WSBW Underscores Emerging Dynamics in Space Coordination and Security

This year’s World Space Business Week and Space Defense and Security Summit highlighted a sector in transition.

Across panels, fireside chats and hallway conversations, defense officials, commercial operators and industry executives pressed on coordination gaps, mission vulnerabilities and the systems needed to keep pace with modern operations in an dynamic and contested space environment.

Here are our four takeaways from the Novaspace events.

Takeaway 1: Global cooperation depends on interoperability – politically and technically.

Europe has done a lot of talking about space over the past few years – with the International Space Summitt in Paris preceding WSBW. Member states will reconvene in December for the Rome Intermediate Ministerial Meeting, advancing discussions on European space autonomy – including human spaceflight initiatives – with intentions to turn talks into action.

But the EU isn’t pursuing space isolationism – global cooperation will remain a key part of its long-term strategy, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher said in a Sept. 14 fireside chat.

“We firmly believe that space is global. It’s international, it’s cooperation. But we need to be a stronger, good partner,” Aschbacher said.

But effective cooperation necessitates interoperability – both from a policy and technology standpoint.

Interoperability spans technology, procedures, information and culture – and all of them must align, Air Marshal Paul Godfrey, assistant chief of space operations for future concepts and partnerships at Space Force, said on a Sept. 15 panel.

Right now, nations use different systems and data formats, forcing them to “air‑gap” information between platforms instead of sharing it seamlessly, Air Marshal Godfrey said. “We just need to be striving for the same standards so that it doesn’t matter what sensor it is,” he said. Common data standards are the foundation; once those are in place, shared tactics and doctrine can follow, he said.

Takeaway 2: The ground segment has become a primary target – and mission resilience must span the entire system.

In the past, there’s been a disconnect between the threat landscape and the level of attention to ground segment receives. This is changing.

“The historical reality is that the spacecraft was the most expensive asset, and usually the only asset was in GEO. Realistically, you couldn’t send a mechanic out to fix your spacecraft,” Phil Carrai, president of Kratos Space, said on a Sept. 15 panel.

Ground systems have become far more complex and tightly linked to what happens in space, and that’s making them a prime vulnerability. It’s much easier to cyberattack or physically damage a ground site than a satellite, so these facilities are now viewed as major targets, Carrai said.

“Ground sites are now targets, and while they always were, the attention always went to the space layer. Now it’s the complete system,” he said.

Xavier Cavelan, SVP of Safran Space, stressed that mission safety depends on viewing risk holistically.

“I will discuss about the mission itself, and not who’s owning the infrastructure or where it is located… we have to consider the complete chain from the ground segment up to the RF equipment on board, including the global network, including the software on board, including the software on ground, including the treatment of the data,” he said.

Enrique Fraga Moreira, GM of space systems EST at GMV, underscored how this shift changes resilience strategies.

“It’s true that we change from protecting infrastructure to protecting the mission. You need to think about resilience in a different way,” he said.

Takeaway 3: Satellite control strategies are shifting as customers weigh sovereignty and risk.

As geopolitical tensions evolve, customers are reconsidering how much control they need over their space assets – and whether leasing or owning best supports their long-term mission needs.

“We have experience with both sides – we provided the sovereign system and also the leasing program,” Dr. Eugene Kim, EVP at Satrec Initiative, said on a Sept. 17 panel, referring to Satrec Initiative’s SpaceEye-T leasing service as “the Airbnb of remote sensing.”

Customers who lease tend to already have some assets and want more capacity without paying full price, he said.

Meanwhile, organizations without satellites of their own often prefer ownership even though it’s more expensive.

“We’re seeing an evolution in the marketplace, and there is definitely a demand where customers want to own their own satellites,” Matt Jenkins, chief space systems officer at Vantor, said on the panel. “But I think there’s a little learning that it has to be done at the true cost of ownership.”

That cost extends far beyond purchasing hardware – including lifetime operations and long-term support.

Recent real-world events have also left an impression.

“And this is all stemming out of the results that came from Starlink turning off access in Ukraine, giving people concern that they need the keys to be able to do their own capability when or if that would happen,” Jenkins said.

Takeaway 4: AI is essential for future mission operations – but it must be built on solid foundations.

AI was one of the most frequently cited enablers throughout WSBW and SDSS, but speakers cautioned that the technology is only as useful as the infrastructure and data behind it.

“Without a good infrastructure, without good data, without good compute, you really don’t have good AI,” Kratos’ Carrai said.

AI will be required to manage modern space operations – especially as missions grow more dynamic and threats more rapid – but it cannot be casually “added” to existing systems.

Solving the complex system‑to‑system engineering challenges will involve AI, but the technology has real limitations, Col. Jon Strizzi, director of the Space Systems Integration Office, said in a Sept. 16 fireside chat.

“Some folks will use words like ‘Well, we’re just going to sprinkle some AI on that,’” Col. Strizzi noted. But it’s not that simple, he said.

Models must be trained properly, operators must understand tool behavior and mission architectures must be designed for AI‑assisted decision making from the outset, Col. Strizzi said.

Because modern threats happen quickly and at scale, humans will depend on AI for fast decision support, he said.

That’s where concepts like “operator in the loop” versus “on the loop” matter – AI will help humans choose how to respond – not entirely replace them, he said.