Getting to launch: Navigating regulation in the global space economy

Overview

Getting a satellite or other spacecraft into its intended orbit is still an extraordinary exercise even with their increased frequencies in the last decade – involving a number of activities across the space value chain. Launches take place at either government-owned or privately-owned launch sites, and are conducted by dedicated launch service providers that offer the launch vehicle – typically a rocket manufactured by either the provider or a third party – as well as launch support (including range control) and payload integration services necessary to deliver the spacecraft into orbit.

While in the past government agencies almost exclusively functioned as both launch site operators and launch service providers, the rapid commercialisation of outer space in the last five years has, along with advancements in technology and digitisation, drastically transformed the landscape. Lower launch costs, and ever-growing demand for launches from satellite operators seeking to leverage an expansive array of space applications – from broadband connectivity to navigation and Earth imaging – now essential to businesses and consumers alike, has created a hyper-competitive space launch market and a seemingly endless array of new launch activities and technologies with countries competing to host new launch sites and to attract launch vehicle operators.

In this article, we begin by providing an outline of the growth of the global space launch market in recent years, and the industry dynamics fuelling this growth.

We then explore some of the key regulatory issues that need to be addressed and carefully managed to successfully complete a space launch – from obtaining all required licences and permits, to complying with safety, insurance, environmental, debris mitigation, cybersecurity and export control obligations.

While most of these issues are common to all jurisdictions across the globe, we take a comparative look at specific regulations in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom for illustrative purposes, and to enable a “deeper dive” into the scope of the regulatory obligations likely to encountered by both launch site operators and launch service providers.

While the specific compliance burden will rest with those operators and providers, the various regulatory factors must still also be taken into account by satellite operators (and other spacecraft owners) at the mission planning and design phase as some countries like the United Kingdom require even satellite operators to obtain licences for procurement of launch, with each specific launch having a unique set of circumstances that could lead to project delays in obtaining required approvals and meeting minimum regulatory conditions – which, in turn, may impact on the viability of the planned space mission.

Developments in the global space launch market

The global space launch market is currently valued at more than US$12.7 billion, and is projected to reach US$46.1 billion by 2033.¹

During 2024, a record number of 259 launches deployed 2,873 satellites into orbit, and at the end of 2024 a total of 11,539 satellites were operating in the low-Earth orbit – almost quadruple the figure in 2020.²

The scale of this growth has been driven by continuous innovation and dynamic change in the space industry. In the past, launches were characterised by limited accessibility, high costs and primarily government-led defence and exploration initiatives. There were limited commercial players in the industry, and technology was still nascent, focusing on supporting the deployment of large-scale geostationary satellites and human spacecraft.

Fast forward to 2025 and the industry is almost unrecognisable and has been going through rapid transformation in the last decade. First, technology has significantly lowered launch costs. The transition from expendable to reusable rocket technology (pioneered by Elon Musk’s SpaceX achieving its first successful landing and recoverage of first stage in 2015) has been transformative. Because this technology enables rockets to be launched, recovered, refurbished and relaunched multiple times across several missions (rather than requiring an entirely new rocket for each unique mission), launch costs have been reduced by a factor of ten or more.³  This has made satellite deployment more affordable for a wider range of entities. Reusable rockets have also boosted launch frequency, making it easier to carry out multiple missions in a shorter timeframe.

Secondly, there is now a much greater demand for launch services, with advanced commercialisation driving diverse applications of satellites and space technology that are being used by businesses to enhance their market reach and profitability, and by consumers to make their everyday lives easier. The growth of the small satellite and nano satellite market supported the growth of the small and medium sized launcher market in turn. Satellite applications are supporting broadband connectivity in all corners of the world, as well as global navigation, Earth observation and imaging, and the mapping of vegetation, climate change and natural disasters. An average of 50 new satellites is now taking to orbit every week.⁴

There is also expected to be significant growth in the space tourism industry, and the demand for human space exploration.⁵

This underlying demand has in turn seen a substantial increase in the number of private satellite operators (particularly small satellite and constellation operators) seeking to enter the market, and to connect with launch service providers capable of deploying their spacecraft in the shortest possible time, with minimal costs.

These factors have sparked hyper-competition in the launch market – which has seen launch service providers seeking to do more for less, keeping costs low and driving further innovation and expansion of the market.

Some of the key commercial launch service providers globally now include:

• SpaceX, which is indisputably the world’s leading launch services provider, accounting for 95 per cent of the 145 United States launches in 2024⁶ and 87 per cent of commercial satellite launch orders globally, primarily using its Falcon 9 “workhorse” rockets and its Falcon Heavy rockets, both of which make use of its pioneering reusable rocket technology.
• Rocket Lab, having carried out 14 launches placing a total of 33 spacecraft into orbit in 2024. It is also currently developing its fully reusable Neutron Rocket (anticipated to have its first launch in early 2026), intended to directly compete with SpaceX’s Falcon 9. Rocket Lab uses a private orbital launch range in Mahia, New Zealand as one of its primary launch locations.
• Blue Origin, which has developed the New Shepard suborbital launch vehicle (responsible for multiple suborbital flights and landings for space tourism), with its heavy-lift orbital launch vehicle New Glenn (which is also partially reusable) which has completed two launces in 2025, with a third scheduled in early 2026.
• Arianespace, a French multinational company founded in 1980 as the world’s first commercial launch services provider and supporting most European Space Agency missions. It provides launch services to government and commercial satellite operators using Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana as its base and successfully launching the EU's Copernicus Sentinel-1D satellite on board its Ariane 6 rocket this year;
• China Great Wall Industry Corporation, the only commercial organisation authorised by the Chinese Government to provide commercial launch services.
• Orbex and Skyrora – launch providers based in the UK servicing the small satellites market. Orbex’s launch vehicle, Prime, aims to be the first eco-friendly rocket in the world, relying on bio-propane, a sustainable fuel that reduces carbon emissions by 90 per cent compared to conventional rocket fuels. Skyrora recently secured the UK’s first vertical launch operator license from the UK Civil Aviation Authority, clearing a key regulatory milestone in their path to delivering suborbital missions from the SaxaVord Spaceport in the Shetland Islands.
• Gilmour Space Technologies – a venture-capital-backed Australian launch services company providing both dedicated and rideshare launch services to the small satellite market. Gilmour also owns and operates the Bowen Orbital Spaceport in North Queensland (having been granted Australia’s first orbital launch facility licence in March 2024). It completed the maiden test launch of it’s Erin Rocket in July 2025, which was the first launch attempt for an Australian-made rocket into orbit from Australian soil. Gilmour is now refining the rocket, with a view to becoming a direct launch provider to both government entities and private space actors around the world. This sets Australia up to become a major “player” in the global space market going forward.
• Southern Launch – an Australian company providing launch services from its two spaceports: the Koonibba Test Range (the largest commercial rocket testing facility in the Southern Hemisphere, specialising in sub-orbital launches), and the Whalers Way Orbital Launch Complex (one of the only sites in the world that can provide high-cadence launches to polar and sun-synchronous orbits, distinct to the traditional equatorial orbit, which is optimal for agricultural crop surveillance and bushfire/disaster management).
• Innospace – a South Korean launch service company which will be carrying out its first commercial launch from the Alcantara Space Center in Brazil this December.

In other significant recent industry developments, there is an expanding market for small satellite launch services to support the growth in satellite capability in the low-Earth orbit, including CubeSats and Small Sats. This has shifted the industry's focus towards smaller, more cost-effective launch options. Rocket Lab now offers dedicated rideshare flights for small satellites, apart from standard launches, and the rideshare launch market is projected to undergo strong growth in coming years.

In terms of the mechanics of a launch, a spacecraft can be launched from either a government-owned launch facility or (subject to the grant of an operator licence or permit, discussed in further detail below) or a privately-owned facility. Even if a government site is utilised, the launch service provider itself can still be a commercial entity. This is typified by SpaceX, which leases sites at the United States Government launch facilities at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and NASA's Kennedy Space Centre (each in Florida), as well as Vandenberg Space Force Base in California – the three most popular launch sites across all United States launches (well ahead of the 14 current non-federal launch sites, or “spaceports”, licenced by the FAA).⁸

Key considerations and risks in getting to launch

In this section, we outline the key regulatory issues that will arise in any intended new launch mission. These issues are relevant to both launch site operators, launch service providers and even satellite operators. While the specific content of the regulatory regime will naturally depend on the jurisdiction from which a spacecraft is launched, the same key substantive issues identified in this section will invariably arise irrespective of the jurisdiction.

While a review of the regulations applying globally is beyond the intended scope of this article, for illustrative purposes we have outlined the position applying in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom in the discussion that follows.

Licensing

Obtaining an appropriate launch licence or permit is the foundational – and ultimately most critical – regulatory requirement in getting a spacecraft into orbit. Complex regulatory regimes apply to the issue of launch licences irrespective of the jurisdiction.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues commercial space licences. Under the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, a licence is required to launch a vehicle into outer space from the United States, operate a launch site within the United States, re-enter a vehicle from outer space in the United States or operate a re-entry site within the United States. A licence is also required for a United States entity to conduct launch or re-entry activities outside the United States.

The specific licence conditions are set out in Subchapter C of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and include:

• A requirement for the applicant to meet certain financial responsibility requirements (including as to insurance).
• An FAA policy review – involving consideration of whether the proposed activity presents national security or foreign policy/international obligation risks.
• An FAA safety review – with reference to flight plans and accident mitigation plans, and the overarching question of whether a launch (or re-entry) can be conducted without endangering public health and safety and the safety of property.
• An FAA environmental review – which considers the environmental impacts of the launch (or re-entry) with reference to applicable legislation.

In Australia, under the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 (Cth) and supporting regulations, a launch facility licence is required if a person intends to operate a launch facility, while a launch permit is required if a person intends to launch one or more space objects from a launch facility in Australia – with a licence or permit issued by the Australian Space Agency. A permit can authorise a single launch or a particular series of launches depending on the nature of the payloads being carried (with multiple launch authority lowering the compliance burden, costs and delays associated with a new launch mission).

There are a number of core pre-requisites to obtain a licence or permit, including:

• The risk of causing substantial harm to the public or damage to property must be as low as reasonably practicable.
• Any insurance and financial requirements must be satisfied.
• There must be no relevant security, defence or international relations reasons for which the licence or permit should not be granted.
• Environmental impacts of the launch must be adequately addressed.
• The launch facility (for facility licences) or the launch vehicle and flight path (for launch permits) must be as safe as reasonably practicable.
• Adequate technology security plans must be submitted, addressing matters such as the arrangements and procedures for safeguarding the technology to be used in operating the launch facility or conducting the launch and in preventing unauthorised access to the technology, and the applicant’s cybersecurity strategy.
• For launch permits – an adequate space debris mitigation strategy.

A separate high-power rocket permit is also required in Australia if a person intends to launch a high-power rocket from a facility or place (whether fixed or mobile) in Australia.

In the United Kingdom, there are likewise different licences for different types of activity and operators under the Space Industry Act 2018 (UK) (SIA) – including a spaceport licence to operate a launch facility, a range control licence to provide range control services to spaceports and a launch operator licence to conduct a space launch. In each case, the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) must, as part of the licence application, be provided with, amongst others:

• A safety case, showing that identified safety risks have been reduced to a level that is as law as reasonable practicable.
• An assessment of environmental effects, suitable for public consultation, that shows potential environmental effects of the launch have been addressed.
• A draft security program and cyber security strategy with security and cyber risk assessments.

These conditions and pre-requisites in obtaining a licence or permit feed into many of the standalone regulatory issues discussed in further detail below. This supports the characterisation of licensing as indeed the cornerstone of the entire space launch process.

Insurance

Obtaining an appropriate level of insurance is a strict regulatory condition imposed on launch facility operators and launch service providers in every launching jurisdiction across the world. This can be seen as an incident of the applicable laws in most jurisdictions that:

• Impose liability on an entity if a launch activity causes injury or damage to a person or property located in the launching jurisdiction.
• Also commonly require an entity to indemnify the government against claims that may be made against the government by persons in another jurisdiction arising from spaceflight activities. In that regard, under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty⁹ and the 1972 Liability Convention,¹⁰ ultimately the launching state is liable for harm caused to foreign persons or property by spacecraft launched from that jurisdiction, and the launching state may be pursued by a claim commenced by a foreign state on behalf of its nationals in that event.

Requiring launch facility operators and launch service providers to have in place minimum levels of insurance ensures that these dual bases of prospective liability can be met in substance if damage materialises in connection with a launch.

As to the scope of the required insurance, in the United States, all commercial operators that obtain a FAA licence are required to obtain and maintain in effect a liability insurance policy in an amount sufficient to meet the maximum probable loss (MPL) determined by the FAA. The policy must protect the following persons against covered claims by a third party for personal injury or property damage resulting from a launch activity:

• The licensee, its customers, their respective contractors and subcontractors, and the employees of each.
• The United States and its agencies, contractors, subcontractors and personnel.

The MPL reflects the projected loss from covered claims by a third party. While calculated uniquely for each specific launch, it cannot exceed the lesser of US $500 million or the maximum liability insurance available on the world market at a reasonable cost.

Australia uses a similar MPL calculation to quantify the value of the insurance policies that must be obtained by commercial launch facility operators and launch service providers. The process for determining the MPL is set out in the Maximum Probable Loss Methodology, under the Space (Launches and Returns) (Insurance) Rules 2019 (Cth), which takes into account (among other things) third party losses, economic losses and environmental damage from a mishap. The unique MPL calculated for a specific launch mission cannot exceed AU$100 million. As an exception, insurance is not required to be obtained if a commercial entity can demonstrate an ability to assume “direct financial responsibility” for the MPL (for example, through available net assets to meet prospective claims).

In the United Kingdom, launch insurance requirements and limits are calculated under the Modelled Insurance Requirement. While, again, the specific level of insurance required will be unique to each launch licence (based on the likely risks of a proposed launch mission), a “standard mission” (involving a single satellite and a proven launch service provider, platforms and operational practices) requires proof of coverage in the amount of EUR 60 million before a licence will be issued and uniquely, the UK also requires satellite operators looking to procure launches to obtain an orbital licence for such launch procurement. So-called “high-risk” launches with novel and/or unproven techniques or technologies may have a higher insurance requirement.

Environmental obligations

Until more recently, the impact of space activities on the environment received little attention, largely due to the comparatively smaller size of the industry and a small number of annual launches (which had primarily related to government space missions). However, with the changing dynamics of the space industry, and the increase in launches by private actors, space-related environmental concerns are now being scrutinised much more closely by regulators. This trend will continue to intensify as the world transitions to a net zero emissions future, and the collective support from governments, businesses and consumers for environmental sustainability gathers pace.

With respect to space launches, rocket engines use a range of different propellants, so that the specific emissions, and overall environmental impact, associated with a given launch can vary considerably. However, highly refined kerosene propellants, such as Rocket Propellant-1 (RP-1), are among the most popular propellants used by launch service providers because they are cheaper and stable at room temperature (minimising the safety concerns relating to a launch).¹¹  These kinds of propellant are used, for example, in SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets. Unfortunately, from an environmental perspective, kerosene propellants produce black carbon exhaust, which scientists have identified as causing some of the most harmful global warming impacts – with some rockets capable of emitting approximately 10,000 times more black carbon particles than modern turbine engines found in airplanes and jets.¹²  These particles are almost 500 times more efficient at holding heat in the atmosphere than all other sources of soot combined, resulting in an enhanced warming climate effect.¹³

There is also a concern about where emissions from rockets used in a launch are released in the atmosphere. While aircraft release their pollutants within the troposphere and the lower stratosphere, rockets release their pollutants all the way from the surface of the Earth to the mesosphere, with pollution released in upper layers of the atmosphere lasting for a longer time than that produced at lower levels.¹⁴

The significant environmental impact of space launches requires facility operators and launch providers to comply with complex regulatory schemes, potentially spanning different levels of federal, state/territory and local council laws. This can create a major compliance hurdle for new launch missions, and lead to substantial additional costs and project delays in getting to launch. In turn, this can place the launch project under financial pressure. It is therefore critical for satellite and other spacecraft operators planning a launch to ensure they have sufficient capital requirements in place to cater for anticipated delays from obtaining all required environmental approvals.

By way of example, comprehensive environmental impact statements are required to be prepared in connection with a launch under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in the United States and the SIA in the United Kingdom. This requires the identification of appropriate mitigation of environmental risks, and the steps taken to minimise emissions and protect the environment (and human health) from the impact of launch activities.

In Australia, where the operation of a launch facility or the conduct of launch services may have a “significant impact” on the environment (such as impacting on regulated threatened or endangered species, communities and ecosystems), mandatory environmental assessments may be triggered under Commonwealth, state/territory and local council laws.

A salutary recent experience is Southern Launch’s construction of its Whalers Way Orbital Launch Complex on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. The project received Commonwealth environmental approval in October 2024 after having been under consideration for more than three years. The approval was subject to strict conditions, such as an annual launch limit of 36 orbital rockets, six sub-orbital rockets and six rockets outside of daylight hours. Southern Launch is also not permitted to test more than 10 rocket engines in any one year, and is subject to noise limits in providing launch services. Even after obtaining Commonwealth approval, the project also still then required separate approval from the South Australian Planning Minister (a further project delay) before proceeding.

Space debris management obligations

As noted, debris management plans are a requirement for the issue of a launch permit or licence in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, and this is a common incident of space activities licencing regimes in other jurisdictions as well.

The need for an effective debris management plan is just as important in the context of a launch – with the impact of disintegration of the launch vehicle over potentially sensitive and high value areas – as it is for satellites once in orbit.

A debris management plan will generally be expected to align with internationally recognised standards for debris mitigation – such as the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs’ Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines 2010 and Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities 2019. It will need to address how the launch service provider will manage and mitigate the risk of any debris generated (intentional or unintentional). In practical terms, this requires a launch service provider to take systematic actions to reduce adverse effects on the orbital environment by introducing space debris mitigation measures into the launch vehicle’s lifecycle. In turn, this will require the development of space debris mitigation measures to begin early in the launch mission design process to avoid potential licencing approval delays at a later stage.

Importantly, however, while effective debris management serves as a condition to obtain a licence, actual positive obligations to remove debris following a launch are absent from domestic regulatory frameworks and current outer space international treaties. This may evolve in future, with legislators increasingly considering the potential for “operator responsibility”, rather than state responsibility, for launch operations that result in damage outside the jurisdiction.

Cybersecurity

Technological advances in the space industry have, as we outlined earlier, increased the scale of commercial space activities, and have opened the door to new opportunities for private launch providers (and satellite operators demanding their services) to enter the market.

At the same time, however, enhanced technological capability also creates new risks in the space industry. The space economy – and the dynamic range of satellite-based space applications now being leveraged by businesses in diverse sectors – is inherently dependent on the digital infrastructure underlying the broader economy. Space assets and systems are increasingly vulnerable to cyber intrusions, which can compromise the operational capability of launch providers (and satellite operators) and the communications networks on which they depend. This also presents a major threat to national security.

Ground infrastructure – including launch facilities – have been identified as carrying a greater risk of a major cyber attack than satellites and their payloads.¹⁵

Given this threat, launch facility operators and launch service providers should proactively consider and plan for prospective cyber intrusions, and develop comprehensive cyber risk management policies, systems and processes to minimise their vulnerabilities and dependencies – not just as a means to obtain an operating licence (noting the requirement for cyber security strategies and policies to be submitted as a licence precondition in Australia and the United Kingdom, by way of example), but to ensure their ongoing viability.

Export controls

A space launch service provider is most likely to be impacted by local and foreign export controls in connection with a planned launch due to its dual-use nature. For example, a provider may need to import various components, software or technology for use in the construction of a launch vehicle, or in support of a launch (such as space launch vehicle telemetry and communications), and may equally seek to export those materials and services to another country if the intended launch site is located offshore.

For illustrative purposes, the United States has one of the more complex export control regimes anywhere in the world in relation to space products. Export controls are spread across the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The ITAR is administered by the US Department of State, and applies to the export of defence-related items and services listed on the United States Munitions List (USML), which have potential military applications and may compromise national defence in foreign hands. The EAR is administered by the US Department of Commerce, and applies to items listed in the Commerce Control List (CCL), which are seen to be less sensitive from a security perspective.

However, in an attempt to modernise export control policies and reduce barriers for United States companies to compete in the commercial space industry, on 17 October 2024 the US Department of State’s Directorate of Defence Trade Controls issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the ITAR in number of material respects.¹⁶  Notably, there will be four new licence exemptions to support civil space activities, including a “space activity exemption” that will provide authorisation for certain transfers of defence articles and defence services supporting space launches, and for the transfer of certain services related to the transmission of space launch vehicle telemetry.

This may open the door for greater flexibility for launch providers, and a better opportunity for foreign commercial entities to offer space launch facilities to United States companies in future. These opportunities may be enhanced for certain countries under bilateral agreements entered into with the United States. For example, under a Technology Safeguards Agreement between Australia and the United States, which entered into force on 23 July 2024, there is a mandated legal and technical framework for the protection of United States space launch technology in Australia to prevent unauthorised access to the technology. These protections are likely to facilitate greater participation by United States government entities, and private companies, to participate in space launches and related activities in Australia involving sensitive United States space technology.

Health and safety obligations

Launch activities can pose significant safety risks, including:

• A risk to populations in the vicinity of launch sites and in spaceflight paths – as a result of the launch vehicle, or debris from the launch vehicle or the annexed spacecraft, falling onto the ground on Earth and causing damage to persons or property.
• Ground-based operations at the launch facility – in particular, risks relating to the storage and use of hazardous substances used as fuels in the launch vehicle.

Aside from being a core requirement to obtain a licence (see, for example, the conditions relating to the licensing framework in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom outlined above), domestic regulations impose specific substantive health and safety obligations that launch facility operators and launch service providers must comply with. This may include regulations imposing a general duty for all employers in whatever industry to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and that that people who are not employees are not exposed to health or safety risks from the work activities. Examples of obligations of this kind are seen in the United Kingdom’s Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (UK) and Australia’s Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) and its corresponding state and territory laws.

Depending on the jurisdiction, there will usually also be a raft of additional more specific obligations under standalone health and safety regulations on matters such as hazardous substances and explosives – see, for example, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015, the Explosives Regulations 2014 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 in the United Kingdom.

Takeaways

Launch facility operators and launch service providers must navigate a complex regulatory environment to successfully get a satellite or other spacecraft into orbit – traversing substantive areas such as licensing, insurance, environment and climate concerns, health and safety regulations, space debris mitigation, cybersecurity and, in the event collaboration is sought with foreign entities, export controls. There is a trend of space companies now increasingly regulatory forum-shopping and countries which are looking to attract launch service providers in order to have sovereign launch capability adapting and passing industry-friendly laws, regulations and policies for space activities, including launches.

It is important for launch companies to ensure a proactive and diligent approach in not only complying with these substantive obligations, but more fundamentally in putting in place an effective risk management plan at an early stage in the mission planning process, and in openly engaging with regulators throughout the pre-launch and launch period. Pursuing a regulatory race to the bottom would be a short-sighted strategy if it is looking to grow and gain credibility in the industry as well as attracting financial investments.

Launch facility operators and service providers should pay close attention to enhanced obligations they are likely to face in future, particularly in relation to environmental and climate mitigation measures and cybersecurity, given the significance of these risks in a broader economic context as the world transitions to net zero emissions and as technology and digitisation continue to drive economic integration and convergence.

A rigorous approach to compliance and risk management can minimise project delays and spiralling costs in connection with a space launch. In turn, this can enhance the appeal of launch operators and providers to commercial spacecraft operators who wish to get to orbit as quickly as possible to leverage growing commercial opportunities in outer space, and the ever-growing demand for space services from businesses, consumers and governments across the globe. In a hyper-competitive launch market, this can be a genuine game changer for launch entities in a dynamic and expanding space economy.