🛰 Extending Satellite Lifespans: Is In-Orbit Servicing the Key to Sustainable Space Operations?

The panel discussion on In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) brought together experts from across the space ecosystem to explore the viability, challenges, and future of satellite life-extension and in-orbit servicing.
The discussion emphasised that ISAM technologies are maturing, with several promising developments already underway, but key technical milestones – such as standardised interfaces, autonomy, and modularity – remain critical to enabling routine, scalable ISAM operations.
On the economic front, the conversation addressed the well-known “chicken-and-egg” dilemma: service providers need demand to justify investment, but operators want proven success before committing. Panellists explored how early government support, targeted regulatory incentives, and sustained demonstration missions could help bridge this gap. The potential influence of ISAM on insurance and risk modelling was also noted, with implications for satellite longevity and operator behaviour.
Finally, the panel turned to the broader regulatory and sustainability questions. Speakers highlighted the urgent need for clearer regulations around liability and licensing for multi-party operations in orbit. While ISAM is seen as a crucial tool for space debris mitigation and sustainable long-term operations, the panel also noted the need for norms, traffic management, and responsible behaviour to ensure that ISAM contributes to a safer space environment.
Overall, the discussion underscored ISAM’s transformative potential, while offering a realistic view of the steps still required to make it a standard practice in the industry.

 

Q & A continued….

Thank you to our audience for taking an active part by asking many questions. We ran out of time to respond to the questions below but our panellists were kind enough to answer after the event ended…

1. To follow on from Jean-Luc’s point regarding smaller companies getting commercial traction from the larger companies. We often find that getting the initial meeting with the right members of a large organisation is often quite difficult. How would you advise smaller companies to get those preliminary meetings with the right people?

Jean-Luc Froeliger (Intelsat): The easiest way is to have an advocate who can introduce you to the right people. Someone that you have met and who has connections with the larger companies and can introduce you.

Simon Rose (Airbus):Conferences and trade shows are often good places to make connections. Additionally for those in the UK, regional space clusters offer great connections into the wider Space Ecosystem, including opportunities to connect with large organisations. Airbus Defence and Space in the UK reach out to and develop the wider ecosystem through their Community for Space Prosperity (CUSP) programme, including the opening of a Space Catalyst facility later in 2025. Check out Airbus Defence and Space #CUSP on LinkedIn to see more.

Mike Curtis-Rouse (SA Catapult): Catapult hosts Satucinno at Harwell monthly which is a good place to meet and engage with larger companies and those across the supply, likewise conferences and industry days that ESA host are also good activities to engage with, the London Space Network runs a series of events also. Engaging with Catapult can help who you talk too, but critically there is nothing better than having a good outward facing presence, so ensure your team have relevant LinkedIn profiles, have a strong and up to date website and engage in sector relevance discussions online and elsewhere.

 

2. Which regulatory body or organisation defines the policy and regulations?

Mike Curtis-Rouse (SA Catapult): At present within the UK, the CAA has responsibility for licencing, and it is also engaged in the definition of policy along with other government partners including UKSA and DSIT. Internationally there are bi-lateral agreements and wider engagement with the FAA, UNOOSA, ITU and others as an international approach to ISAM operations becomes increasingly relevant; regardless it is a hot topic and one which is evolving rapidly.

 

3. Are there any policies coming up to take this into account on next missions (like next generation of Copernicus)? Like they being mandatory?

Mike Curtis-Rouse (SA Catapult): The most prevalent policy would be the requirement for end of life disposal in a responsible manner, which means either graveyard orbit (if GEO) or atmospheric burnup if lower, that said, ideally we burn up less and recycle more, however that is long way from reality at this stage. Other policies may include the need for collision avoidance capabilities e.g. high impulse propulsion but that to my knowledge isn’t a policy in effect yet.

Andrew Faiola (Astroscale): ESA has led the creation of the Zero Debris Charter which is an international collaboration on best practices for the reduction of orbital debris. ESA and many other space-faring nations will be adopting its recommendations, including the adoption of preparations, such as docking plates, to make removals that require external action easier. There is a technical booklet available, along with the long-awaited EU Space Law set to be released this year, which is expected to address many of these key issues. Specifically with regard to Copernicus, future spacecraft will all be prepared for removal, so these are positive examples that hopefully provide an example for others to follow.

 

4. Do you see these missions to service satellites being entirely automated or could you see manned missions being taken place to do so, whether its antenna upgrades of refueling?

Jean-Luc Froeliger (Intelsat): It’s always going to be a combination of both. Take satellite launches for example: a lot of the procedures are run with a person in the loop, but when it gets to the final 3 minutes, it’s all automated and done by computer. There is just too much information to process in real time for a human to do the job. Same with ISAM: the initial trajectory will be defined by a person but when you get to actual RPOD (Rendez vous Proximity Operations Docking), computers will take over.

Mike Curtis-Rouse (SA Catapult): Broadly agree, long range oversight will always be human in the loop, but the RPOD and further ISAM operations e.g. assembly or repair will be autonomous for the most part, this is partially due to distance away from the Earth but also the far more hostile environment, for example servicing in MEO will require significant radiation protection. Humans may engage in my view, in large ISAM tasks for example the construction of a large space station or deep space telescope, but this will require a specific use case, or for example be simply because an element of the structure has a human habitat component.

Andrew Faiola (Astroscale): If by manned missions, you mean astronauts performing these tasks in orbit, then I would argue that one of the objectives of ISAM should be to limit the extent of human activity to the extent possible. The environment is harsh, dangerous, and very costly for humans, so to the extent that we can automate these services, the better (but I also agree with the comments above about having humans in the loop, but from the relative safety on board a space station or on the ground).

 

5. I really like the example given by Jean about Manufacturer, Operator and Servicers collaborating and sharing knowledge. But, how it is possible in case where defence payload are involved considering confidentiality concerns around national security?

Jean-Luc Froeliger (Intelsat): That’s a good point. When it comes to servicing national assets, especially if there are classified, it will require the servicer and the servicing company to have the right level of authorisation/classification.

Mike Curtis-Rouse (SA Catapult): Defence still shares at some level regardless of classification, military standards are fundamentally holistic meaning that if nothing else there is the ability to ensure that everyone uses the same interface for refuelling. For example airlock design is broadly the same for space stations for both Russian, US, European and Chinese designs – that promotes commonality and ensures that even amongst competitors at a national level, there are still base line standards.

 

6. Is GSOA planning to take lead in developing an white paper on this subject to set the right trend?

Peng Zhao (GSOA): GSOA has current whitepaper touching the topics, for example Life Extension and in-orbit Servicing activities is mentioned in our ‘New Satellite Technologies for Transformative Connectivity‘.