes of orbital material for reuse is estimated to be between $570 billion and $1.2 trillion. This reframes space debris from a liability requiring costly mitigation to a valuable feedstock for in-space manufacturing and propellant production, which would radically reduce dependence on Earth, where launch costs can exceed $1,500 per kilogram.

2. A Phased Progression of Economic Viability

The transition to a fully circular economy is not a single leap but a logical progression of capabilities, each with its own distinct economic threshold and maturity level.

• Phase 1: On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) - Immediate ROI: As the most mature sector, OOS offers immediate and demonstrable economic gains by extending the operational life of existing multi-million-dollar assets. By providing services like refueling, repair, inspection, and relocation, OOS optimizes the return on capital already deployed in orbit. This market is driven by the urgent need to manage aging satellite populations and the operational demands of new LEO mega-constellations, which comprise over 82% of the near-term OOS market demand.
• Phase 2: On-Orbit Assembly (OOA) - Unlocking New Capabilities: OOA addresses the physical limitations of launch vehicle fairings, enabling the in-space construction of structures that are too large or delicate to launch fully assembled. This not only allows for more efficient launch manifests but, more importantly, facilitates enhanced performance and new revenue streams. For example, assembling a larger antenna on a communications satellite in orbit could increase its annual revenue by an estimated $80 million. OOA's viability threshold is met when this enhanced capability and revenue outweigh the costs of modular launch and assembly.
• Phase 3: On-Orbit Recycling (OOR) - Achieving True Sustainability: OOR represents the ultimate vision of a self-sufficient, circular space economy. It is the least technologically mature phase but holds the greatest long-term economic promise. The viability threshold for OOR will be crossed when the cost of capturing, processing, and manufacturing with recycled in-orbit materials becomes lower than the cost of launching equivalent materials from Earth. This phase closes the resource loop, creating a truly sustainable and independent in-space industrial ecosystem.

3. The Regulatory Stalemate: Governance Gaps Paralyzing Progress

The most significant non-technical barrier to the circular space economy is an international legal framework designed for the state-led space race of the mid-20th century. This outdated regime creates profound uncertainty that chills investment and hinders operations.

• Obsolete International Treaties: The 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1972 Liability Convention provide foundational principles but lack the specificity to govern modern commercial activities. They do not define space debris, salvage rights, or on-orbit servicing, nor do they provide a clear framework for allocating liability in complex, multi-actor missions involving rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO).
• The Twin Pillars of Legal Ambiguity: Ownership and Liability:
  • Ownership: Under current international law, a space object remains the property of its launching state indefinitely, even after it becomes defunct. This prevents a third party from legally salvaging, repairing, or recycling it without explicit permission, which is often impractical or impossible to obtain for decades-old debris. This single issue effectively paralyzes the development of a commercial market for active debris removal (ADR) and recycling.
  • Liability: The existing liability framework is ill-equipped for servicing missions. If a servicer vehicle damages a client satellite or creates new debris during an operation, the allocation of fault and liability is dangerously unclear, especially in missions involving actors from multiple nations. This legal risk translates directly into prohibitive insurance costs and investment reluctance.
• Fragmented and Unharmonized National Regulations: In the absence of clear international guidance, nations are developing their own domestic regulations. While positive, this is leading to a fragmented "patchwork" of rules across jurisdictions (e.g., U.S., Japan, UK). This lack of harmonization increases compliance costs for companies and creates the risk of "jurisdiction shopping," potentially leading to a race to the bottom on safety and sustainability standards.

4. Enabling Mechanisms: Architecting a Modern Financial and Technical Foundation

Overcoming the high economic thresholds and navigating the regulatory vacuum requires a deliberate strategy combining innovative financial instruments with foundational technical standards.

• Financial De-risking and Market Creation: The immense capital expenditure and long return horizons of ISAM technologies require more than traditional financing.
  • Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): PPPs are essential for sharing the immense risk of technology development. Over the past decade, the U.S. DOD and NASA have invested over $2 billion in ISAM demonstration missions like OSAM-1, using public funds to mature high-risk technologies to a point where the private sector can commercialize them.
  • Advanced Market Commitments (AMCs): AMCs, where a government or consortium guarantees the purchase of a service (e.g., debris removal) at a set price, are a powerful tool to create a market where one does not yet exist. This provides companies with the revenue certainty needed to secure private capital.
  • Diverse Capital Sources: A healthy ecosystem requires a mix of funding, including venture capital (private investment surpassed $10 billion in 2021), non-dilutive venture debt for infrastructure, and government grants and co-funding programs (e.g., ESA's ARTES Program).
• The Business Model Shift: "As-a-Service" Economy: The commercial engine of the circular economy is the move away from selling hardware to selling capabilities. Models like Satellite-as-a-Service (SataaS), Space Refueling as a Service (SRaaS), and In-Space Manufacturing as a Service (ISMaaS) lower the barrier to entry for customers and create recurring, predictable revenue streams for providers.
• Foundational Prerequisites: Standardization and IP Protection:
  • Modular Design and Standardization: The success of an "as-a-Service" ecosystem depends on interoperability. The widespread adoption of modular satellite designs and standardized interfaces (for docking, refueling, and data) is a critical technical prerequisite to create a competitive "plug-and-play" environment.
  • Intellectual Property (IP) Rights: Traditional, territory-based IP law is ill-suited for inventions created in the non-territorial domain of space. The lack of a clear, international framework for protecting space-based IP deters R&D investment. A specialized, sui generis IP regime is a necessary prerequisite for innovation.

Detailed Analysis

The transition to a circular space economy is not merely a technological evolution but a complex interplay of economic forces, legal frameworks, and business model innovation. This analysis delves deeper into the symbiotic relationship between viability and regulation, the commercial logic of the OOS-OOA-OOR progression, and the architectural requirements for a 21st-century governance structure.

1. The Symbiotic Relationship Between Economic Viability and Regulatory Certainty

The core finding of this research is that economic viability thresholds and regulatory prerequisites are not independent variables; they are deeply and causally linked. A clear, stable, and predictable regulatory environment is the bedrock upon which the entire economic structure of the circular space economy must be built.

• How Regulatory Risk Inflates Economic Thresholds:

  • Increased Cost of Capital: Legal ambiguity surrounding liability and ownership translates directly into higher perceived risk for investors and insurers. This results in higher insurance premiums, more stringent lending terms, and a greater demand for equity, increasing the overall cost of capital for ISAM ventures. A higher cost of capital means a project must promise a much higher return to be considered viable, thus raising the economic threshold.
  • Suppressed Market Formation: The unresolved issue of debris ownership effectively prevents the formation of a viable commercial market for orbital salvage and recycling. Without a legal process to claim and process defunct objects, the potential trillion-dollar "resource" in orbit remains legally untouchable. The business case for ADR is therefore artificially constrained to government contracts and pre-negotiated servicing of cooperative clients, suppressing a much larger potential market.
  • Barriers to Scalability and Innovation: The lack of harmonized regulations and technical standards forces most ISAM missions to be bespoke, one-off projects. This prevents the development of economies of scale. A clear regulatory push towards standardization would foster interoperability, allowing a single service vehicle to address a much larger market, drastically lowering the cost per mission and thereby lowering the viability threshold.

• How Economic Success Drives Regulatory Progress: The relationship is not unidirectional. As companies demonstrate clear economic value, they create the political and commercial impetus needed to tackle complex regulatory challenges. The successful missions of Northrop Grumman's MEV provided tangible proof that on-orbit servicing is no longer a theoretical concept but an emerging, profitable market. This success has directly fueled policy discussions within national bodies like the U.S. FCC and international forums, as governments recognize the need to create a functional legal framework to support a growing and valuable industry. The projected $135 billion market value for ISAM provides a powerful incentive for nations to invest the diplomatic capital required to modernize international space law.

2. Deconstructing the Business Case: A Journey from Maintenance to Self-Sufficiency

The phased progression from OOS to OOA to OOR represents a logical and commercially coherent roadmap for developing a circular space economy. This journey is powered by the "servitization" of the space industry.

• The "As-a-Service" Revolution: The shift to "X-as-a-Service" models is the commercial engine driving the circular framework. This model fundamentally changes the economic proposition for both providers and customers. Customers are no longer required to bear the massive upfront capital expenditure and risk of owning and operating a satellite; instead, they can subscribe to a service or capability. This democratizes access to space. For providers, it creates stable, recurring revenue streams, which are far more attractive to investors than the lumpy, project-based revenue of traditional satellite manufacturing. This ecosystem of specialized service providers—offering refueling, inspection, deorbiting, data, etc.—fosters a resilient and competitive market.

• The OOS-OOA-OOR Value Chain:

  • OOS: The Anchor Service: OOS is the anchor tenant of the circular economy. Its value proposition is simple and powerful: it is cheaper to maintain a high-value asset than to replace it. This creates the initial, stable demand required to justify the development of the robotic vehicles and ground infrastructure that will form the backbone of the entire in-orbit service economy.
  • OOA: Expanding the Market: OOA builds upon the capabilities developed for OOS (e.g., robotics, RPO) to offer a higher-value service. It moves beyond maintenance to creation. By enabling the construction of next-generation infrastructure in space, OOA unlocks entirely new markets in advanced communications, Earth observation, and space-based manufacturing that are physically impossible under the old paradigm.
  • OOR: Closing the Loop: OOR is the final, crucial step. It leverages the logistics and processing infrastructure developed for OOS and OOA to close the material loop. By turning waste into feedstock, OOR eliminates the reliance on Earth for raw materials, representing the ultimate cost-saving and sustainability goal. It transforms the space economy from an expensive outpost of the terrestrial economy into a self-sufficient ecosystem.

3. Architecting a 21st-Century Legal and Financial Framework for Space

Realizing this economic vision is impossible without deliberately architecting a modern governance and financial support system. This requires moving beyond the principles of the past to create the prescriptive rules of the future.

• Modernizing International Space Law:

  • From Principles to Prescriptions: The abstract principles of the Outer Space Treaty, such as state responsibility and avoiding harmful contamination, must be translated into specific, actionable rules. This likely requires a new protocol or amendment that explicitly defines ISAM activities, establishes clear "rules of the road" for RPO, and creates a tiered liability framework that distinguishes between different types of on-orbit operations and fairly allocates risk.
  • Solving the Salvage Dilemma: A new international consensus is urgently needed to establish a legal pathway for transferring ownership of or granting salvage rights to defunct space objects. This could involve creating a process for declaring an object "abandoned" after a certain period of non-communication or creating an international registry where states can voluntarily release their defunct assets for salvage.
  • Harmonizing National Licensing: To prevent a chaotic and inefficient patchwork of national laws, international bodies like the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) must facilitate the development of standardized or interoperable licensing processes. A global standard for mission authorization would reduce compliance burdens and ensure a consistently high bar for safety and sustainability.
  • Protecting Intellectual Property: The IP challenge requires a novel solution. A sui generis IP regime for space, potentially administered by an international body like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), is necessary. This would balance the commercial need to protect innovation with the treaty principle of space as the "province of all mankind." An international registry for space-based inventions would be a practical first step to provide the legal certainty needed to spur R&D.

• Financial Engineering to Lower Viability Thresholds: The high-risk, capital-intensive nature of space ventures requires a sophisticated financial toolkit designed to bridge the infamous "valley of death" between R&D and profitability.

  • The Strategic Role of PPPs: Government investment via PPPs, as seen in NASA's OSAM-1 mission, is more than just funding; it is a strategic de-risking process. By having the government absorb the cost of the first-ever, highest-risk technology demonstrations, it provides a proven foundation upon which the private sector can build commercial services. This model is crucial for developing foundational capabilities that are too risky for any single private entity to undertake.
  • Creating Demand with AMCs: Advanced Market Commitments are a powerful policy tool to pull technology into existence. By guaranteeing a future market for services like debris removal, governments can provide a bankable revenue stream that enables startups to secure private funding and scale their operations. This transforms a speculative venture into a calculable business case.

Discussion

The synthesis of these findings reveals that the transition to a circular space economy is a paradigm shift of profound consequence. The implications extend beyond economics and regulation into the very nature of humanity's future in space.

The interconnectedness of viability and regulation forms a classic chicken-and-egg problem: investment is hesitant without legal clarity, and governments are slow to create regulations for a market that is not yet mature. The research suggests the most effective way to break this cycle is through a parallel, iterative process driven by government seed funding and proactive policy development. Early-stage government investment in technology demonstrators (the "chicken") can spur the initial commercial activity that provides the impetus for broader regulatory reform (the "egg").

A critical challenge highlighted by the research is the dual-use nature of ISAM technologies. A robotic arm capable of repairing a satellite is also theoretically capable of disabling one. This reality introduces national security concerns that can slow the development of transparent, international regulatory frameworks. Overcoming this will require a new level of international cooperation and confidence-building measures to ensure that the tools of sustainability are not perceived as weapons of war.

Furthermore, the economic models underpinning the circular economy's viability, while based on established methodologies (NPV, IRR, CBA), are highly sensitive to their underlying assumptions. A significant portion of the "benefit" in these analyses comes from monetizing intangible or probabilistic factors, such as the avoidance of a Kessler Syndrome-type collision cascade, which could destroy trillions of dollars in orbital assets. The difficulty in precisely quantifying this risk-avoidance value means the true economic case for a circular economy may be even stronger than current conservative estimates suggest.

Ultimately, the development of a circular space economy is not just about managing debris or extending satellite life. It is the necessary foundation for any ambitious future in space. The construction of lunar bases, missions to Mars, and large-scale space manufacturing will all depend on the ability to service, assemble, and reuse resources in-situ. The circular framework being developed in Earth orbit today is, in effect, the technological and economic proving ground for a sustainable, multi-planetary human future.

Conclusions

The transition from a single-use to a circular space industry is an imperative driven by the dual forces of economic opportunity and environmental necessity. This report has established that the path to this future is defined not by a single viability threshold but by a series of evolving economic and regulatory conditions that must be met in parallel.

1. Economic viability is a phased reality. The business case is already proven for On-Orbit Servicing, is rapidly emerging for On-Orbit Assembly, and represents a transformative long-term goal for On-Orbit Recycling. This progression is being commercialized through a fundamental shift to "as-a-Service" business models that are democratizing access to space.

2. Regulatory modernization is the primary prerequisite. The current international legal framework is the most significant obstacle to progress. Without urgent, concerted international action to resolve ambiguities in ownership, liability, and intellectual property, the circular space economy will remain underfunded and legally precarious, unable to achieve its full potential.

3. The path forward is a symbiotic partnership. The immense challenges of this transition cannot be solved by the private sector or government alone. It requires a new paradigm of partnership where government acts as a catalyst—de-risking foundational technology and creating clear, stable regulations—to unlock the vast potential of private sector innovation and investment. Financial mechanisms like Public-Private Partnerships and Advanced Market Commitments are the essential tools to build this bridge.

The challenge of creating a circular space economy is formidable, but the rewards are commensurate. It offers a future where space is not a finite resource to be consumed and discarded, but a sustainable frontier for innovation, exploration, and economic growth. Achieving this vision will require a fusion of technological ingenuity, bold investment, and a shared global commitment to architecting the rules for a new era of responsible activity in orbit. The choices made by policymakers, investors, and innovators in the coming decade will determine whether space becomes an unmanageable junkyard or the foundation of a lasting and prosperous human presence beyond Earth.

References

Total unique sources: 196

ID	Source	ID	Source	ID	Source
[1]	sustainability-directory.com	[2]	cleanorbitfoundation.org	[3]	chaire-sirius.space
[4]	innovationnewsnetwork.com	[5]	circularonline.co.uk	[6]	nih.gov
[7]	mitre.org	[8]	mitre.org	[9]	illinois.edu
[10]	lettersinhighenergyphysics.com	[11]	aerospace.org	[12]	nasa.gov
[13]	unmannedairspace.info	[14]	baesystems.com	[15]	esa.int
[16]	iafastro.org	[17]	nasa.gov	[18]	esa.int
[19]	rcktmom.com	[20]	chathamhouse.org	[21]	sustainability-directory.com
[22]	netzeroinsights.com	[23]	kluwerlawonline.com	[24]	esa.int
[25]	ouplaw.com	[26]	researchgate.net	[27]	innovationnewsnetwork.com
[28]	unoosa.org	[29]	extremetech.com	[30]	substack.com
[31]	lettersinhighenergyphysics.com	[32]	stellaramenities.space	[33]	fortunebusinessinsights.com
[34]	mitre.org	[35]	youtube.com	[36]	nasa.gov
[37]	quora.com	[38]	esa.int	[39]	researchgate.net
[40]	nasa.gov	[41]	alliedmarketresearch.com	[42]	mckinsey.com
[43]	sphericalinsights.com	[44]	thecgo.org	[45]	seattleu.edu
[46]	wjlta.com	[47]	esa.int	[48]	aerospace.org
[49]	researchgate.net	[50]	swlaw.edu	[51]	esa.int
[52]	nova.space	[53]	akjournals.com	[54]	issues.org
[55]	analysysmason.com	[56]	cgcfirm.com	[57]	cleanorbitfoundation.org
[58]	researchgate.net	[59]	kluwerlawonline.com	[60]	esa.int
[61]	researchgate.net	[62]	morganlewis.com	[63]	hoganlovells.com
[64]	mitre.org	[65]	esa.int	[66]	sustainability-directory.com
[67]	satellitetoday.com	[68]	ida.org	[69]	analysysmason.com
[70]	esa.int	[71]	nationalacademies.org	[72]	innovationnewsnetwork.com
[73]	payloadspace.com	[74]	aerospace.org	[75]	federalregister.gov
[76]	breakingdefense.com	[77]	aiaa.org	[78]	nasa.gov
[79]	commerce.gov	[80]	eu.com	[81]	apollo11space.com
[82]	telecomworld101.com	[83]	kratosspace.com	[84]	nasa.gov
[85]	cleanorbitfoundation.org	[86]	aip.org	[87]	aerospace.org
[88]	dtic.mil	[89]	youtube.com	[90]	researchandmarkets.com
[91]	ida.org	[92]	aerospace.org	[93]	pmarketresearch.com
[94]	spacedrone.io	[95]	scienceblog.com	[96]	wyrmengineering.store
[97]	mitre.org	[98]	esa.int	[99]	littleplace.com
[100]	satellitetoday.com	[101]	mytechcompanion.com	[102]	newspaceeconomy.ca
[103]	spacefoundation.org	[104]	marketsandmarkets.com	[105]	analysysmason.com
[106]	aiaa.org	[107]	analysysmason.com	[108]	cutter.com
[109]	esa.int	[110]	fas.org	[111]	esa.int
[112]	esa.int	[113]	chaire-sirius.space	[114]	aiaa.org
[115]	moeveglobal.com	[116]	mitre.org	[117]	medium.com
[118]	fas.org	[119]	nortonrosefulbright.com	[120]	atel.com
[121]	mckinsey.com	[122]	debevoise.com	[123]	researchgate.net
[124]	spacewar.com	[125]	issnationallab.org	[126]	forbes.com
[127]	forinsightsconsultancy.com	[128]	federalregister.gov	[129]	gao.gov
[130]	ncsl.org	[131]	businessresearchinsights.com	[132]	nasa.gov
[133]	aerospace.org	[134]	spacedaily.com	[135]	satellitetoday.com
[136]	aerospace.org	[137]	theippress.com	[138]	cao.go.jp
[139]	satellitetoday.com	[140]	lermansenter.com	[141]	esa.int
[142]	jdsupra.com	[143]	qzss.go.jp	[144]	cooley.com
[145]	jdsupra.com	[146]	journalisslp.com	[147]	ijlsi.com
[148]	patentpc.com	[149]	morganlewis.com	[150]	ijfmr.com
[151]	niscpr.res.in	[152]	scu.edu	[153]	cleanorbitfoundation.org
[154]	alliedmarketresearch.com	[155]	marketsandata.com	[156]	hackernoon.com
[157]	gminsights.com	[158]	gao.gov	[159]	pmarketresearch.com
[160]	researchgate.net	[161]	unmannedairspace.info	[162]	nasa.gov
[163]	circularonline.co.uk	[164]	circularonline.co.uk	[165]	nih.gov
[166]	nasa.gov	[167]	trellis.net	[168]	researchgate.net
[169]	ida.org	[170]	aerospace.org	[171]	aiaa.org
[172]	researchintelo.com	[173]	innovationnewsnetwork.com	[174]	mitre.org
[175]	fastercapital.com	[176]	scrambleup.com	[177]	onetrust.com
[178]	ceohangout.com	[179]	danysoft.com	[180]	investopedia.com
[181]	fastercapital.com	[182]	cognota.com	[183]	fastercapital.com
[184]	claire.co.uk	[185]	wikipedia.org	[186]	wallstreetprep.com
[187]	aihta.at	[188]	canada.ca	[189]	nih.gov
[190]	nih.gov	[191]	icer.org	[192]	questionpro.com
[193]	hanoverresearch.com	[194]	sendview.io	[195]	easy-feedback.com
[196]	sba.gov