Are New Space Innovations Actually Making It to Space?
What is the Flight-Proven Paradox, and how is it keeping new space tech grounded?
More money has been invested in developing new space technology in the past few years than at any point in history, thanks to a growing commercial space sector’s increasing value within global economies, the business-to-business marketplace, and everyday life.
While investment momentum continues, the space capabilities and technologies it produces are finding it a bit more difficult to take flight. To find out why, we spoke with Ron Birk, Principal Director for Aerospace’s Space Enterprise Evolution Directorate (SEED). Birk is one of several Aerospace experts working with external partners both in the United States and internationally to help deploy innovative commercial capabilities to space through testbeds, proving grounds and other means.
Birk shared insights from his work with partners to accelerate the deployment of commercial capabilities to space and offered us a preview of the panel he will moderate at the upcoming SpaceCom 2025 conference on Jan. 30 in Orlando.
Can you first paint a picture of what this transformative moment for the space sector looks like? What’s driving it?
Birk: Transformative is a good word for the evolution occurring in the space sector. Over the past two decades, we have seen the commercial space sector, globally and here in the United States, grow at an exponential rate and take on more of a leading role in its own trajectory. For decades, government agencies played an outsized role in directing space investments and technology development. Aerospace companies helped build large, complex, and exquisite systems for “one-and-done” government missions. These purpose-built, bespoke systems took longer to engineer and build, integrate and test to ensure reliable operations in space.
Today, while government remains a key buyer and investor in space, the power dynamic is shifting to include a commercial-led approach. As private companies introduce new business models and space capabilities — some of which are reusable, including launch — government is increasingly looking to take advantage of the pace and dynamism of commercial innovation. A growing space B2B supplier marketplace is also taking shape.
How is this shift in government focus — capitalizing on the pace of commercial innovation — happening in practice?
Birk: From a policy and strategic standpoint, a subject with widespread interest and agreement is the need to go beyond development to accelerate the deployment of innovative space capabilities. There are multiple U.S. and international policies and strategies emphasizing this need, including the National Space Policy, NASA Strategic Plan, Department of Defense Commercial Space Integration Strategy, and directives from key allies in Australia and the United Kingdom.
Those are positive developments on paper, and certainly in practice positive strides are being made to implement those approaches, though we have room for improvement in making sure the capabilities, once they’re developed, actually make it into space.
This brings us to the particular quandary you’re speaking out about — what we’re calling the Flight-Proven Paradox. What is this?
Birk: Simply put, critical space capabilities — the results of all that time and treasure being invested and expended to develop new innovative technologies — are not being deployed in space at pace with development, primarily because they have not previously been deployed in space. This is the paradox: the expectation to increase deploying space capabilities at the same time there are expectations to only fly new capabilities that have already been flown.
So, because something hasn’t flown in space, it can’t go to space…until it goes to space?
Birk: Correct, in essence. A lot of new technology is being developed that is not being deployed to space. The marketplace for in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing — or ISAM — is one good example. The percentage of capabilities being invested in, developed and actually reaching outer space is incredibly low. We are tracking more than 400 companies developing one or more ISAM capabilities, but only a fraction of those capabilities — less than 2 percent — have flown in space.
Is this rooted in some developmental failure?
Birk: It is true that some companies and capabilities fail to clear what’s commonly referred to as the “Valley of Death,” where they do not succeed in moving from research to development, for one or more reasons. However, that particular hurdle doesn’t apply to the problem I’m describing.
Technologies are in fact clearing that Developmental Valley of Death and reaching TRL maturity. They are developed and ready to fly, but they are not being adopted or deployed. And it’s not for lack of demand for those capabilities. They are failing to clear a second Deployment Valley of Death, a second bridge to cross to realize return on investment (ROI) on investments in space capabilities.
You have us at a loss. What’s causing this?
Birk: In short, it’s an expectation among key stakeholders (including investors, insurers, regulators, acquirers, integrators) that in order to have confidence in the new capability, the new capability has been “flight proven.” It’s a byproduct of how the space community has traditionally addressed readiness when debuting new technology in space. In the past everything was built according to spec for specific mission needs for purpose-built — “one and done” — space systems, and development timelines took as long as they needed to build the necessary trust to launch and deploy to space.
That’s model does not align with space solutions in the current era. Speed is the need, and that’s why harnessing the pace of commercial innovation is so desirable. There’s greater emphasis for government buyers to deliver innovative solutions more quickly, and they have a growing commercial supplier marketplace to source from. Commercial players in turn aim to prove return on investment more quickly. To realize ROI for a space capability, you have to first get to space.
A “commercial-first” approach calls for “buying what you can” and only “building what you must.” Unfortunately, while gatekeepers to space have resolved themselves to buy what they can in policy, and while there is support for and investment in the prolific development of innovative capabilities, there is insufficient trust for these capabilities to deploy once they’re developed. Something that is flight-proven is much easier to trust.
You mentioned gatekeepers?
Birk: We’ve identified five stakeholder groups whose trust is imperative to earn for a technology to fly to space: acquirers, insurers, investors, integrators and regulators. Each group has influence on whether a capability’s ride to space is funded, approved, and executed.
I want to be clear that gatekeepers are essential and are not responsible for this Flight-Proven Paradox. This is nothing nefarious. Space is hard, and trust is crucial. They are simply applying the same rigor in scrutinizing technologies — what’s different is how many capabilities are being developed faster than we can fly them. Further, many distinct capabilities are attempting to reach space at the same time, where they will have to operate together safely and effectively with each other and with capabilities that come after them.
This concept of evolving space ecosystems is an evolving part of the calculus. In this new dynamic, we need to work closely with gatekeepers to understand their concerns and find ways to alleviate them. We need an equivalent to the trust that flight-proven status provides, which can build confidence in new technologies as quickly as they are reaching operational readiness. That’s the solution.
Without flying something to space to see if it can safely and successfully operate in space, what can be done to build this trust?
Birk: So glad you asked! We are working with many partners to establish the framework for what a “flight-proven equivalent” entails and streamlining access to the needed testing resources to achieve it. A crucial first step is testing and proving these capabilities in as close to a spacelike environment as possible. If we “test like we fly” with sufficient technical rigor, gatekeepers should feel sufficient trust that a capability will behave as intended when it’s deployed to space.
Fortunately, significant testing infrastructure exists for this purpose in the U.S. and across the globe. Aerospace, for example, has numerous lab spaces available to U.S. and organizations from allied nations to test propulsion and robotic technologies, among other disciplines. NASA has identified more than 50 facilities for ISAM testing. Testbeds can be physical lab spaces or digital engineering environments; in fact, some capabilities are most ideal to test using digital twins — a combination of physical and digital test elements.
That’s just here on Earth. On orbit, the International Space Station is the best example of an accessible testbed, and future commercial space stations in low Earth orbit may provide similar opportunities. We consider the Moon a testbed, too, when we look at future space exploration to more distant worlds.
So, all told, what’s the next step to resolving this Flight-Proven Paradox using these testbeds and proving grounds?
Birk: Like many things if we make it easier to test like we fly, it will be easier to raise trust levels. Aerospace and several collaborators — including NASA, the Space ISAC and international partners — are building an integrated network of testbeds and proving grounds and helping streamline commercial companies’ access to them. The Space ISAC will soon publish a portal with which to access the first wave of networked testbeds, titled the ASC-100.
We’re regularly engaging with the community of gatekeepers I mentioned earlier, including their input in the solution we are creating. I encourage anyone wanting to learn more or contribute to contact us. With any luck we will see more innovative, trusted capabilities moving from concept to deployment in space.
