How Private Companies Are Rewriting the Rules of Space Policy

The space industry arose from the competitive nature of the Cold War. With the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957, the United States quickly followed suit and started its space program—NASA. This brought along a lieu of changes in the industry and in general, took STEM to the next level in the United States. However, the space industry we see now is a much more diverse landscape. We see a multitude of private corporations, such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, making significant progress in space-time advancement, if not more, in comparison to NASA—once the only federally funded space program in the United States. Their influence in the space sector is now only growing. We see that while these private corporations have accelerated the pace of space exploration, their disproportionate impact on space policy has reshaped decision-making at national and global levels—often prioritizing corporate interests over public accountability. 

Many new milestones have been reached through the influence of private companies who often have greater financial abilities to experiment and research new methodologies in space exploration, but their dominance in commercial partnerships now shapes major governmental space policy decisions. In 2021, SpaceX won NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) contract for the Artemis project. They beat out Blue Origin because of a cost-effective bid and proven technology. This decision, worth $2.9 billion, marked a shift in NASA’s process in which they are seen to be favoring commercial efficiency over more traditional aerospace contractors. The competition originally was meant to have multiple providers but by citing budget limitations NASA ultimately went with a single contractor—SpaceX. Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has streamlined commercial space launch licensing, reflecting a shift in regulatory needs that is based on the needs of private-sector aerospace companies. In 2023, the FAA approved 114 licensed launches. This was a dramatic increase from the previous years and can be largely attributed to SpaceX’s aggressive Starlink and Falcon 9 launch schedule. Overall, we see a clear shift in space policy in a manner that accommodates, and often prioritizes, the needs of private companies.

Private space corporations are not only influencing policy but they are also actively challenging government oversight through lobbying, legal action, and public pressure to have more deregulated space activity. In 2021, Elon Musk openly criticized the FAA for grounding SpaceX’s Starship SN9 test flight over safety and compliance issues. Ultimately, the FAA allowed the test flight to proceed—a sign of regulations being softened by corporate influence. Another similar situation is when Blue Origin filed a high-profile lawsuit against NASA in 2021 that questioned the Artemis HLS contract that was solely rewarded to SpaceX. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissed this lawsuit only further depicting how private companies have reached the level of influence in which they can change the terms of policy selection. A similar lawsuit was filed by Dynetics that NASA was violating the original expectations of the contract showing how there is a growing trend in private companies using legal mechanisms to influence policy in their favor.  In the end, NASA created a supplemental contract for a second lander provider in 2023 which is seen by many as a concession to political and legal pressures rather than a merit-based decision-making.

Through the influence of private companies, we often see a sidelining of ethical priorities, that government-funded organizations usually prioritize, for more market-driven goals. Companies like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic have been seen to be prioritizing space industries such as space tourism for an experience for wealthier customers rather than long-term scientific missions. Companies such as Virgin Galactic lean into the idea of space as an exclusive experience by describing their mission as an “extraordinary membership, on-or-off, Earth”. Jeff Bezos himself has described Blue Origin’s 2021 first crewed launch as “the most important work I’m doing”. In contrast, NASA focuses more on planetary defense and climate monitoring. Private corporations often have greater interest in projects that will be profit-generating such as asteroid mining, lunar commercialization, and satellite internet systems. SpaceX’s Starlink project has set a goal to deploy over 42,000 satellites. This goal has incited many concerns from astronomers who say that the light pollution created by these satellites could be detrimental to and hinder deep-space observation. Many protests have arisen against the Starlink project from the global scientific community. However, Starlink continues to push forward and grow in its capabilities which only further highlights how this issue of private corporation overreach is not only an issue in the United States but also around the world where despite pushback on the project internationally, the lucrative policies are continued to be pursued. 

Recent actions by private corporations have proven that through dominating early lunar policies and satellite infrastructure, many U.S.-based companies are taking global space governance in a direction that prioritizes national and commercial interests over equitable international cooperation. NASA launched the Artemis Accords in 2020 which includes provisions for private entities to extract and own space resources. Many experts believe this contradicts the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which specifically attributes space as a “province of all mankind”. Space policy is shifting to accommodate the corporate goals of lunar mining among other things of U.S. firms that want to take action early and gain an advantage by claiming key sites of the Moon. Another example of the extent of corporate control is satellite mega-constellations. In 2019, The European Space Agency (ESA) had to reroute its satellite to avoid collision with the Starlink Satellite 44 after receiving any prior coordination efforts from SpaceX. On the other hand, countries in the Global South, which are often lacking in resources and commercial launch capacity, struggle to gain any orbital access as the low-Earth orbit becomes even more crowded by companies such as Amazon, OneWeb, and SpaceX. 

Many may point out that the growing influence of private corporations on space policy is just a part of the necessary evolution to advance space exploration. It could be added that without the benefits provided by these private firms space exploration would stagnate because of government inefficiencies, budget constraints, and political conflicts. While the financial and technological benefits are undeniable, national space programs are making critical strategic and ethical trade-offs. The reliance on just a few private actors gives them a disproportionate amount of influence over the direction of future space policy that will allow them to dictate mission prioritization, technology funding, and even international agreements. It is a given that with the heavy involvement of companies, future space exploration and space policy will lean towards more commercial and cost-beneficial goals, which can be a positive, but also will reduce the abilities of research missions that may not entail a profit benefit. 

The disproportionate influence that private corporations have on national and international space policy is something to raise concern and to be more cognizant of. It is evident that the market-driven decisions of private firms are shaping major NASA policy outcomes and space policy has started to align with the priorities of companies which often conflict with scientific ethics and sustainability efforts. Moreover, we see a great amount of legal and political pressure being put on NASA and government organizations by companies such as Blue Origin and SpaceX which is leading to a shift that favors corporate and national interests which often has a marginalizing effect on smaller nations and other collaborative goals. The balance of influence becomes a trade-off game where making space goals cheaper and faster results in the loss of ethics and equity goals. The debate of control leads to the question of whose vision of the future are we truly following and at what cost.