Space Governance and Investment Strategy in a Contested Orbital Environment
Executive Summary
Cambridge's Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) advises policymakers and space agencies on planetary-scale threats, from climate and biosphere breakdown to orbital disruption. As part of their mission to inform evidence-based policy on existential risks, CSER engages directly with EU and UK space agencies on questions of orbital governance, infrastructure resilience, and international coordination.
Traditional space policy analysis treats orbital infrastructure and planetary boundary stress as separate domains - space agencies focus on orbital congestion and geopolitical competition, while climate and environmental policy operate in parallel. But these systems are converging: Earth observation capabilities needed for climate monitoring depend on orbital infrastructure being contested by geopolitical fragmentation; debris mitigation frameworks designed for coordinated governance face challenges as emerging space powers establish independent systems outside established frameworks; and climate-driven agricultural and infrastructure stress increases dependency on space-based services precisely as those services become more vulnerable.
CSER needed analytical architecture that could map these convergences. Standard foresight methods couldn't capture the cascade mechanics: how orbital fragmentation, climate monitoring gaps, agricultural stress converge to create systemic failure modes that no single- domain policy can address.
RAKSHA was contracted to build an anticipatory analytical framework that identifies tipping points where decisions in one domain (orbital governance, infrastructure investment, international coordination) trigger cascades across others - enabling CSER to advise on policies that account for cross-domain dynamics rather than siloed risk management.
The Problem
Space agencies and policymakers need analytical foundations for decisions on:
Orbital Governance Framework Design: EU and UK developing regulatory approaches for debris mitigation, collision avoidance, spectrum allocation, and liability frameworks. But which frameworks will create coordination incentives in an increasingly multi-polar orbital environment where multiple actors are establishing independent infrastructure and governance systems? Policy advocacy needs to show which regulatory approaches enable coordination versus which accelerate fragmentation.
Space Infrastructure Investment Priorities: Limited budgets force choices about Earth observation capabilities, positioning systems, communications constellations, and space situational awareness. But investment decisions made now determine capabilities for decades - and wrong priorities leave nations dependent on contested or fragile infrastructure. Investment strategy needs structural analysis showing which capabilities face greatest stress and which investments create resilience versus dependence. International Coordination Strategies: ESA, UK Space Agency, and national programs face choices about partnerships with US systems, engagement with emerging space powers, and multilateral coordination mechanisms. But geopolitical orbital fragmentation is accelerating - which partnerships enhance sovereignty and which create strategic vulnerability? Policy advocacy needs pathway analysis showing how different coordination approaches play out over 5-10 years. Dual-Use Technology and Security Implications: Commercial satellite constellations increasingly serving both civilian and military functions, blurring attribution and complicating liability frameworks. Space agencies need policy guidance on how to handle dual-use coordination, data sharing, and security clearances in an environment where commercial and defense lines are dissolving. Critical Infrastructure Dependencies: European aviation, agriculture, energy grids, and emergency services increasingly dependent on space-based positioning, communications, and Earth observation - but infrastructure designed assuming stable, accessible orbital environment. As orbital congestion and geopolitical contestation increase, which dependencies create unacceptable vulnerability, and which investments build resilience?
The Solution
RAKSHA built an integrated convergence mapping analysis providing:
Governance Framework Pathway Analysis: Mapping how different regulatory approaches interact with emerging multi-polar orbital governance dynamics - showing which frameworks create coordination incentives versus fragmentation acceleration across divergent geopolitical scenarios.
Investment Priority Stress-Testing: Evaluation of space infrastructure investments against orbital cascade scenarios and compound planetary boundary stress - identifying which capabilities create resilience versus dependence on contested or fragile systems.
Coordination Strategy Pathways: Analysis of international partnership approaches over 5-10 year horizons, accounting for geopolitical fragmentation trajectories and their implications for strategic autonomy and operational capability.
Critical Infrastructure Dependency Mapping: Identification of European system dependencies on orbital infrastructure and how those dependencies interact with planetary boundary stress - informing both space investment priorities and terrestrial resilience strategies.
The framework integrates geopolitical intelligence, orbital dynamics, and planetary boundary science - enabling policy recommendations that account for cross-domain cascade mechanics rather than siloed risk assessment.
Results & Benefits
CSER gained analytical architecture enabling evidence-based policy advocacy with EU and UK space agencies on orbital governance frameworks, infrastructure investment priorities, and international coordination strategies that remain robust across geopolitical fragmentation scenarios and compound planetary stress.
