| 20 May 2026
Satellite Ownership and Sustainable Space Exploration: Responsibility-Embedded Polycentric Governance Model (RE-PGM)
Abstract. The accelerated development and increased reliance on satellite infrastructure have spurred concerns related to orbital congestion, space debris, and the long-term sustainability of outer space. Although previous studies have approached the problem of space sustainability from a technological, economic, or international law point of view, they tend to isolate a specific dimension of the problem and lack exploratory capacity in proposing solutions. In particular, there has been a significant gap in research focusing on the problem of satellite ownership in relation to space sustainability. This study posits that satellite ownership structure is a key variable for space sustainability as the increased number of commercial players present a challenge for accountability, monitoring and transparency. The study contributes to the scholarship in two ways. Empirically, it conducts an extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis to understand who owns the satellites (state/ companies), what is their purpose and technological design. Theoretically, the study advances the scholarship by proposing Responsibility-Embedded Polycentric Governance Model, grounded in 7 adapted principles, 2 space science communication mechanisms and 2 economic principles the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principles. The study further highlights the crucial role of science communications along with transparent, open-access data and participation of wide range of stakeholders.
The paper is lacking in every regard relevant for publication. There is not actual analysis or outcome, which is in any way helping the scientific community. Major aspects of evaluation of sustainability impacts and how to handle them, e.g. LCA and the PEFCR framework, the ESA framework, are missing in the review as well as incorporation of the analysis and its results. The purpose of the paper remains largely unclear, which is also attributed to the fact that is lacks any clear structure. For instance after a somewhat chaotic introduction, the author presents a literature review, without even explaining how it was conducted, and after that review presents the research question.
The exact background and science question is unclear. Needs to be stated beyond “This study focuses on the issue of satellite ownership structures and their implications for sustainability.”. What is that issue? Why is it relevant? How are ownership structures putting up implications for sustainability?
RE-PGM is dropped on line 34. This needs to be explained. Why that? Where is this coming from? In which context is that relevant?
The overall purpose of the paper needs to be expressed clearer, with a clear background overview. The author points out the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, but this has to be regarded in its presentation as well.
The paper structure needs to be revised. What I the chapter 2 doing? The Background needs to be explained, the research goal and then the method, including a well explained literature review.
The research questions need to be clearly derived and integrated into the text and not mentioned in passing at the end of the literature review.
Within the paper statements without foundation occur frequently, e.g. p 2, “The sustainability of space exploration, along with the related problems, constitutes one of the most frequently addressed research topics in the existing literature” without any explanation how that was found and how even the literature review has been conducted arriving to that conclusion, based on 5 papers presented.
The theoretical background chapter 3 comprises several elements, which are more conclusions or ideas of the author, e.g. interpretation of ADP. This is a result or a discussion, not part of the background.
Something, which is not addressed by the author is how their approach compares to other existing once, such as LCA (or LCSA) and frameworks, e.g. PEFCR to account for sustainability impacts and how those could be leveraged for space as well.
The method is not explained at all. The author derives numbers for satellites in an unknown way. How e.g. the countries were selected is not explained. Why e.g. ESA and ESA member states are separately used, is not explained. Why other nations are left out, is not explained. There are evaluations of the numbers, which should be in the results section. Also, the satellite numbers are not representative to make the statements about who is a “dominant” or “leading actor” (p 11). Satellites sizes differ significantly, as do mission durations. This is also why just stating launched objects is not very representative. It is a significant difference in achievement, capability and purpose if a nation launches a cube sat or a multi ton satellite.
The method chapter should explain how these numbers were found and then the numbers should be reported and evaluated and not just by absolute numbers.
No systematic approach is conceivable in the paper. There is not objective, reproduceable procedure. What is presented is conjecture from the author.
Overall, this paper is not presenting any useful findings in any meaningful way. Many aspects, e.g. SDG relation to space and activities to add another SDG, are omitted. It is very evident that the author is not very familiar with space policy and governance and it is highly recommended that the author gets more familiar with the subject and how sustainability is approached in that field. It must exceed space debris.
Detailed comments can be found in the attached pdf.