An Examination of the Complexity of the Large Sociotechnical Space System

Abstract

Complexity has emerged as a global phenomenon with significant implications for the organization and structure of any system. In recent decades, the space system has undergone a transition to a more complex configuration. This essay argues that the increasing complexity of space system architecture is attributable to the proliferation and diversification of actors, interactions, processes, trends, and topics that demand novel examinations and explanations. This research emphasizes the necessity of employing systems and social science methodologies to evaluate and provide novel perspectives on the study of complex systems, such as the space system. The primary objective of this study is to examine the complex structure of the current space system using a sociotechnical systems model. The present study offers a comprehensive examination of the contemporary space system, emphasizing the role of contextual elements, active agents, forms of interaction, and the diverse applications and emergent trends that are profoundly influencing not only the space system itself but also the broader international system.

1. Introduction

Complexity is a growing global phenomenon with significant implications for the space sector. In the 21st century, a significant transition has been observed in the geopolitical landscape of the space sector. The transition from a relatively simple bipolar system, comprising only two major stakeholders (the United States and the Soviet Union) to a more complex space system is a notable development. Although outer space played a substantial role in the 20th century, particularly in the context of a space race between the two superpowers, the majority of space activities were confined to the two space powers and a very select group of nation-states. The conclusion of the Cold War and the start of the 21st century also marked a transition to a new space system that has emerged with new actors, dynamics, and trends.

Complexity is defined as the study of phenomena that emerge from collections of interacting objects [1]. It is a systemic condition that describes a multitude of components and various types of relationships between them. The concept of complexity can be applied to the physical, biological, or social domains. In the field of social sciences, complexity has become a popular concept for studying and understanding companies, economies, cities, organizations, communities, and societies [2,3,4,5,6,7].

The present paper employs a systems perspective, under which the international system is defined as a set of actors that exhibit some regular and identifiable patterns of relationships between and among them at the international level [8]. The international system is defined as the overarching structure or supersystem that encompasses all subordinate systems, including, but not limited to, political, economic, social, technological, and space-related systems. The international system can be conceptualized as the environment or context in which the remaining subsystems interact [2] (p. 205). It is defined as the context of the system that generates input, demand, or support for the subsystems. The space system is defined as a subsystem of the broader international system that can be studied and analyzed as a system in its own right [9]. The space system/subsystem is part of a broader environment within the international system. The system receives demands, information, actions, and numerous other inputs that affect the subsystem. In recent decades, the space system has undergone significant changes, making it essential to conduct new and innovative analyses. The space system comprises all the actors—states and non-states, interactions, and processes—that operate in the space domain and, due to their pertinence, influence other subsystems and the entire international system.

Increasing levels of complexity are evident in both the international and the space systems. In the context of the international or global order, in recent decades, the international system has undergone a marked increase in complexity. The international structure during the 20th century was characterized by the presence of two major superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. However, the 21st century has witnessed a transition to a more multipolar and intricate system, largely due to the emergence of new actors, topics, agendas, dynamics, and trends that have had a profound impact on the entire international system [10].

Experts and scholars have been analyzing the rise of complexity in the international system since even before the conclusion of the Cold War. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye have described the emergence of a new international order since the late 1980s. This order is characterized by the presence of non-state actors interested in global affairs, as well as the acceleration and intensification of contacts among them [11,12]. Keohane and Nye identified a novel and intricate network of interconnections among these actors within specific regions and domains. They termed this network “complex interdependence”. Similarly, Paul has noted that the contemporary world is undergoing rapid transformation, with the emergence of novel global realities exerting significant influence on economic, social, and environmental structures. These realities are becoming increasingly complex, and their development is contingent on the potent dynamic of accelerating change [4]. According to Schwab, the international system is experiencing radical change due to a new revolution, termed the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is profoundly transforming the manner in which humans live, work, and interact with one another. This transformation will be unparalleled in terms of scale, scope, and complexity [13,14]. It has been noted by other experts in the field that policymakers are currently confronted with the considerable challenge of navigating complexity in their decision-making processes. In the contemporary global context, characterized by its intricacy and interconnectedness, effective governance and the implementation of instrumental actions to achieve policy objectives can pose significant challenges [15]. The contemporary global context is marked by a proliferation of complexity, interconnection, ambiguity, uncertainty, and various forms of revolution, encompassing military, technological, social, political, economic, and even philosophical dimensions [16].

The increasing complexity of the international system has had a notable impact on the space system, manifesting in patterns and trends that have influenced the dynamics of the space sector. The 21st century has witnessed a transition to a new space age, during which space activities have evolved from a limited, government-oriented, and bipolar structure to a new, expanded, multi-stakeholder, and multipolar space system [10]. The aforementioned factors have led to an increase in the number of actors involved and the complexity of their interactions, resulting in the formation of a more extensive network of relationships across the space system. A significant body of literature has emerged from various experts who have been analyzing the increasing complexity in the space domain and its impact on specific sectors. These sectors include security [17,18,19,20,21,22], economy [23,24,25,26], legal/policy [27,28,29], and technological [14,30,31].

In the face of growing complexity in the international system, including the space systems, traditional scientific analytical approaches may not always yield the desired results. One significant rationale for this phenomenon stems from the inherent challenges associated with the study of complex systems. Complex systems are more than just complicated. Causal analysis is inherently complex due to the multitude of factors and pathways that influence conditions in both social and natural systems. Therefore, explanations of interesting phenomena require careful consideration of multiple potential causes and interconnections between various forces [16].

Wallerstein recognized the necessity to analyze social challenges in their total complexity, emphasizing that “major problems in a complex society cannot be solved by breaking them down into small parts that seem analytically manageable, but rather by trying to deal with these problems in their complexity and interrelationships” [5]. Consequently, a growing number of scholars advocate for a departure from conventional analytical approaches to thinking, emphasizing the need to embrace complexity in the study of the international system [32].

As previously mentioned, a substantial corpus of academic literature exists on the changes in the space landscape in recent decades. However, a significant proportion of the research on this topic has exhibited an atomized and fragmented approach to the phenomenon, focusing exclusively on particular aspects of space activities and lacking a holistic perspective. The present article employs a systemic approach, exploring the potential of empirically examining space activities through the lens of systems models. It demonstrates how the principles of systems science can serve as a valuable methodological toolkit within the domain of space studies.

This essay argues that the space system has become increasingly complex due to an increase in the number and variety of actors, interactions, processes, trends, and topics that require new examinations and explanations. This research emphasizes the necessity of utilizing systems science approaches to analyze complex systems such as the space system. The primary aim of this study is to examine the current space system using a sociotechnical systems model. This study presents a systemic analysis of the present space system, with a focus on current trends, key actors, types of interactions, and processes that have significant implications for the global order.

The present research is organized into five sections. Section 2 introduces the theoretical framework explaining how systems and social sciences can examine complex systems. Section 3 examines the methodological approach and the sociotechnical systems model used in this research. Section 4 analyzes the current space system in detail using a sociotechnical model, examining contextual factors, major actors, types of interactions, and major technical applications and patterns. Section 5 presents a set of conclusions.

2. Theoretical Framework

The ongoing transformation of the global order has prompted lively academic discussion concerning the necessity for novel paradigms and methodologies that could facilitate a more profound comprehension of the intricate dynamics within the international system. The limitations of conventional academic instruments have become increasingly salient in the development of innovative theoretical and methodological frameworks. Paul poses the following rhetorical question: “Can we effectively navigate the relentless and accelerating changes and complexity without a fundamental transformation in our thinking?” [4]. The primary challenge currently facing academia is the development of innovative scientific instruments to address novel, complex issues and to build more practical and reliable interpretations of empirical phenomena. In this novel epistemological context, systems science can provide fresh opportunities and solutions to address the increasing complexity of systems such as the space system.

Following this argument, it is impossible to consider any issue on the global agenda without an understanding of the elements and internal relationships of the elements in each of the dozens of interrelated systems involved. This understanding must include contextual factors such as political realities, economic pressures, and the scientific and technological data involved [4].

Given this scientific context, the objective of this paper is to analyze the complexity of the space system from a new theoretical and methodological perspective. This perspective intends to arrive at a better understanding of the dynamics of a complex system using a combination of systems and social sciences approaches.

2.1. Systems Approach

Systems theory has historically focused on the study of complex systems, such as the space domain. These systems have been a subject of research in various disciplines, including biology, economics, social studies, and technology. In recent years, complexity has emerged as a natural area of interest for real-world socio-cognitive systems and emerging systems research.

General Systems Theory was first introduced in the late 1950s by Ludwig von Bertalanffy [33] and was rapidly adopted by several disciplines, including physics [34], biology [35], and engineering [36]. Also, social sciences disciplines using the new systems perspective include sociology [37], political science [38], international relations [39], education [40], communication [41], philosophy [42], and economics [43]. Specifically, the application of systems science has undergone notable development in the context of analyzing international affairs, with numerous distinguished scholars regularly employing it for this purpose [39,44,45,46].

Within the paradigm of systems theory, a complex system is defined as a system that is composed of multiple actors, that engage in complex interactions according to non-linear and networked patterns at a variety of spatial scales. Complex systems tend to be high-dimensional, non-linear, and difficult to model [47] (p. 51).

One natural criterion of complexity is that a system is more complex if more parts can be distinguished and if more connections between these exist [48]. As might be expected, the more elements and interconnections, the more complex is the architecture and the more difficult the system-level problems [49] (p. 26–27).

Systems are typically designed by humans and involve heterogeneous components (e.g., hardware, software, humans) that work together to perform a mission. The complexity of a system stems from two primary aspects, i.e., (i) the integration of components, whereby there are many interrelations between a possibly huge number of components; and (ii) the heterogeneity of components, as several specialized fields are involved in the design of a complex system, making it difficult to keep a unified vision of the system and to manage its design [50].

Complex systems exhibit behaviors and properties that are distinct from and cannot be reduced to the behaviors and properties of their elements [51]. A complex system is composed of a substantial number of interacting elements, which are generally adaptive, nonlinear, and capable of producing emergent behavior [52]. A complex system is one whose global behavior depends on the interactions between its parts. Simple local rules can lead to complicated large-scale structures [53]. A system is a complex object that has global properties and acts as a whole because its components are joined together. This phenomenon is defined as the emergence of properties or “qualitative novelties” [54]. Consequently, emerging realities cannot be reduced to the actors of the systems; they are properties that these components would not possess in isolation. These emergent properties cannot be explained as elements of the system, but only as the product of the interaction between them.

In the field of international relations, Waltz and Jervis made significant contributions by defining the complexity of the international system. Waltz explained that the system is composed of a structure and interacting units. The structure organizes the units in relation to each other and defines their positions. However, the behavior of the system emerges from the interaction of the units operating within the constraints of the structure [44]. In contrast, Jervis defined complex systems as those in which the behavior of the entire system cannot be predicted by simply analyzing the individual components. These systems are often influenced by the interaction between units, feedback loops, and emergent properties [46].

2.2. Sociotechnical Systems

More than other complex systems, the design and development of social systems should be amenable to insights and heuristics. Social factors, after all, are notoriously difficult to measure, much less predict. However, like heuristics, they are associated with experience, failures as well as successes, and lessons learned [49] (p. 105).

A sociotechnical system is defined as a system that incorporates technical components, operational processes, and individuals who utilize and interact with the technical system as part of a social system. Sociotechnical systems possess three key characteristics. Firstly, they exhibit emergent properties of the system of a whole that depend on the system components and their relationships. Secondly, they are non-deterministic, meaning they do not always produce the same output when presented with the same input, because the system’s behavior is partially dependent on human operators. Thirdly, complex relationships with several objectives do not just depend on the system itself [55].

The study of sociotechnical changes has a long-standing tradition involving a wide array of methods that seek to address the complex interaction between social and technical realms. A thorough investigation undertaken by Sovacool and Hess revealed a plethora of theoretical and conceptual frameworks, encompassing a minimum of 22 distinct academic domains. A total of 14 theories were identified in the study as being of particular significance to at least 10% of the consulted experts. These theories include sociotechnical transitions, social practice theory, discourse theory, domestication theory, and large technical systems [56].

In this theoretical framework, the concept of large sociotechnical systems (LTSs) was introduced by Hughes [57,58] and subsequently developed by other experts in the field [59,60,61]. The objective of this development was to study and analyze how complex technologies interact with the political, economic, institutional, and social dimensions. In essence, an LTS can be defined as a “complex” system, comprising a substantial (if indeed countable) number of elements whose interactions are non-linear and thus whose nature is not merely the summation of its individual components. LTSs are sociotechnically complex systems, where human and non-human elements are intertwined both ‘materially’ (as with physical infrastructures of intentional air traffic) and socially (as with international regulations and technical standards of commerce) [60]. These complex sociotechnical systems are the outcome of interactions among systems in which institutional actors as stakeholders in one or several arenas make choices between different technical options under the influence of contextual factors such as the legal environment, cultural norms, etc. [62]. Large and complex systems have progressively exceeded the confines of the state and are now increasingly encountering LTSs that extend across continents and regions (as with energy supply chains), between physical and virtual spaces (as with the internet), and even into outer space (as with satellite GPS systems) [63].

The application of large sociotechnical systems (LTSs) has been extensive, encompassing a broad spectrum of academic and practical domains. These systems have been utilized in contexts where complex infrastructures, human–technology interaction, and institutional dynamics converge. The aforementioned fields include the following: energy systems [57], transportation [58,64], health and biomedical systems [65], military and defense systems [66,67], and science and technology policy/innovation studies [68,69].

Large sociotechnical systems (LTSs) are of particular importance in the domain of space activities, where highly complex technologies interact with several political, economic, institutional, and social dimensions. Over the past several decades, numerous experts have employed LTS models to enhance their comprehension of space activities. Their research demonstrates how the technical system is influenced by political, economic, and organizational factors, all of which are integral to the LTS approach.

Although Hughes did not apply the LTS model directly to the space domain, he introduced the LTS concept to link large and complex technologies like space with the social, political, and economic context [59]. Since then, several scholars have used and applied LTS principles to the study of the space domain, focusing on different aspects of space activities, including space history, commercialization, sustainability, geopolitics, and governance.

The application of LTS approaches with a historical perspective in the domain of space studies has been addressed by several experts. Launius et al. examined the development of robotic space systems and their social and institutional embedding [70]. Concurrently, Mindell investigated the design, control, and decision-making systems during the Apollo missions, emphasizing the human–machine interface within a highly engineered environment [71].

The LTS concept has played a pivotal role in the analysis of the commercialization of space, providing novel studies on the evolving role of the private sector in the space industry and the manner in which it is reshaping the space domain. The majority of the studies concentrated on the transition from government-led to hybrid public–private LTSs [23,24,25,26]. Edgell presented a multi-level perspective framework that was developed for the analysis of sociotechnical systems influenced by the new commercialization of space. This framework enables the identification of three distinct periods in the commercial space pathway, namely, Space 1.0 (spaceflight foundations), Space 2.0 (orbital endurance), and Space 3.0 (interplanetary ambitions) [72]. MacDonald directed his attention to the economic history of American space exploration and spaceflight, conceptualizing these phenomena as an emergent sociotechnical and economic system [73].

The rapid expansion of space activities has encouraged other experts to analyze the potential effects of the space economy on issues such as sustainability challenges, both on Earth and in outer space, including space debris and orbital congestion [74], and tackling space debris [75,76]. In a similar vein, Wood employed systems thinking and design justice frameworks to investigate the potential of space technologies to support sustainability and equity objectives. Specifically, she focused on emerging LTSs that connect technical systems to social benefit [77,78,79].

In addition, several experts have employed LTS methods to facilitate the analysis of systems design and mission operations. These experts have expressed interest in the study of multi-actor systems, such as the International Space Station (ISS) or the Mars mission control [80].

The LTS framework offers valuable insights into the global governance and geopolitical dimensions of space, addressing the national and cultural narratives that influence the prioritization and governance of specific space technologies. According to the LTS framework, national space programs are not merely neutral instruments; rather, they are inherently embedded expressions of political, ideological, and institutional choices. Precisely, the term “technopolitics”, coined by Gabrielle Hecht, refers to the strategic practice of designing or using technological systems to achieve political goals [81]. In contrast, scholars such as Krige have employed LTS to examine international space collaboration and hegemony [82].

In summary, the implementation of the LTS model in the context of space studies provides significant insights into a range of areas, including commercialization, sustainability, geopolitics, and governance. However, none of these studies have addressed the systemic, high-altitude, holistic view of system changes in the space domain. The following research provides an analysis of the current space system using the LTS model as a methodological tool.

3. Methods

This research underscores the necessity of adopting systems science methodologies to analyze complex systems such as the space system. The primary objective of this study is to examine the current space system using a sociotechnical systems model. To this end, the present study proposes a theoretical system model for application to the space domain. The space domain is herein understood as a complex sociotechnical system [60,61].

The implementation of a sociotechnical model demands a systematic methodological process, encompassing multiple stages, to ensure its effective application. The subsequent research is methodically structured as follows:

(1) Selection of the Systems Model: The initial step was the selection of the systems model to be utilized and applied to the study of the space system. As previously stated, a sociotechnical model was selected as the most suitable theoretical and methodological instrument for analyzing the space system. The socio-technical systems concept is particularly well-suited for domains such as space activities, where highly complex technologies interact with numerous political, economic, institutional, and social dimensions. The system model under consideration enables the following: (i) a review of the context or environment (i.e., the international system) and its subsystems (political, economic, technological); (ii) the study of the interaction between the social and technical system, allowing the identification of actors, with consideration for their power, goals, and impact within the system (nation states, private companies, higher education institutions, international organizations, and space hubs), and recognition of the main interactions (i.e., conflict, cooperation, and competition); and, (iii) identification of the major technical applications and patterns of use as outcomes of the sociotechnical system.

As demonstrated in Figure 1, context factors shape the perceptions, interests, strategies, resources, and relationships of relevant stakeholders, ultimately leading to specific actions that result in the creation of technical applications and patterns. As illustrated in Figure 1, all the variables described have multiple ways to interact and influence each other (linear, circular, multidirectional, non-directional, etc.). However, for the purpose of this study, a sociotechnical model adapted from [61] was selected. This model prioritizes a linear analysis, as indicated in Figure 1. In this sense, contextual variables such as demands, inputs, and insights exert influence on the actors and interactions within the social system and the technical system, which generates specific types of applications and usage patterns. While other types of development, such as feedback loops, can be identified, this analysis focuses on the linear perspective due to limitations in terms of space and scope.

(2) Data Collection: The second methodological step was the collection of information. A qualitative method was utilized to gather information on the dimensions and variables of interest. This approach was employed as a combined qualitative research method, integrating insightful data with relevant statistics to provide a comprehensive overview. A comprehensive research process was conducted, encompassing a thorough examination of documents and a diverse array of informational sources relevant to the subject of this investigation. This endeavor encompassed the review of scientific articles, with a selection of more than 100 sources being utilized in the research project. Conversely, statistical data were obtained from international and national organizations (OECD, UN, NASA, DoD, etc.).

(3) Data Analysis: A database was created in Excel, structured according to the dimensions and variables selected in the systems model (i.e., actors, interactions, applications, uses). The database’s functionality allows users to make comparisons and categorize key information based on predefined dimensions and variables. This database serves as the foundation for the narrative that is subsequently incorporated into Section 4.

(4) Application of the Sociotechnical Model: The selected model was applied as part of the data analysis. It consisted of three steps, as follows: (i) the identification of inputs from the context/environment (Section 4.1), including the more relevant subsystems such as technological (Section 4.1.1), economic (Section 4.1.2), security/military (Section 4.1.3), and legal/policy (Section 4.1.4); (ii) analysis of the interaction between the social system and the technical system (Section 4.2), including identification of key actors (Section 4.2.1) and their interactions (Section 4.2.2); and, finally, (iii) examination of the outcomes of the interaction between the social and the technical systems, including applications and uses (Section 4.3).

(5) Findings: The results are presented with a systemic visualization in Section 4.4, including a summary of the key findings.

This approach offers several advantages for the study of complex systems. The methodology enables high-altitude analysis of a complex system, facilitating the integration of concepts across multiple disciplines to elucidate the interplay between social and technical systems. At the same time, a methodological approach that relies on qualitative data and a literature review also has some limitations. These might include subjectivity in article selection, thematic interpretation bias, or challenges relating to generalizability.

4. Results—Space System

The application of the theoretical sociotechnical systems model to the space system enabled the construction of an architectural framework that provides a high-level view of the current space system. As demonstrated in Figure 2, the space system can be conceptualized as a sociotechnical system, comprising a social system and a technical system (including actors and interactions) that generate outcomes (in the form of applications and patterns of use). The space system is contextually and environmentally influenced by several systems, including economic, technical, military, and political systems.

4.1. Context/Environment

The application of a systems-theoretical framework facilitates the identification of several factors that should be considered as key influences on the design and architecture of the space system. These factors identified include technological, economic, legal, and military issues.

From a systems perspective, the subsystems of a system are intimately linked, establishing frequent contact with one another through crossed demands and replies. In the context of the international system, subsystems are subject to specific demands from other subsystems. These demands are processed internally and subsequently addressed in a timely manner. This cycle of feedback impacts both the individual subsystems and the international system as a whole [9]. The space system exerts a considerable influence on systemic feedback processes, encompassing the technological, economic, strategic–military, and legal–policy subsystems.

4.1.1. The Technological Context

The technological system is described as interconnected components, including artifacts, organizations, scientific knowledge, legislative artifacts, and natural resources, working together under system-builders to fulfill societal functions [59].

The ongoing scientific and technological revolution is exerting a profound influence on the foundational elements of the international system. This unparalleled development in science and technology is engendering a transformation across all facets of daily life. The Fourth Industrial Revolution has propelled emerging technologies to the forefront of the international system, thereby transforming them into a new strategic asset for actors seeking to enhance their competitiveness. New areas of research, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing, synthetic biology, big data, and biotechnology, hold the potential to profoundly impact the economic, financial, military, political, and social spheres. In response to this transformation, most countries have initiated a competitive race to develop these new emerging technologies, which has been termed a new Cold War for technology [83].

The use and application of emerging technologies are having a growing impact on the entire space industry, affecting both established companies and newcomers. The processes involved in space production, including science, research and development (R&D), manufacturing, and production, are being disrupted, resulting in significant consequences for traditional space sectors such as launch, communication, and remote sensing, as well as for emerging sectors such as on-orbit servicing, medicine, agriculture, and tourism. Moreover, the American company SpaceX is currently engaged in the testing phase of the most powerful rocket ever flown, which is also fully reusable. The company intends to utilize this technology in future Mars missions to establish a city on Mars by the year 2050 [84].

In addition, SpaceX and other space companies are developing mega-constellations of communication satellites, which will provide global internet access. Concurrently, Blue Origin is working to popularize space tourism with its reusable rocket, New Shepard, and is also developing the concept of floating colonies with the ambitious goal of eventually accommodating up to one million people in space. Also, several startups are working with the goal of a future cislunar economy in mind, providing technical solutions for the exploration and exploitation of the cislunar area. Finally, advances in technology have enabled numerous companies to commence planning for the mining of celestial bodies, a potentially lucrative business venture [31].

4.1.2. The Economic Context

Traditionally, the economic system is defined as a set of institutional arrangements and a coordinating mechanism for solving economic problems [85]. This system is composed of formal rules, informal norms, and enforcement mechanisms that together structure economic incentives and activities [86].

The contemporary economic system, characterized as the “knowledge economy” [87], places significant emphasis on the generation of innovations [88,89] and the cultivation of skilled labor [90], thereby promoting the expansion of new products, services, and markets. In this context, outer space emerges as a novel and viable arena for the establishment of successful business ventures.

The advent of a novel space economy has been precipitated by the evolution of innovative technologies applied within the space sector, as well as a resurgence of interest from governments and private enterprises in the exploration of outer space. The majority of experts concur that a new phase in the history of space activities has been in progress since the advent of the 21st century. There is an academic consensus that the space system is transitioning from a centralized, government-directed human space model to a new phase where public space initiatives increasingly share the stage with private priorities [23,24,25,26].

Presently, there is an unprecedented level of investment in space programs from both nation-states and private businesses. The levels of private investment and public expenditure in space activities around the world have reached unprecedented heights, indicating a growing interest in the space sector. Over the past two decades, every aspect of space production has experienced a surge, including labor, publications, patents, private and governmental investment, and workforce. Furthermore, the space industry has undergone a marked diversification, marked by an increase in the number of space-related firms and investors [91,92].

The space economy has exhibited a substantial growth trajectory, with an increase from USD 280 billion in 2010 to approximately USD 447 billion in 2024 [93]. This growth has prompted numerous experts and consulting firms to predict a paradigm shift in the space economy. The forecasts by Morgan Stanley (2020) and Bank of America (2017) estimate business values of USD 1.1 trillion and USD 2.7 trillion, respectively, by the year 2040 [94,95]. These projections are based on the potential for the creation of a cislunar economy, which would result in the opening of new economic sectors [96], and the estimation that minerals present in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter could possess a valuation of USD 700 quintillion [94].

4.1.3. The Security/Military Context

A security system involves institutions, alliances, and state mechanisms that collectively aim to prevent, deter, or respond to threats through military or non-military means [97].

Since its genesis, outer space has played a substantial role in geopolitics and international relations. This is due to the dual use of space technology for both civil and military activities. The space sector has always been utilized for military purposes, and all major actors have had strategic reasons to invest in it. The space race between the United States and the Soviet Union can only be understood in the broader context of a geopolitical and military confrontation between two superpowers during the Cold War.

In the realm of geopolitics and international relations, traditional paradigms have long regarded outer space as a pivotal strategic domain, often termed the “fourth dimension”, with the potential to evolve into a future battlefield. Numerous experts have posited that dominance over this domain ultimately translates into global supremacy [17,18,19,20].

In the contemporary international system, nation-states continue to allocate substantial resources to traditional space applications, such as space communication, GNSS, and remote sensing. Additionally, they are making significant investments in space security and defense systems to protect their space assets. The importance of space-based technologies for modern infrastructure is rapidly increasing. These technologies provide essential services, including long-distance telecommunications, internet connectivity, GNSS, and weather services on Earth. Furthermore, satellites have become indispensable for military reconnaissance and surveillance missions related to national security. The integration of space technology as a support structure for warfare operations on Earth has become a reality.

The United States, Russia, China, France, Ukraine, India, Israel, Iran, and Japan already have military space capabilities, and emerging space powers such as North Korea, South Korea, Turkey, Pakistan, United Kingdom, among many others, are also developing their space capabilities to conduct military activities in space. The veracity of this trend was confirmed in 2023 when global defense expenditures exceeded investments in civilian programs for the first time. A considerable portion of the national budget is currently allocated to defense expenditure, amounting to an estimated USD 59 billion of the total USD 117 billion. A substantial increase has been observed in investments related to security and early warning systems [92].

4.1.4. The Legal/Policy Context

A policy system is a set of processes through which demands are translated into authoritative decisions and actions by government institutions. This system constitutes an organized framework of rules, institutions, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms established to regulate behavior, resolve disputes, protect rights, and guide collective decision-making within a society [38].

Since their advent, space activities have been regulated by a legal and political intergovernmental framework that sets out the principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space [98]. This legal framework is supported by two key mechanisms of the space architecture established during the Cold War. First, the establishment of global common institutions (e.g., the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA)), and second, a global legal framework encompassing five international space treaties. The cornerstone of modern international space law is the Outer Space Treaty (OST), which was adopted in October 1967 under the auspices of the United Nations. Signed by all spacefaring nations, the OST establishes the baseline for activities in space, prohibiting weapons of mass destruction and preventing states from claiming celestial bodies. The Moon Treaty (1979) is a multilateral agreement that grants jurisdiction over all celestial bodies, including their orbits, to participating countries. However, it has not yet been formally adopted by any nation currently engaged in human spaceflight, including the USA, Russia, or China.

Since the establishment of these intergovernmental and binding mechanisms, there have been no additional advancements. Even during the peak of space cooperation at the end of the Cold War with the creation of the ISS, it was possible to improve the international regulatory framework for space. In recent decades, the rise of geopolitical tensions has created challenges in achieving a broad consensus regarding the development of mechanisms of governance related to outer space. In light of these challenges, states have increasingly adopted alternative mechanisms or strategies of governance. These include increased use of national policies and greater adoption of bilateral and multilateral agreements without binding obligations, such as the Artemis Accords [27].

In light of these developments, the global governance structure within the 21st-century international system can be characterized as lacking in strength. The legal framework is limited in its scope, and the global institutions responsible for international decision-making are not endowed with a high degree of negotiation power.

4.2. Sociotechnical System—Interaction of Systems

As previously mentioned, the space system is a sociotechnical system, defined by the complex interplay of social and technical systems. The social system is defined as a set of interrelated individuals, groups, institutions, and norms linked together by rules, roles, and relationships, where their interactions create patterns [37]. This system is composed of actors and modes of interaction (e.g., cooperation, coordination, conflict, competition, etc.). The technical system is defined as a combination of interacting elements organized to achieve one or more stated purposes, which may include hardware, software, humans, and processes [99].

A thorough analysis of each of these systems and their interactions is essential for comprehending the changes experienced in the space system.

4.2.1. Actors

Since the dawn of space activities, actors involved in this field have been concentrated in a small number of states, considering the complexity of participating in such sophisticated scientific and technological fields. During the Cold War, the United States, the Soviet Union, and a very limited number of other countries monopolized space activities, and non-state actors played a very limited role.

In recent decades, the space system has undergone a substantial expansion in the number and variety of actors engaged in space-related activities. This development is characterized by an increase in the diversity of these actors, including non-state entities such as private companies, research facilities, and international organizations. Additionally, there has been a notable increase in the participation of these actors (states and non-states) within the space sector. The prevailing opinion among experts in the field is that space activities have experienced significant changes in recent decades. In essence, there has been a transition from a government-driven model, in which a limited number of states were capable of conducting space activities, to a more industry-driven model characterized by more actors involved in space activities [23,24,25,26].

Nation-states continue to play a pivotal role as space actors, with an increasing number demonstrating interest and capability in developing relevant activities in the space domain. Currently, at least 106 countries have some form of a space program or space budget and are engaged in activities related to outer space and space exploration [100]. Furthermore, 80 countries have registered at least one satellite in orbit, and at least eight have full launch capability and can obtain orbital access [91]. In addition to the established space powers (United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, and the European Union’s countries), a significant group of nations with developing and ambitious space plans (including Turkey, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Brazil, South Korea, Pakistan, etc.) have emerged. The increasing involvement of actors in space-related activities is a phenomenon that experts have referred to as the democratization of outer space [28].

A growing interest on the part of nation-states in space activities can be observed in three main areas: the establishment of new national space agencies, the updating or development of space policies, and the increase in government budgets for space activities. Between 2000 and 2020, 37 national space agencies were created, including those of Japan, Iran, Mexico, South Africa, and Portugal. Meanwhile, most space powers have updated their space policies in the past decade (United States, China, European Union, India, Japan) and a significant number of emerging and even small powers have developed new space policies in the past 20 years. Concurrently, government expenditure on space programs has exhibited a marked increase since the conclusion of the Cold War, from USD 32 billion in 1990 to USD 62 billion in 2016 to USD 92 billion in 2021, reaching a new historic high of USD 117 billion in 2023, representing a 15% increase from the previous year [101].

A study of the space system in the 21st century reveals the emergence and increasing role of the private sector. Space companies played a secondary role in the 20th century under the government-oriented model; however, this has changed in the 21st century with the gradual but persistent entry of private companies into the space industry. Today, there are more than 10,000 space-focused companies worldwide, accounting for two-thirds of all space activity [102]. Consequently, these entities have transitioned from a marginal to a pivotal position within the contemporary space system. Since the advent of the 21st century, there has been a remarkable proliferation of space companies, the majority of which originated as modest enterprises or startups, including Blue Origin (2000), SpaceX (2002), Virgin Galactic (2004), and Rocket Lab (2006). These entities have initiated a significant shift in the paradigm of the space industry, applying novel technologies that have profoundly transformed the space business.

Concurrently, a mounting number of additional non-state actors, including universities, research laboratories, international organizations, multilateral agreements, regional processes, and local space hubs, are assuming an increasingly significant role within the space system. Intergovernmental organizations operating under the aegis of the United Nations, including the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), have maintained an open and permanent forum for space actors to engage in discussions concerning the peaceful uses of outer space.

In recent decades, there has been an observed increase in the proliferation of flexible, non-binding, bilateral, and multilateral agreements, such as the Artemis Accords and the International Lunar Research Station Project [103,104]. Concurrently, there has been a rise in the number of regional processes, including the Asia Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO), the Latin American and Caribbean Space Agency (ALCE), and the African Space Agency (AfSA). Universities, research laboratories, and think tanks have a long-standing tradition of collaborating with governments in the training, research, and application of new technologies in the space sector. This collaboration is particularly salient in the context of the scientific and technological revolution—the Fourth Industrial Revolution [14]. These entities not only train the new space workforce but also conduct research and transfer innovation to the space industry. The emergence of space hubs or ecosystems, defined as cities or regions at the subnational level that foster the innovative processes of the space industry, has also been observed. This novel phenomenon is indicative of the geographic location where a multitude of interrelated actors engage in activities aimed at fostering innovation within the space sector [105]. Several cities and regions, including Moscow (Russia), Florida and California (USA), Seoul (South Korea), Guangdong and Beijing (China), the East of England (UK), and Southern Kanto (Japan), Bangalore (India) have recently promoted the development of this new paradigm [106].

4.2.2. Interactions

The proliferation of actors involved in the space system has given rise to a multitude of interactions among them. A systematic analysis of these interactions reveals three predominant dynamics: cooperation, competition, and conflict. These space dynamics range from cooperative and collaborative interactions among actors to strategic competition and escalating geopolitical conflict, effectively transforming space into a new battlefield.

Historically, actors in the space domain have been incentivized to collaborate even in the absence of international agreements. A long-standing tradition of collaboration exists within the domain of the space sector, persisting even during periods of geopolitical tension. Illustrative examples of this cooperation include the Apollo–Soyuz test project in 1975, the Shuttle/MIR program in 1992, and the historic agreement in 1998 to construct the International Space Station (ISS). Since November 2000, the ISS has been continuously occupied by representatives from the world’s five major space agencies, representing fifteen countries.

The benefits of space cooperation are numerous and sometimes more compelling than those of solo action, even when it is undertaken out of self-interest [107,108]. The use of space serves distinct goals, such as political, economic, scientific, or national security objectives, which generate benefits. These advantages include cost reduction through the distribution of expenses to other nations, the establishment of diplomatic prestige and the strengthening of “soft power”, the promotion of political sustainability, and the facilitation of the establishment of international standards and regime-building [108].

In the contemporary space system, there has been an identifiable shift towards cooperative interactions among the involved entities. The paradigm of establishing global intergovernmental and binding agreements frameworks, which was promoted during the 20th century, is being replaced by novel mechanisms. The intergovernmental regimes established during the 20th century are undergoing a period of increasing inactivity, while new, more adaptable, non-binding multilateral agreements are emerging, such as bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements [109]. This paradigm shift has led to a consolidation of space cooperation within the ambit of bilateral and regional agreements, predominantly driven by the predominant space powers. The United States is engaged in an expansion of its cooperative endeavors with established allies, including the European Space Agency, Japan, and Canada, among others. Additionally, the USA is endeavoring to cultivate relationships with emerging space powers such as Brazil, India, and Saudi Arabia. Concurrently, Russia is fortifying its collaborative ties with China, as evidenced by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in 2021 for the establishment of the International Lunar Research Station.

Additionally, we are witnessing a new mechanism of cooperation at the regional level where countries are opting to collaborate within their own geographical area. Following the European Space Agency’s (ESA) model established in 1975, numerous other regional space initiatives have emerged over the past three decades. These include the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum (1993), the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (2005), the Latin American and Caribbean Space Agency (2021), and the African Space Agency under the African Union (2025).

In recent decades, there has been a notable increase in the collaboration between the public and private sectors, also known as public–private partnerships (PPPs), driven by the growing influence of private companies in the space industry and their substantial contributions to national space programs. In the United States, private companies have traditionally played an active role in the space industry, but since the 21st century, their involvement has significantly increased. The emergence of prominent private space companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Axiom is a direct result of the United States government’s explicit policy favoring private involvement in space, supported by public contracts. A parallel tendency is observable in other countries with a capitalist economy, such as Japan and Germany, as well as in nations like China and India, where the private sector has been recognized as a crucial element in the advancement of the space industry. According to Melamed et al., this new and increasing trend of PPPs in space is due to the rise of a new generation of private companies that have seen a significant increase in government contracting. These companies have become essential for national security missions and high-profile civil projects [110]. This new generation of PPPs is the only strategy for spacefaring states to achieve and maintain a competitive position in the emerging space environment. However, the rapid expansion of space activities has raised concerns among many scholars. They believe that this expansion could have unintended consequences that pose new sustainability challenges on Earth and in space [75,111].

The competition and at times, the conflict over the utilization of outer space for geopolitical reasons has been a consistent element in the history of the space age. Since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s, major space powers have pursued security and military objectives in space. From a geopolitical standpoint, outer space is regarded as a novel and increasingly significant dimension of power, alongside the traditional three terrestrial, maritime, and aerial domains. Orbits, regions of space, and launch sites are considered geopolitically vital assets, over which states compete and strategically fight for control. For this reason, the impact of space activities on international security has always been a central topic on the international agenda [17,18,19]. The space race during the Cold War is a major example of how outer space affects great powers.

The end of the Cold War and the US leadership allowed some cooperative experiences in outer space, such as the International Space Station (ISS). However, the geopolitical aspect still played a substantial role in the interactions among space actors. In the past few decades, the interaction among the major space powers has gradually shifted from cooperation to competition [112]. This increasing process of securitization of space activities emphasizes the expansion of the outer space dimension of the international security agenda. The transition from space cooperation to competition became more evident following the United States Congress’s passage of the Wolf Amendment, which essentially prohibits NASA from engaging in direct bilateral cooperation with China without explicit authorization [113].

Recent geopolitical tensions, including those in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan, have led to an escalation in competition between major powers. This is anticipated to have a substantial impact on the development of space activities, resulting in a more confrontational scenario. In October 2020, the United States unveiled the Artemis Accords, and in March 2021, China and Russia signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish an International Research Lunar Station. Since then, both space programs have been attempting to attract nation-states, thereby rendering the competition between space blocs more evident [114].

In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, many states regard outer space as a substantial geopolitical asset, primarily due to its military and economic value. Some experts believe that whoever controls the Earth’s orbit also controls outer space, and whoever dominates outer space has global dominance [17]. In addition, numerous scholars suggest that this decade is a period of revision in all spheres of interaction between leading space powers, moving towards a more competitive and potentially conflicted space system, also predicting an expansion of the space dimension of the international security agenda and a real danger that natural competition may turn into confrontation [112].

4.3. Outcomes—Applications and Usage

A foundational element of the sociotechnical model utilized in this study involves the examination of how the interplay between social and technical systems generates emerging properties or outcomes [54] that manifest as applications and patterns of use.

Following the conclusion of the analysis in Section 4.2 and subsequent examination of the interaction between the systems, at least five major applications and patterns of use are identified: (i) commercialization, (ii) militarization, (iii) global governance, (iv) scientific exploration, and (v) social implications.

(i) Commercialization: One of the most significant applications and patterns of use of space technology in the 21st-century space system is the increasing commercialization of space activities. The space business model is evolving from a traditional government-centric approach to a new commercial model. Over the past two decades, there has been a notable increase in the number of private companies entering the space sector, with a total number of close to 10,000 private companies [102].

Private investment in space ventures has reached unprecedented levels, and commercial space activity has more than tripled over the past 15 years, leading to growing space industry revenues [91]. The increasing trends of privatization and commercialization of space activities are shaping a new space economy that is emerging as a major driver in the future of space activities.

The traditional space industry, encompassing domains such as communication, launch, and remote sensing, is undergoing a period of significant transformation and enhancement driven by advancements in technology. Concurrently, novel economic sectors related to space are experiencing rapid growth, characterized by the emergence of initiatives and programs involving mining, the extraction of extraterrestrial resources, on-orbit servicing, and the construction of space stations, among others.

The accelerated commercialization of space can be attributed to the recognition of opportunities by traditional space companies and new market entrants to establish a novel economic paradigm in space, driven by the potential applications and utilization of space technology for the exploration and exploitation of outer space.

(ii) Militarization: Growing geopolitical rivalries have led to an increase in tensions among major nation-states, which has highlighted the importance of developing and utilizing new technologies for military space activities. This has also raised concerns about the geopolitical significance of outer space as a potential battlefield. As a result, space has become a strategic theater of operations for hybrid warfare tactics, driving militarization and weaponization.

In the contemporary geopolitical climate, governmental entities are allocating increasing financial resources to address the implications of new technological developments in military space programs, anti-satellite testing, new space propulsion technologies, and space defense systems. A substantial paradigm shift occurred in 2023, with defense expenditures overtaking civil expenditures [70]. Notably, in 2023, defense expenditures surpassed investments in civilian programs for the first time. A considerable portion of the national budget is now allocated to defense expenditures, estimated at USD 59 billion of the total USD 117 billion [48].

This has been seen by many experts as a new escalation in space competition in the 21st century [18,19,20,21]. The United States, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, China, India, and Israel have already deployed reconnaissance satellites for military or intelligence purposes, and in recent years, most nation-states involved in space activities have developed new military space policies, created dedicated space branches in their armed forces (China, United States, France, etc.), and allocated more resources to the military space sector.

(iii) Global Governance: The proliferation of space actors—both states and non-states—the myriad of interactions, and the development of new space technology have precipitated democratization in the number of countries with access to new space technology, and, consequently, to space operations.

The participation of a new, diverse, and increasing number of actors in space activities with different goals, interests, and strategies has made the governance of the space system more challenging [28]. The growing influence of new actors, notably the private sector, suggests that the establishment of comprehensive and binding regulations for the space commons may encounter significant challenges. At present, a consensus among space powers regarding the development of a regulatory framework that would enable global governance of space remains elusive [115].

The observed trend of democratization in the utilization of space technology signifies the establishment of novel and heterogeneous governance frameworks by various actors, extending beyond the conventional intergovernmental instruments developed during the 20th century. In this sense, several novel trends or tendencies in the governance of space activities have been identified.

First, the majority of space actors are circumventing supranational and intergovernmental agreements, opting instead for bilateral and multilateral non-binding instruments as a primary geopolitical strategy. For instance, the Artemis Accords and the International Lunar Research Cooperation Organization are notable examples.

Secondly, the multiplicity and diversity of actors are creating a dispersion of the level of actions where these stakeholders are involved. This dispersion includes not just the traditional national and international levels, but also the local and regional [109]. At the local level, there is an increasing phenomenon of space hubs or ecosystems. At the regional level, there is also a growing number of space institutions, such as APSCO, ALCE, and AfSA.

Finally, certain nations have initiated the development of their own national legislation to regulate the utilization and exploitation of space resources, acting independently from their international counterparts. It is important to note that several countries have already embarked on this course of action. These countries include the United States (2015), Luxembourg (2017), the United Arab Emirates (2019), and Japan (2021).

(iv) Scientific Exploration: Since the advent of the space age, the utilization of space for scientific ends has undergone a remarkable evolution, with the United States and the Soviet Union pioneering several noteworthy scientific applications in the 1960s and 1970s, marking a period of ambitious exploration that included the Moon (Apollo, Luna, Surveyor), Mars (Mariner, Mars), Venus (Mariner, Venera), and the broader solar system (Pioneers, Voyager). Subsequent to this, Japan and the European countries around the European Space Agency (ESA) adopted a similar trajectory in the 1980s. The ESA, in conjunction with NASA, participated in the Hubble Telescope and Cassini–Huygens missions, while Japan contributed to the Hayabusa program.

In the 21st century, the application and patterns of use of space technology have increased in terms of the number of missions, the places explored, and the number of actors involved. Presently, there is a growing interest in scientific applications and uses. NASA has been a leading entity in this endeavor, with over 60% of global investment in space exploration [116]. However, numerous other nations have also made substantial contributions to this field, including China, the European Space Agency (ESA), Japan, Russia, and India.

NASA is currently engaged in a range of space exploration missions, including the James Webb Telescope, Juno (Jupiter), Parker Solar Probe, Perseverance Mars Rover, and New Horizons (Pluto), among others. These missions exemplify the integration of novel technologies for scientific exploration in deep space.

The Artemis program and the International Lunar Gateway (ILRS) represent the most ambitious space projects and missions to date, underscoring the increasing interest and importance of space exploration in the years to come.

(v) Social Implications: The scientific and technological advances applied to the space domain have been revolutionary in terms of applications with significant relevance to society. Historically, the space industry has been a pioneering technological sector, with other applications and impacts on our society ranging from the prevention and management of natural disasters, meteorology, communications, transportation, and navigation. In recent decades, along with the development and use of new space technologies, these applications have expanded to include the use of mobile phones, the Internet, the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), disease detection and monitoring, urban planning, environmental protection, and emergency services, among many others [117].

The space infrastructure has enabled the development of new services and applications in various sectors, including meteorology, energy, telecommunications, transport, maritime, aviation, and urban development. This has resulted in additional economic and societal benefits. Communication satellites have had a significant impact on society, facilitating the sharing of information via mobile phones, personal computers, and other electronic devices. Additionally, there are hundreds of remote sensing applications spanning domains such as agriculture, crime, disaster management, environmental monitoring, mining, navigation, transportation, and weather forecasting. Innovative applications of space technology are also evident in the fields of education (as seen in the EDUSAT program), healthcare (as seen in the telemedicine program by ISRO), and risk management (UN-SPIDER).

4.4. Space System as a Sociotechnical System

The application of a sociotechnical system model to the study of the current space domain offers a high-altitude perspective in the analysis of the recent changes in the space domain. In essence, this methodology involves a comprehensive examination of three primary processes, as follows: first, identifying and assessing the impact of various contextual factors on the space system; second, analyzing the interaction of systems within a sociotechnical system, such as the space domain; and finally, understanding the interconnection between the social and technical factors that generate specific outcomes in the form of applications and patterns of use. Figure 3 illustrates the application of the sociotechnical framework to the space system.

The implementation of the sociotechnical model in the context of the space system facilitates the identification of several preliminary conclusions. These include the following:

• The identification of a contextual factor or environment with multiple domains is essential, as is the recognition of the space system as a sociotechnical system that receives demands and inputs from this environment.
• The context of the space system encompasses multiple systems or domains that exert a direct influence on the space system, including technological, economic, security/military, and legal/policy systems.
• In the context of the space system, a social system and a technical system have both been identified as components of the sociotechnical system, wherein these systems interact with one another.
• The interaction between social and technical systems facilitates the identification of various actors involved in space activities. These actors include nation-states, private companies, universities, research laboratories, international organizations, regional institutions, and local space hubs. Distinguishing features of these actors are their increasing diversity and the growing number that are involved in space activities. The dynamic interplay among these actors constitutes an integral facet of the interaction of the systems. This study identified several dynamics among the actors in question, including cooperation, competition, and conflict.
• The sociotechnical system is a complex entity characterized by the generation of multiple outcomes, manifesting as applications and patterns of use. A plethora of applications and uses have been identified, including but not limited to commercialization, militarization, global governance, scientific exploration, and social benefits.
• It is important to note that all processes affecting the space system provide feedback to the environment and the international system in the form of actions and inputs.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The present paper focuses on the space system within the context of the 21st-century international order. It examines the complexity of the current space system using a sociotechnical model that analyzes the contextual factors, illustrates the role of space actors and their interactions, and recognizes the applications and patterns of use in the space domain with significant implications for the entire international system.

Complexity is a global phenomenon with significant implications for the study of any system. This research offers compelling evidence of the increasing complexity of both the international and space systems. In recent decades, the space system has transitioned from a simplified to a more complex system, and traditional scientific analytical approaches may not suffice to explain the increasing complexity of social systems such as the space system. To address this need, this paper proposes and applies a systems science approach to examine the new empirical reality of the space system.

The increasing complexity of the space system can be analyzed using a sociotechnical systems model. This framework identifies, simplifies, and helps to understand the main components of the system with special attention to the interaction between the social and technical systems. The study of sociotechnical changes has a long-standing tradition and includes a wide array of methods that seek to address the complex interaction between social and technical realms. However, as demonstrated in the review of the literature, a significant proportion of the research on this topic has exhibited an atomized and fragmented approach to the phenomenon, focusing exclusively on particular aspects of space activities and lacking a holistic perspective.

The central argument of this study is that the space system has become increasingly complex due to the proliferation of actors, interactions, processes, trends, and topics that necessitate novel examinations and explanations. The veracity of this general argument is corroborated by a substantial body of evidence, with the sociotechnical systems model applied for the analysis of the space domain. The application of this sociotechnical systems model enabled the identification, description, and explanation of the contextual factors, social system, actors, their interactions, technical components, applications, and patterns of use.

The result of this research is the application of a sociotechnical systems model to the study of the current space system, offering a high-level point of view. This systems framework enables the analysis of issues related to the space domain as part of a greater system (the international system) and in interaction with other systems in its environment (political, military, economic, etc.). Furthermore, it facilitates an understanding of the complexity of multicausal interactions among actors and the consequences for new types of applications and patterns.

A detailed analysis of the space system reveals a sophisticated structure that is influenced by numerous contextual factors, which in turn shape the sociotechnical system in the space domain. The intricate interconnection of technical, economic, military, and regulatory issues with space activities has given rise to a more complex and dynamic environment. The examination of the interaction of systems facilitates the identification of a growing number and diverse types of space actors, as well as novel and more intense forms of interactions, such as cooperation, competition, and conflict. Consequently, the outcomes of this interaction have yielded numerous applications and utilization patterns within the space system. A minimum of five applications are identified, including commercialization, militarization, scientific exploration, and social benefits. In Section 4, the various elements previously mentioned are thoroughly examined. This comprehensive analysis leads to the conclusion that the space system is characterized by a high degree of complexity.

As demonstrated in the results, the implementation of systems models using qualitative methods is a valuable methodological instrument for the study of complex systems, such as the space domain, resulting in novel and pertinent findings. However, there are also real limitations that must be explicitly mentioned. Firstly, it must be acknowledged that the utilization of literature reviews as a data collection technique is not without its limitations. These limitations include the subjective nature of the selection of articles, the potential for thematic interpretation bias, and the inherent challenges relating to generalizability. Secondly, the utilization of a systems model to illustrate the complex nature of the international and outer space domains may be regarded as a simplification of reality, providing a partial and restricted depiction of the evolution of the international space system. Thirdly, the subjectivity of the researcher is evident in the selection of a specific systems model, the large sociotechnical model, for the study of the space system. Additionally, the researcher’s choices regarding the dimensions, variables, and factors to be studied, as well as the elimination of others, were subjective. Finally, a socio-technical model is capable of identifying, describing, and explaining relationships among variables, as well as anticipating future trends and scenarios. However, it is important to note that such a model may be considered less predictive than other mathematical models.

The growing interest in outer space among a diverse group of actors in recent decades has led to the development of a more complex space system. This complexity can be attributed to the number, diversity, interests, and agendas of the actors involved. In the context of the 21st-century international system, there will be an increase in the number and complexity of space activities, which will require more systemic examinations to explain the new dynamics. Consequently, further research in this area should be a priority.