New Space Engineering Design: Characterization of Key Drivers

Featured Application

The present work provides a characterization of the key drivers and related enablers of New Space engineering design. The findings can serve as a conceptual and informative baseline to support design engineers in the early development of competitive and innovative systems, helping to align technical decisions with evolving market trends and design drivers.

Abstract

The recent evolution of the space industry, commonly referred to as New Space, has changed the way space missions are conceived, developed, and executed. In contrast to traditional approaches, the current paradigm emphasizes accessibility, commercial competitiveness, and rapid and sustainable innovation. This study proposes a research methodology for selecting relevant literature to identify the key design drivers and associated enablers that characterize the New Space context from an engineering design perspective. These elements are then organized into three categories: the evolution of traditional drivers, emerging manufacturing and integration practices, and sustainability and technology independence. This categorization highlights their role and relevance, providing a baseline for the development of systems for New Space missions. The results are further contextualized within three major application domains, namely Low Earth Orbit (LEO) small satellite constellations, operations and servicing in space, and space exploration, to illustrate their practical role in engineering space systems. By linking high-level industry trends to concrete design choices, this work aims to support the early design phases of New Space innovative systems and promote a more integrated approach between strategic objectives and technical development.

1. Introduction

The term “New Space” can refer both to the transformation phase of the space industry that began in the early years of the twenty-first century and to the resulting ecosystem in which recent space activities are taking place [1]. It is a widely used expression in today’s literature to promote every latest space initiative or program perceived as advancing beyond traditional approaches within the space industry. The so-called “Old Space” paradigm, which originated during the Cold War and continues to coexist with the New Space regime, is characterized by large-scale, government-led programs, primarily dominated by national space agencies and large prime contractors. In contrast, New Space is defined by innovative Research and Development (R&D) and business trends, broader commercial participation, technological innovation, and new models of collaboration across the public and private sectors [2]. Indeed, the space sector has experienced significant expansion, allowing private companies of various sizes, including those from emerging countries, to enter the market. These new players are introducing disruptive ways of thinking about space technologies and missions, reshaping space exploration and utilization, in line with the trends defining the current landscape. However, the rapid evolution of the space ecosystem has not been matched by equally critical analyses of how these trends influence engineering directions and technical solutions, highlighting a need for a structured investigation to support both newcomers and traditional actors as they adapt to these changes.

In the literature, several authors have addressed the New Space phenomenon and its implications for the space industry from various perspectives, ranging from economic to geopolitical, to clarify the definition and role of this multifaceted ecosystem. One of the earliest attempts to characterize the emerging New Space was provided by Hay et al. [3]. Their work identified key attributes that distinguish traditional and New Space companies, revealing that the distinction is not clear-cut; there are cases in which traditional space actors, such as governments, can benefit from adopting certain new practices to streamline their operations. More recently, Golkar and Salado [4] tried to clarify the increasingly complex New Space landscape by identifying three defining characteristics: a customer-focused approach, the emphasis on new product development, and the rise of entrepreneurial companies supported by private investments and venture capital, partially replacing government funding. A similar objective is pursued in the work by Garzaniti et al. [5], whose main finding is the identification of ten application domains, such as space platforms and image analysis, that are most relevant to the activities of today’s space companies, which are mostly innovation-driven small enterprises and startups. Due to this latter feature, Chechile [6], from a systems engineering perspective, highlighted the need to move from traditional development approaches toward tailored products and organizational life cycle management, particularly in light of growing concerns about the ethical and sustainable use of space.

To contribute to the state of the art, this paper focuses on characterizing key concepts of engineering design that characterize New Space systems, linking them to the broader trends from which they originate. The goal is to provide a structured breakdown that serves as a foundation for strategic decision-making during the early phases of New Space system development.

A key early innovation that anticipated several New Space trends is the CubeSat standard [7]. Introduced in 1999, these small modular satellites (100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm units) allow universities to conduct space research on a limited budget. Inspired by their success, the space industry has evolved and, today, the small satellite market is expected to undergo significant expansion in the coming years [8].

While this growth fosters innovation and accessibility, it also raises significant concerns regarding the exploitation of the space environment [9]. A direct consequence of space democratization is the growing accumulation of space debris, Earth-orbiting objects without control, which has created an urgent need for mitigation measures, formalized through design standards and operational requirements [10,11]. A clear departure from the previous space era is marked by the integration of environmental impacts into design considerations of space systems [12]. This new awareness requires long-term sustainability and stringent safety measures in both human activities and space operations. This era is often referred to as Space 4.0 [13] due to the space industry’s growing adoption of practices commonly used in other engineering sectors.

Technological advancements and cost reduction are creating new opportunities for space commercialization. Numerous missions are planned, ranging from near-Earth operations to cislunar space, Mars, and deep space exploration [14]. The advancement of small satellite technologies enabled the rise of modern Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations for telecommunication and Earth observation [5]. The increasing specialization of New Space studies opens up opportunities for complex space missions, including debris removal, satellite repair and refueling, and autonomous operations [15]. Interplanetary exploration opened the way for In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), which involves space mining and lunar-based processing, to help sustain distance operations and the human presence in future colonized regions. Communication services, material sciences, and space propulsion are among the key fields recognized for their role in driving innovation and economic growth [16].

Considering the above, today’s increasingly competitive and rapidly evolving market presents numerous companies, particularly innovative startups and small enterprises, with new and challenging opportunities in the New Space sector. To define development plans and evaluate strategic directions, there is a growing need for up-to-date metrics and tools that can guide system design from the early stages. This study contributes to the current literature by identifying and categorizing a set of design drivers that characterize the requirements of New Space missions, along with the associated enabling technologies and design solutions that address them. The aim is to offer a structured reference for space system designers and innovators, especially during the conceptual development phases. The selected drivers are examined for their relevance at the engineering, technological, and commercial levels.

Developing new technology without a heritage derived from previous systems requires preliminary market analysis and benchmarking of comparable systems to inform the conceptual design; this is particularly true for start-up companies. These initial analyses enable the capture of stakeholder expectations and key technology drivers, which can be translated into technical system requirements to support the creation of a competitive and well-balanced product. This paper provides knowledge to engage in the product development of space systems, along with the opportunity to extend the analysis and offer a broader overview of the evolving New Space industry.

The following section outlines the research methodology. The results are then presented and discussed through an analysis of emerging directions in space system design, further contextualized across three representative application domains. This paper concludes with insights into future implementation and suggestions for further research.

2. Methodology

This paper aims to provide an overview of the contemporary New Space landscape by identifying the main drivers that characterize it from an engineering perspective. To achieve this, this study adopted the methodology outlined in Figure 1.

2.1. Keywords Definition

The bibliographic search was primarily conducted between September 2024 and June 2025. Initially, a comprehensive literature database was compiled using relevant keywords and their combinations. The initial set of keywords was defined before the bibliographic search, based on a preliminary analysis of project objectives, sector terminology, and recurring concepts identified in early scoping documents. Examples include terms related to New Space, technological trends, and innovative space systems. Boolean logic was applied to enhance precision and reduce the range of irrelevant results (e.g., AND, OR, NOT). For instance, combinations such as “New Space” AND “engineering design”, “space systems” AND “technological trends”, or “innovation” AND “satellites” NOT “astronomy” were employed to identify relevant publications by querying the database. As the research progressed, keywords were gradually refined to focus on more specific topics, enabling a deeper exploration of specific aspects.

2.2. Literature Research

The literature research was conducted using established databases, including Scopus and Google Scholar. Given the novelty and complex dynamics of the New Space field, additional sources, such as news articles, trade newsletters, and the websites of key manufacturers, were consulted. This approach enabled the creation of an extensive preliminary database, offering a robust foundation for subsequent analysis.

2.3. Document Screening and Selection

Documents obtained from the literature search using the defined keywords were filtered based on their publication date and their relevance to the space economy. Preliminary readings confirmed that the early 2000s are typically considered the beginning of New Space activities and practices; this period was, therefore, used as the starting point for the review. When examining specific topics or insights, more recent sources were always prioritized. Earlier works were retained if their content was still considered valid for understanding today’s evolution or for contextualizing the historical roots of the New Space phenomenon. This approach also reflects the current landscape, in which many key actors are newly established companies. These entities are often cautious about disclosing sensitive information. They are primarily focused on achieving market success, which may limit the availability of recent research, particularly on emerging technologies or commercial strategies.

The inclusion or exclusion of each document was determined through a methodical screening process, carried out in the following order: titles, abstracts, conclusions, and relevant references. This structured approach ensured that no source was excluded a priori, allowing the reliability of each document to be assessed regardless of its origin or typology. Each selected document was then recorded and organized on a structured Microsoft Excel worksheet, with each document occupying a separate row. The table included columns for thematic area, publication year, and authorship, allowing for efficient sorting and filtering. This organizational step facilitated the removal of duplicate entries originating from separate search sessions.

This process resulted in a comprehensive set of documents used to initiate the analytical phases of the study. The analyzed literature encompassed a broad range of sources, including both technical and non-technical materials, as well as economic analyses and industry reports related to general space sector dynamics.

2.4. Identification of Key Concepts

At this point, this study aims to provide sufficient background on the New Space landscape by identifying key aspects of engineering relevance. This process was essential to outlining the context necessary for evaluating or developing space technologies. To clarify the terminology used throughout this work, the following definitions apply:

• Design drivers: These are fundamental goals (e.g., cost and reliability) and constraints that influence the overall system architecture and development. These factors originate from the external system environment and are not necessarily technical in nature, yet they impact system design throughout its entire lifecycle [17];
• Design enablers: These are design choices and solutions that are implemented in terms of strategies, tools, enabling technologies, or processes that meet one or more drivers. These enablers may originate from engineering domains outside the traditional space sector and are adapted to meet space-specific needs.

The screening criteria for identifying relevant design drivers and associated enablers focused primarily on their innovative potential within the context of space system design. Once a document was selected, it was carefully reviewed, and key concepts were extracted through in-depth reading. These concepts were listed as keywords or key expressions, depending on the breadth of their meaning and coverage, and recorded in a dedicated column of the same Microsoft Excel worksheet used for document organization. This process allowed the authors to assign each entry the designation of either design driver or design enabler, based on its nature and role.

To ensure a representative overview of the New Space scenario, the analysis focused on applications with concrete market significance, prioritizing technologies with evident commercial intent. Selection was further guided by each element’s relevance to the engineering evaluation of space system design. Where available, this study referenced the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) indicated by the source. While TRLs may vary depending on mission-specific implementation, they generally correlate with the extent of validation achieved [18]. In general, technologies at very low maturity (i.e., TRL < 5), typically limited to conceptual development and early ground testing, were not considered. However, emerging solutions such as ISRU and quantum technologies were also mentioned due to their growing strategic and innovation value, which suggests a substantial likelihood of near-term applicability. These cases were carefully included to illustrate the significant innovation introduced by the New Space paradigm. Moreover, recent advancements in adjacent industries, particularly in material science and manufacturing, have enabled the development of system concepts that were once extremely challenging.

The analysis excludes several sectors of the space industry, such as ground segment infrastructure, to maintain a focused perspective on the design and development of spacecraft systems (also referred to as in-space systems). The impact of market-driven strategies is particularly evident in the design, production, and deployment of spacecraft, especially satellites and their applications. Through cascading design requirements, these commercial dynamics extend their impact to the development of spacecraft subsystems, equipment, and components.

2.5. Categorization of Design Drivers and Enablers

The outcome of this screening process is a qualitative group of design drivers and enablers of different natures, each assigned to a specific category for a clearer understanding of its function and significance within the New Space scenario. The categories are as follows:

• Category A: Evolution of Traditional Design Drivers: This includes elements that were historically present in space missions that have been redefined or adapted in response to the New Space paradigm.
• Category B: Emerging Manufacturing and Integration Practices: This encompasses new industrial needs and technologies that were adopted by New Space companies to better respond to market needs.
• Category C: Sustainability and Technology Independence: This reflects the increased maturity and strategic awareness of the sector, targeting long-term viability and autonomy.

This categorization of design drivers and enablers can serve as a baseline for implementing a design methodology aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of new space products. This can be achieved by integrating stakeholder needs derived from the current trends, which are translated into actionable innovation and design drivers. Tailored solutions and enabling technologies aligned with these drivers can then be adopted to address evolving market demands.

2.6. Contextualization Within Application Domains

Behind the selected engineering design drivers lie broader market directions and opportunities that define current system requirements within the New Space domain. In parallel with the proposed categorization, three representative application areas have been selected and analyzed to illustrate the role that the identified drivers and enablers play in space system design, and to provide insights into the main market trends:

• LEO constellations of small satellites;
• In space operations and servicing;
• Space exploration.

These application domains, together with their associated design drivers and corresponding design enablers, form a complex network of interdependent, cause-and-effect relationships. Advances in enabling technologies make specific applications possible, while, conversely, technological development and mission requirements are often driven by evolving market demands.

3. Results and Discussion

Following the proposed methodology, this study provides a structured snapshot of the key engineering design concepts as of the first half of 2025, based on a critical literature review. Given the rapid evolution of the New Space sector, the findings are time-sensitive and reflect the state of the field as of that point. They can serve as a current reference in the literature, identifying the factors that have characterized the New Space paradigm so far and are reasonably expected to continue shaping it in the near future. However, the methodology can be reapplied by future researchers to update or extend the results as new technologies and trends emerge. Moreover, the adopted classification, structured by relevant categories and context, has been designed to remain valid over time, as based on fundamental design logic and sector dynamics. This ensures continued relevance and supports ongoing monitoring of sector evolution.

Table 1. Categorized design drivers for New Space system development.

Design Drivers	Category	Sources
Cost reduction	A	[1,4,5,6,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]
Short time-to-market	A	[4,5,6,16,20,23]
Function-specific performance	A	[1,4,6,16,23,25]
Reliability	A	[6,19,22,23,25,26]
Resilience	A	[21,22,26]
Maintainability	A	[22,27]
Interoperability	A	[22,28]
Adaptability	A	[19,22,27]
Autonomy	A	[4,16,20,22]
Durability	A	[22,27]
System scalability	A	[1,6,16,19,21,28]
Production scalability	B	[1,6,16,19,21,28]
Low environmental impact	C	[6,16,22,29]
Reusability	C	[6,23]
Debris mitigation	C	[4,5,6,16,19,20,22,23]
Safety	C	[3,5,6]
Technological independence	C	[30]

summarizes the resulting design drivers that characterize New Space engineering design, which are organized into categories and associated with relevant sources, as outlined in Figure 1. While this characterization is based on a structured review of the available literature, the dynamic and complex nature of the sector might prevent these results from being exhaustive. Nevertheless, the table provides a sufficiently detailed and accessible overview of the prevailing development directions.

Table 2. Categorized design enablers for New Space system development.

Design Enablers	Category	Sources
Innovative materials and technologies	A	[20,22,25]
Artificial intelligence	A	[20,22]
Robotics	A	[22,28]
Graceful degradation	A	[22,26]
Use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components	B	[4,5,16,19,20,21,23]
Miniaturization	B	[1,4,5,6,16,19,20,21,23]
Microfabrication	B	[16,20,23,25,28]
Modularity	B	[6,20,28]
Standardization	B	[1,6,16,20,23,28]
Space standard-driven design	B	[23,29,31]
Rapid prototyping	B	[20]
Additive manufacturing	B	[5,16,21,27,28]
Smart manufacturing	B	[28]
Mass production	B	[1,19,21,28]
Life cycle assessments	C	[29]
Design for demise and end-of-life (EOL) strategies	C	[4,5,6,21,26]
Use of safe materials	C	[6,23,29]
Use of in situ resources	C	[1,5,16,24,27]
Regulatory-aware design and local supply integration	C	[6,16,21,29,30,31]

presents the key design enablers, comprising solutions, technologies, and processes, adopted to address the development goals defined by the identified drivers.

The resulting tables can support stakeholders, customers, and engineering practitioners in assessing the system requirements for their specific New Space applications. Designers can draw on this set of elements to align system development with current and emerging trends and expectations by using design drivers to guide strategic choices and design enablers to implement suitable and efficient solutions and technologies.

This level of abstraction was chosen to ensure clarity while preserving applicability across a broad range of space projects. Drivers and enablers are often interrelated, and this relationship is complex: a single driver may represent an independent objective while also contributing to the fulfillment of another, and often, a single design enabler addresses multiple design drivers. In applying the methodology, particularly in classifying drivers and enablers into defined categories, a one-to-one assignment was deliberately adopted to facilitate the visualization and understanding of the results. While it is acknowledged that some elements could logically fall under multiple categories, this reflects the inherent complexity of system design. However, allowing for overlapping classifications would risk complicating the method’s practical usability and reducing its ability to deliver information in a concise and accessible way.

Some of the identified drivers have traditionally guided space system development, particularly those related to reliability and performance. However, it is the more open, dynamic, and commercially oriented nature of New Space that defines current and near-future projects, reflecting the diversity of actors shaping today’s space ecosystem.

The results align with the broader socio-economic and political context in which New Space has emerged. They represent the evolution of societal expectations and policy frameworks, where accessibility, cost-effectiveness, safety, and sustainability have become central concerns. Accordingly, the identified design drivers and enablers do not only derive from technical considerations. Still, they are also shaped by regulatory developments, market dynamics, and public awareness, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of New Space.

The following sections highlight the importance of each design driver and enabler and show their key interrelationships. Nonetheless, the combination of specific drivers, corresponding solutions, and enabling technologies depends on the mission context, the company’s available resources and experience, and the business strategy.

3.1. General Discussion of New Space Design Drivers and Enablers

Entrepreneurial activities in the space sector are carried out by companies of all sizes. Smaller companies and startups typically introduce a single, innovative solution to the market, which is later integrated into larger systems by major industry players. However, small businesses attempting to enter the promising yet highly competitive space sector struggle due to funding shortages, particularly in the so-called “Valley of Death” of technology evolution, which corresponds to TRL4-TRL6 [18].

3.1.1. Category A: Evolution of Traditional Design Drivers

To survive in this competitive environment, cost has become a central theme in the current era of space system development, shaping design strategies and technological choices in a more accessible way. While it has always been a factor in space projects, it has now taken precedence over performance and reliability requirements [1,2,8,32].

Alongside cost reduction, reduced time-to-market has emerged as a critical factor, both as an enabler of cost efficiency and as a means for companies, particularly startups and small enterprises, to begin generating revenue in an increasingly competitive and high-risk environment. This is achieved through the adoption of leaner development and organizational approaches, as well as a reduction in the amount of paperwork required to demonstrate the development. These practices, increasingly accepted even by major, static-centered clients, contribute to shorter design, integration, and testing phases.

Maintaining high performance remains a fundamental objective in space systems development, supported by continuous technological advancements in material science and manufacturing techniques, as well as in engineering fields such as electronics, allowing physical principles to be translated into efficient technological solutions. Much innovation originates from dedicated R&D efforts within established companies, as well as from small enterprises and startups offering specialized know-how, proprietary designs, and patented technologies. Function-specific performance is a broad attribute encompassing metrics, such as efficiency, accuracy, power density, and others, depending on the specific system’s or component’s function and mission. Continuous research efforts are advancing cutting-edge technologies for future use and enhancing the performance of existing systems across various domains, including energy, propulsion, communication, and remote sensing. A clear example can be found in quantum technologies, which are emerging as contributors to performance enhancement in specific mission areas. These technologies enable advances in precision, sensitivity, secure communication, and timekeeping, while also supporting novel applications such as gravitational wave observation [33,34].

The selection of a specific driver or solution depends on the overall mission objective. Reliability represents a traditional and critical attribute that needs optimization in space missions, primarily due to the impracticality of maintenance and component replacement in orbit [35]. There has been a shift in how space system reliability is treated, closely linked to risk management in the space business. New Space companies often adopt a new design philosophy, addressing mission risk differently by embracing the concept of “managed risk” rather than the traditional “reduced risk” of conventional, expensive, and time-consuming missions [23]. This mindset paves the way for new product development methodologies, such as Agile [36].

In New Space scenarios, the broader concept of resilience may become the primary driver of the mission. In system design, it refers to the ability to perform well in both expected and unexpected occurrences (i.e., robustness), as well as in the event of failures, through functional redundancy or graceful degradation, and to adapt to environmental changes or evolving mission needs (i.e., resourcefulness) [22]. Therefore, the focus is no longer on creating a perfect system, but rather on addressing the need for resilient systems, which leads to the advent of smart space products. To achieve greater autonomy and operational adaptability, particularly in demanding missions and harsh space environments, automated solutions based on advanced robotics and artificial intelligence are increasingly proposed. These technologies also enhance safety and reduce mission costs by minimizing the need for human intervention while enabling system maintainability and ensuring interoperability between different system units to support collaborative operations. Maintainability refers to a system’s ability to undergo interventions, such as refueling, repair, or upgrading, which has become a typical application scenario in recent years. Interoperability, on the other hand, denotes the capacity of different system units or modules to exchange information effectively and operate together within a shared mission environment, an increasingly critical requirement in distributed and modular architecture. Adaptability is also pursued at the design level to accommodate the wide range of application scenarios that characterize New Space. In this context, system scalability is gaining relevance, as it reflects the ability of a system to satisfy different requirements with minimal redesign efforts [6].

Furthermore, in intensive and exploratory missions, durability emerges as a key driver, often achieved using advanced materials that contribute to extending mission lifetimes, including innovative smart materials, such as shape-memory alloys and under-development self-healing materials [37,38].

3.1.2. Category B: Emerging Manufacturing and Integration Practices

In addition to advances in materials science, manufacturing techniques, component availability, and system integration have also evolved, both technologically and in how they are incorporated in space projects. The alternative approach to risk management at the technical level mirrors the entrepreneurial willingness to accept higher risks at a business level, for example, by relying on private financing [1].

One opportunity is to employ components fabricated with reduced dimensions and power consumption without compromising performance. Although some microfabrication techniques may involve initial high costs, especially during prototyping, the process of miniaturization ensures cost savings in development (e.g., smaller ground test facilities, reduced transportation costs, and the possibility of mass production), launch (i.e., every gram launched into space carries cost implications), and operational phases. It allows the possibility of introducing redundancies into spacecraft within a fixed budget [39]. Additionally, lower power consumption indirectly reduces the need for bulky equipment, enabling the use of increasingly miniaturized electronic components, such as reduced-capacity batteries, smaller solar arrays, and simplified power management systems. Viewed from another angle, decreasing the power demand of single components enhances overall satellite profitability, as power can be conveniently allocated to mission-critical payloads.

In this context, microfabrication provides an alternative to conventional engineering techniques. Among these, Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) are common microfabricated devices produced through batch processing for various fields, including optics, sensors, and propulsion. MEMS for space either had to be custom-designed to meet specific mission requirements or, if commercial and intended for terrestrial use, required extensive and expensive space qualification to demonstrate high-reliability operation as in applications on Earth [40]. During the first decade of the 2000s, MEMS devices exemplified the hesitation to use COTS components in space missions. At that time, the space sector still exhibited inertia toward technological change, primarily due to the historically high-cost and risk-averse nature of space projects [41].

Today, the design approach for space systems and subsystems has shifted toward reducing time-to-market and costs while maintaining high performance and increasingly relying on existing, standardized COTS solutions [42]. This is possible by carefully addressing the specific challenges of the space environment (e.g., high vacuum, intense mechanical stresses, significant thermal fluctuations, radiation exposure, microgravity, etc.) within the design process by incorporating applicable space standards from the early stages of development, such as the European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) standards. Concurrently, the market has grown with highly specialized providers offering high-performance commercial components that are already space-qualified or have accumulated flight heritage [43,44].

The standardization of processes, systems, and components, for example, through standard interfaces or plug-and-play modules, combined with ongoing trends in miniaturization and more affordable launches, is further increasing space accessibility. Standardization alone can serve as a powerful enabler for addressing diverse mission needs, although it remains an emerging practice in the space domain compared to other industries. Modular design, which is widely applied in various engineering fields, offers several known advantages, including increased product diversity, accelerated technological upgrades, reduced development times and costs, and effective reuse of existing knowledge [45].

By drawing inspiration from sectors such as automotive and cloud computing, the combination of standardization and modularity can significantly reduce manufacturing costs and shorten lead times while enabling system scalability in both the number of system units and system capability, from the early design phases [46]. In terms of production scalability, the limited production volumes and unique solutions of space projects have usually not justified scalable manufacturing approaches. Mass production was considered mainly incompatible with the traditional space industry. However, in contexts where scaling becomes relevant, such as satellite constellations, the adoption of intelligent, sensor-based, and software-driven manufacturing methods is increasingly being considered, including those associated with smart manufacturing of Industry 4.0, where artificial intelligence plays an enabling role in process optimization and automation [28].

Another notable technology of Industry 4.0 is additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing. AM enables the production of complex geometries in different materials (i.e., polymers, metals, ceramics, etc.) at very competitive costs. This results in mass savings through both a reduction in the number of required parts to perform a function, which positively impacts reliability and promotes standardization, and lower component weight compared to parts machined from solid blocks due to the lower material densities and topology optimization.

Therefore, AM is fundamental to rapid prototyping, accelerating the time-to-market by enabling quick fabrication, reducing the assembly time, and facilitating iterative low-cost testing of prototypes to validate alternative designs before eventual mass production, thereby minimizing risks [47]. This advantage is especially critical in space projects, where technology maturity needs progressive advancement through the development and testing of scalable breadboards and functional models. Nevertheless, being a relatively young technology, certain drawbacks exist, including generally lower thermo-mechanical properties compared to traditionally manufactured parts, limited process scalability for mass production due to limitations in speed and consistency, and the absence of regulatory frameworks [48]. Furthermore, AM technology can support a circular economy by minimizing material waste compared to conventional fabrication methods while promoting the principles of recycling, reuse, remanufacturing, and repair [27,49].

3.1.3. Category C: Sustainability and Technological Independence

A growing awareness of sustainability and safety on Earth is fostering a parallel consciousness in the space sector, encouraging the adoption of more sustainable practices beyond our planet. As a result, mission designers and, consequently, system and subsystem engineers, are expected to integrate space debris mitigation measures from the early development stages in response to the impending issue of debris accumulation in LEO.

For satellites in low orbits, especially larger ones with multiple components that are more likely to survive the harsh conditions of reentry, fast or fully controlled deorbiting maneuvers are preferred to minimize risks to human life and ground infrastructure [50]. These maneuvers ensure reentry over designated uninhabited regions, typically the South Pacific Ocean. In contrast, for satellites in Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (GEO), the standard EOL strategy is re-orbiting the spacecraft into a designated disposal orbit, commonly known as a “graveyard orbit”, to minimize consumption and risk in the operational GEO belt [51]. However, this solution might soon be reconsidered due to long-term sustainability concerns about the accumulation of inactive objects in distant orbital regions.

To minimize the cost of additional fuel or the need for propulsion capability, uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is often permitted, especially for small satellites, provided the estimated risk of human casualty remains below internationally accepted limits (i.e., 1 in 10,000) [52]. This requires that the object reenters naturally within 25 years after the end of its mission. Yet due to the limited global enforcement of these voluntary guidelines, the increasing number of LEO launches, and the resulting increased risk of in-orbit collisions, this approach is also being re-evaluated [53,54,55].

Alternative strategies for planning safe satellite disposal, such as replacing the demanding full controlled reentry, can still significantly reduce the risk of harmful impacts. Hybrid solutions, such as assisted natural reentry, have been proposed as a compromise between cost and safety for medium-class satellites [56]. Other approaches include designing for reusability (as in some launcher systems [57]) or implementing Design for Demise strategies [58]. These involve selecting materials with low survivability (e.g., those with a low melting point), optimizing structural components for controlled breakup, and strategically configuring and placing hardware to ensure predictable disintegration [59,60].

These design choices can be introduced early in the development process. While they may involve performance tradeoffs that complicate system design, they offer long-term benefits for forward-looking companies, particularly as guidelines on spacecraft Post-Mission Disposal (PMD) become more stringent, and compliance may soon become mandatory in some mission scenarios given the evolving regulatory landscape [10,11,61]. Tools such as DRAMA (Debris Risk Assessment and Mitigation Analysis) by the European Space Agency (ESA) and DAS (Debris Assessment Software) by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are available to assess compliance with international standards during mission planning. Notably, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is also active in this field. It has launched an initiative for orbital debris monitoring and prediction called Project NETRA (Network for space object TRacking and Analysis).

In addition to debris mitigation, active collision avoidance is becoming a critical requirement. This capability is essential to prevent collisions with large objects, which could not only generate new debris but also lead to complete mission failure. Collision avoidance maneuvers are feasible only for spacecraft equipped with active propulsion systems, designed with sufficient performance and extra propellant storage.

Further sustainability concerns regard the Earth’s upper atmosphere as follows: changes in the stratospheric composition, ozone layer depletion, potential health risks, as well as interference with ground-based astronomy, all associated with particles released during launches, particularly from solid rocket boosters, and reentry burn-ups [62].

Alongside EOL considerations, promoting a more sustainable approach to the development of space products and processes requires evaluating the entire life cycle and supply chain of the system. To assess the environmental footprint of space projects, a design framework can incorporate metrics such as toxicity, climate change impact, and resource utilization [63]. On the regulatory side, concrete actions have been taken, including restrictions on the use of certain polluting and unsafe substances, with further limitations expected soon [64]. As in other industries, specific tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) are now being applied to evaluate environmental impacts from the initial stages of space product development, in line with methodological approaches such as eco-design and Design for Environment [65].

Designers can anticipate the effects of alternative design solutions and eliminate environmentally critical options, but not without challenges related to the specificity of the space environment. In particular, EOL operations, the unique materials and manufacturing processes involved, and the limited availability of relevant data pose significant barriers to conducting meaningful LCAs in the space sector. Conventional environmental databases are limited in characterizing space-related activities, and studies are investigating critical aspects such as the environmental effects of complex particulates released during spacecraft atmospheric reentry [29,66].

Nonetheless, eco-design strategies can be cautiously adapted to the space sector, for example, by aligning with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, which are international standards for LCA [67,68]. Dedicated guidelines and databases developed by institutions like ESA are being integrated with typical LCA tools such as SimaPro [69] and openLCA [70].

While methodological and data limitations exist, recent efforts are beginning to address these gaps. Following ESA guidelines, one example proposes a sustainable-oriented multi-criteria decision framework for comparing in-space propulsion systems across different mission scenarios, incorporating performance, cost, reliability, and environmental impact [71,72]. Another study adopts the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H) method under ISO 14044 to evaluate the environmental impact of alternative manufacturing techniques for space propellant tanks [73]. A further conceptual study explores a broader eco-design approach, mapping R10 circularity strategies across space product development phases [74]. While these cases illustrate promising directions, the systematic integration of sustainability metrics into space engineering practices remains an emerging field of research.

This sustainability-oriented perspective influences decisions at all design levels, from system architecture to component selection, across various areas, including propulsion, thermal, and power management systems, as well as manufacturing processes.

With a long-term vision, strategic space system design may be based on the intersection of conventional Earth-based solutions, emerging innovation, and the availability of resources directly accessible in space. The near future is expected to see the realization of the in situ production and utilization of critical materials already present in the space environment. Propellants, structural components, and, above all, water are among the key resources that could be processed or produced on-site [24]. Although tradeoffs are still under evaluation, particularly regarding the feasibility, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of establishing operation facilities, these opportunities are particularly attractive considering the high costs and times associated with transporting materials from Earth. Several studies are already underway to explore and develop the necessary technologies, suggesting that ISRU may soon become a tangible and competitive solution. For example, pilot-scale demonstrations of water extraction from lunar regolith using a drilling-based thermal method have already been carried out [75]. Another study provides a comprehensive budget and performance analysis of an ISRU plant designed to extract metals (e.g., low-carbon steel and ferrosilicon alloys) and oxygen from lunar regolith [76].

In this scenario, incorporating the potential use of space-based resources into the early stages of system design could offer a decisive advantage in terms of long-term sustainability, strategic autonomy, and economic viability. At the same time, the drive for sustainability is also fostering innovation in materials science. The use of safer and more environmentally responsible materials is not limited to repurposing available resources, such as the renewed interest in using water as a propellant [77], but is actively influencing the development of new materials optimized for space applications [74].

Another aspect that has traditionally received limited attention in space system design but is now essential for ensuring strategic competitiveness at both business and national levels is technological independence. Achieving this often requires deliberate design choices to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers or export-controlled technologies while carefully navigating restrictive regulatory frameworks, such as the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the European Union’s Regulation (EU) 2021/821. Although these are legal instruments, they are highly technical in nature and directly impact space technologies, often classified as sensitive due to international security concerns.

Practical applications of these principles can be found in the development of “ITAR-free” technologies, aimed at simplifying international collaboration and promoting innovation [78]. For instance, the design of dual-use smart antenna arrays for aerospace applications or space-rated high-precision time-to-digital converter chips demonstrates how compliance-aware design can support both market expansion and regulatory flexibility [30,79].

Although no single design standard exists for achieving technological independence, systems engineering frameworks like NASA/SP-2016-6105 [80] and ECSS-M-ST-60 [81] highlight the importance of manufacturability, logistics management, and configuration control, which contribute to supply chain robustness. Structured space companies may adopt internal compliance programs to align with these frameworks and ensure conformity from the earliest stages of development.

Defining an effective strategy depends on the specific company’s goals. Strengthening the space sector’s supply chain requires a shift in design culture, where early-stage decisions explicitly account for production feasibility, regulatory constraints, and supplier availability. Strategies such as integrating supply chain input into system architecture, mapping lower-tier risks, and establishing make-or-buy criteria are increasingly seen as critical enablers of technological independence and industrial resilience [82].

From an engineering perspective, system designers can incorporate early measures such as component standardization and modularity to facilitate interchangeability, design for local manufacturing capabilities, select regionally available materials and processes, and ensure compatibility with additive manufacturing workflows [83]. Furthermore, adopting open architecture and ensuring multi-sourcing compatibility reduces reliance on specific suppliers, supporting flexibility under regulatory and logistical constraints.

This trend is facilitated in the New Space era by the emergence of specialized space suppliers around the world. For example, while the United States has historically dominated the production of fluidic components such as space-qualified valves and regulators, new suppliers have emerged across Europe, Japan, and India, broadening global access to these critical components [84].

Although not always explicitly considered, this approach is particularly effective during periods of global supply chain disruptions, such as in times of conflict or geopolitical instability. Anticipating these risks at the pre-design stage can help save both time and costs during later phases of development.

A more conscious approach to life cycle management, built on sustainability, safety, and autonomy, can be key to ensuring a company’s success by accelerating time-to-market. This is achieved, for example, by reducing operational delays typically associated with the handling of hazardous materials during pre-launch phases and by mitigating export-related bureaucratic constraints during commercialization.

3.2. Discussion per Application Domains

Following the last step of the research methodology in Figure 1, this section contextualizes the identified design drivers and enablers within representative New Space application scenarios, demonstrating their practical relevance in real-world settings.

Table 3. Relevant application domains of New Space.

Application Domains
LEO constellations of small satellites
Operations and servicing in space
Space exploration

summarizes the three application domains discussed in the following sections.

3.2.1. LEO Constellations of Small Satellites

The most representative example better encompassing the market trends of recent years is the rapid deployment of large constellations of small satellites (i.e., satellites with a mass below 500 kg) in Low Earth Orbit [23]. Small satellites have primarily served academic research or technology demonstration missions, characterized by a higher tolerance for risk compared to, for example, conventional, heavy telecommunication satellites [40,85]. From a commercial perspective, similar reasons are behind the rise of constellations of small satellites, mostly related to the potentially short-term economic advantages that new private companies can benefit from. Already in the early 2000s, industry insights on small satellites clarified that “small” did not exclusively refer to reductions in mass, volume, or power, but rather indicated a lower overall mission cost, or, more accurately, an improved performance-to-cost ratio [86].

When deployed as macro-systems, small satellites are particularly suited for Earth observation applications, whose instrumentation has seen significant advancements lately, and for telecommunications (internet, Internet of Things, Machine to Machine), benefiting from their global coverage, high revisit rates, and built-in redundancy.

A great boost is registered in terms of launches into space, as there has been a shift from the past, which confirms the typical modalities of New Space. Increased launch frequency, reusability, and vertical integration are among the main approaches used to cut costs for launching to LEO (which is also cheaper to reach than higher Earth orbits) [1,5,87]. Only on 15th March 2025, there were six launches toward LEO for different missions and from four different countries, setting a completely new global record [88]. Nowadays, companies have many affordable launch opportunities through Rideshare programs [89,90].

SpaceX, arguably the most well-known New Space private company and, to date, the most advanced in its mega-constellation plan for efficient communication services, is expected to deploy up to 30,000 small satellites on its own [91]. This unprecedented scaling is enabled by development simplification (i.e., the use of COTS components, a lower number of parts, reduced redundancy, industrial production methods, etc.), which supports the overarching driver of cost reduction.

In fact, the unit cost of small satellites is considerably lower than that of traditional geostationary systems. To provide reference figures, a single GEO satellite for communication may cost approximately EUR 200–300 million, require several years for design and manufacturing, and can remain operational for over 10 years; in contrast, LEO satellites typically cost from a few hundred thousand to tens of millions of dollars per unit, depending on size and complexity, with shorter manufacturing times and operational lifetimes up to 5 years [92,93,94,95]. Despite this, the total investment for LEO constellations can match or even exceed that of GEO missions due to the high number of satellites required and their shorter lifespans. For example, the French OneWeb’s first-generation system, comprising more than 600 units, demonstrated unit costs of around EUR 1 million, with approximately 18 months for production and a total program cost of approximately EUR 5 billion [96,97]. However, the key advantages of large constellations, such as incremental deployment, replaceability, standardized design, shorter production cycles, and streamlined architectures, make them more scalable and adaptable to iterative refinement [98]. Although detailed long-term performance data are still emerging, these characteristics are particularly relevant for private enterprises seeking rapid return on investment and reduced time-to-market [99,100].

From a technical perspective, small satellites continue to perform reliably thanks to the concurrent miniaturization of subsystems and components (e.g., propulsion subsystems, sensors, microelectronics, etc.), which enables high functionality and allows for limited redundancy within constrained mass and volume budgets.

Distributed space systems composed of small satellite platforms inherently support spacecraft modularity and standardization. This architectural approach helps achieve flexibility in meeting diverse mission requirements and simplifies maintainability through rapid replacement of individual units [101]. Moreover, the relatively lower costs associated with this application domain allow for a higher tolerance for risk, which, in turn, facilitates the widespread adoption of COTS components.

The CubeSat experience provides a clear example of these benefits: initially conceived for purely academic purposes, these standardized satellites have proven reliable through accumulated flight heritage, resulting in being considered for cost-effective commercial solutions. This contrasts with custom-designed component development, which requires extensive, tailored qualification programs [4].

Moreover, the distributed functional architecture of satellite constellations provides benefits beyond reliability, embodying the concept of resilience. Historically, large, complex, and expensive satellites have been designed with near-zero tolerance for failure, as any failure would result in significant losses, which could be detrimental even for space agencies and major corporations. In this context, resilience refers to the capability of a distributed system as a whole to recover its primary functions despite the failure of individual system nodes (e.g., a single satellite unit) due to unanticipated events, provided proper technical management [21]. This has been practically demonstrated by commercial constellations such as Planet Labs’ fleet of Earth-observation CubeSats, which are low-cost, rapidly deployable, and regularly replenished to ensure mission continuity [102]. Similarly, Satellogic, an Argentinian company, exemplifies the New Space paradigm by deploying constellations of microsatellites (i.e., 38.5 kg units) to deliver affordable, high-resolution Earth imagery. Their services, like those offered by many other emerging companies, are accessible to small enterprises that were traditionally excluded from space-based applications [103].

Industry 4.0 approaches to production align particularly well with the development of large constellations, offering significant improvements in performance-to-cost ratios. However, the main distinction from other industries is the rigorous, extensive environmental qualification and acceptance testing required for space-grade hardware. This is addressed through accelerated life testing, automated testing, process verification, and on-orbit validation of prototype units prior to high-volume production [104]. Within the context of broader accessibility, companies are now facilitated in testing their systems, either through ground-based environmental testing [105,106] or, preferably, through dedicated In-Orbit Demonstration (IOD) mission programs [107].

The advantages derived from adopting practices of other engineering sectors have already proven to be beneficial for other areas within the space industry, thus introducing the parallelism of Space 4.0. For example, it improved the manufacturing process of larger GEO spacecraft, as shown by recent developments at Airbus [97].

In conclusion, while the deployment and operation of small satellite constellations in LEO may require substantial initial investments, their specific engineering characteristics ultimately support overall cost reduction by fostering a competitive supply market, creating opportunities for small providers, and expanding access to affordable services for a broader range of end users.

3.2.2. Operations and Servicing in Space

The increase in the number of objects launched into near-Earth space has inevitable implications for both safety and the environment. One of the most evident concerns is the formation of space debris, which poses an ever-growing risk of collision with active or decommissioned satellites or pieces of them. The need to actively remove non-operational objects is becoming urgent [54].

The commercial race characterizing New Space, distinct from earlier state-driven competition, raises questions about the necessity of deploying such large numbers of satellites. Sustainability has then emerged as a new key objective. Unlike past approaches, environmental considerations extend beyond EOL disposal to include pre-launch phases such as component procurement, material sourcing, and supply chain logistics.

In this context, the space industry is increasingly focused on developing long-term solutions to protect future investments and ensure the viability of orbital infrastructure. This has led to service activities conducted directly in orbit, known as In-Orbit Servicing (IOS). IOS encompasses a range of operations, including satellite refueling, system upgrades, orbit and attitude adjustments, and repairs, often carried out using self-configurable robotic systems designed for adaptability and to reduce the risk and costs of human intervention, which was common in earlier space programs. System reliability can be re-evaluated: maintenance capabilities introduced by IOS allow for less extensive testing, the use of more cost-effective and non-redundant components, and a shift in focus from absolute system reliability to overall mission reliability.

These capabilities offer significant benefits even for satellites that were not originally designed to be serviced in orbit. A clear example is Northrop Grumman’s Mission Extension Vehicle-1 (MEV-1), developed to restore propulsion and attitude control to geostationary satellites that have run out of propellant. In 2020, MEV-1 successfully docked with the decommissioned Intelsat-901 spacecraft, extending its service life by five years. The docking was achieved by attaching to the satellite’s engine nozzle using a semi-autonomous, telerobotic platform [108]. The mission marked the first commercial demonstration of IOS of a non-prepared system, paving the way for future servicing spacecraft with increasing levels of autonomy and functionality.

Mission extension enhances the scientific return and commercial profitability of satellites, while the ability to recover and reuse hardware contributes to a reduction in space debris [109]. In this context, IOS also includes debris removal operations, actively promoted by both industry and space agencies, with plans aiming to make such services fully operational by the mid-2030s [110]. IOS thus emerges as a viable alternative to the continued, large-scale deployment of new satellites, offering instead the opportunity to recover, upgrade, or repurpose existing space assets.

Space agencies actively promote initiatives for innovation to keep pace with emerging trends and to safeguard national competitiveness, security, and technological independence. IOS and satellite constellations, among others, often carry a dual-use character, serving both civil and defense applications, and contribute to the creation of a resilient and adaptive in-space ecosystem. This evolving infrastructure includes IOS itself, orbital surveillance, In-Orbit Demonstration (IOD) platforms, fuel depots, and manufacturing testbeds. Together, these elements fall under the broader framework of In-Space Operation and Services (ISOS) [2,111].

Challenges remain in the efficient implementation of fully autonomous operations, robust control, and interoperability in docking and rendezvous, both in cooperative [112] and non-cooperative scenarios [113], which increase operational uncertainty. Nonetheless, successful commercial demonstrations of IOS operations have already been achieved. A notable example is Astroscale, a Japanese company that, in 2024, successfully demonstrated, despite minor spacecraft anomalies and partial propulsion loss, advanced IOS technologies for active debris removal in LEO [114]. To achieve higher technology readiness for complex tasks such as propellant transfer and in-orbit repair, the role of standardized platforms and plug-in interfaces, modular architectures, intelligent algorithms, and robotic technology is essential [115,116]. In particular, IOS programs actively promote the adoption of standardized mechanical, electrical, and software interfaces to ensure interoperability during close-proximity and docking maneuvers [117].

The promising prospect of in-space servicing may be hindered by barriers related to policy coordination and legal uncertainty. A major challenge lies in the absence of internationally harmonized regulatory frameworks. Current liability instruments, such as the 1972 Liability Convention, follow a fault-based approach that complicates the assignment of responsibility in collision scenarios [118]. The situation is further complicated by restricted access to complete collision data and the growing congestion in Earth’s orbits of recent years. Measures such as the development of international technical standards, the formalization of operational norms, and the definition of clear protocols for evidence collection have been proposed to address these challenges [119,120]. These efforts are crucial in preventing the underutilization of available technologies due to regulatory ambiguity and in promoting coordinated action among space actors operating in shared orbital environments.

3.2.3. Space Exploration

Future missions and in-space servicing are not limited to near-Earth space. Driven by commercial, governmental, and scientific interests, current developments are extending beyond Earth orbit.

The Moon represents the most immediate objective. Several crewed and robotic lunar missions are planned in the short term, including the international Artemis program. It represents a joint effort involving space agencies, such as NASA, ESA, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), along with private companies, such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Astrobotic, as well as a wide range of smaller technology suppliers contributing across the value chain. Unlike the Apollo 11 mission, the goal extends further than a “simple” landing on the surface, aiming to establish a sustained human presence on the Moon and enable further exploration of deep space. Lunar settlements may serve as accelerating testbeds for breakthrough technologies in energy generation, water processing, and space robotics [16]. Programs such as Artemis are essential for designing and demonstrating technologies to support long-duration missions, starting from the International Space Station (ISS) to potential Mars bases, enabling localized production and space-based manufacturing [27]. Many of these activities belong to the broader ISRU practice, which aims to process locally available resources such as sunlight, water, and regolith-based materials [21,121].

Within this context, a new operational framework emerges, focused on component integration and raw material transformation, known as In-space Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), or simply, In-Space Manufacturing (ISM) [122]. The use of 3D printing directly in space enables on-demand fabrication of components and recycling, reducing the need to transport heavy and numerous spare parts, with enormous savings in costs. Notable among ISAM-compatible technologies are microfluidic systems, widely used in bioengineering, which are compact, 3D-printable devices that are well suited to the miniaturization trend in small satellite platforms [123].

To address the complexity and duration of servicing operations, particularly during long-distance and crewed missions, advanced and autonomous robotic systems are employed. These systems require the design of highly resilient architecture, enabled by durable and space-compatible materials, along with multi-robot cooperative configurations, dexterous manipulators, and artificial intelligence [22]. Heuristic design approaches help achieve resilience and adaptability to manage unexpected events, adopting solutions such as redundancy, graceful degradation, and environment and system monitoring [26]. To save on operational costs and ensure autonomy, the need for automation is also pursued in deep space navigation, supporting the expansion of new markets for small satellites and miniaturized subsystems, such as propulsion and avionics [124]. All these aspects are the results of expertise accumulated through numerous exploration missions led by space agencies and may soon be increasingly adopted in commercial activities. As with IOS operations, international cooperation and a solid legal framework for the management of off-Earth resources are essential to foster sustainable and collaborative space exploration [125].

3.2.4. Further Aspects

Alongside small satellite deployment and space servicing operations, more conventional missions continue to play a significant role in the sector [21,23]. These include large satellite systems in higher orbits, primarily manufactured by major aerospace industries for communication purposes, which still represent a substantial portion of the market [8]. In parallel, scientific probes and observation platforms, such as the Psyche mission by NASA or the Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer (JUICE) by ESA, continue to play an important role in space exploration. These types of missions require larger platforms, more extensive development times, and significant investments. Therefore, they are less aligned with the cost-efficiency and agility principles of New Space and more representative of legacy approaches. Moreover, the field of Earth Observation is particularly active also in this context, especially in support of monitoring Earth’s climate changes, leading to missions such as ESA’s Biomass.

3.3. Toward Practical Application in Early Design

The results of this study provide a structured knowledge base that aligns with the latest trends and directions of the New Space sector. By identifying key design drivers, associated enablers, and a clear categorization logic, this research translates the complexity of this landscape into a critically assessed reference, supporting conceptual clarity and system-level thinking, particularly during the early stages of development.

This foundation is solid yet accessible to organizations of different sizes and capabilities. In practice, it can support the creation of early-stage design frameworks that aim to foster innovation in New Space systems. Within the typical engineering design process, it informs the phase of product planning, which precedes conceptual design [45].

Such frameworks may include checklists, roadmaps, prioritization schemes, benchmarking criteria, or workflows for identifying requirements. These can help guide early design iterations and assist companies still building their internal processes. Both established companies aiming to stay aligned with sector evolution and small enterprises or startups typically operating with limited resources can benefit from using this structure to maintain competitiveness in a rapidly evolving market.

Systems and design engineers may use the results to identify key focus areas, align decisions with market and technological directions, and evaluate tradeoffs under context-specific constraints. The interdisciplinary nature of these findings also allows for the incorporation of broader considerations (e.g., cost and sustainability) and for updating existing requirement sets to meet new external constraints. Depending on the strategic goals and use cases, users may be guided toward appropriate development approaches, such as Design for Additive Manufacturing or Design for Environment.

Overall, these results can support the identification of innovation pathways and enable sustainable, forward-looking design strategies, particularly during the early stages of product planning.

4. Conclusions

This paper analyzes and classifies the primary design drivers and enablers for developing New Space solutions. The findings highlight how New Space introduces new and redefined elements into the engineering design process of space systems, reflecting a more open, mature, and responsive space sector. Among these, cost reduction remains a unifying objective across actors and mission types. In parallel, resilience has become a central aspect, supported by a shift from a reliability-focused approach to a broader perspective on system robustness and adaptability, further reinforced by more advanced industrial development and integration practices. This study also confirms an increased focus on space sustainability and technological independence, with the aim of establishing a safe and resilient operational environment.

Current efforts are largely guided by voluntary guidelines and design best practices, with space agencies playing a leading role in promoting responsible development. A more robust legal and regulatory framework, fostered by international cooperation and policy initiatives, could further support the implementation of safety and sustainability-oriented technologically sound engineering solutions. This would enable more harmonized development and equitable growth across the sector.

The outcomes of this work aim to enhance practitioners’ awareness when evaluating or selecting space systems, supporting informed decisions during the early phases of innovative system design. By consolidating the key factors that have shaped New Space to date, future research may draw on these results to extend the current analysis by integrating structured foresight methodologies, such as scenario building or technology road mapping, to explore the implications of emerging technologies (e.g., space nuclear energy or artificial intelligence), as well as evolving international cooperation frameworks and more niche application scenarios, such as space tourism.

In conclusion, the findings of this study lay the groundwork for implementing a knowledge-based early design framework in a real-world industry case study that is focused on the development of an innovative and sustainable space propulsion system based on water electrolysis.