From Debris to Design: Scientists Map a Circular, Self‑Sustaining Space Economy

Launch activity is accelerating: 2025 is projected to see about 300 orbital launches, placing more rockets, satellites and hardware into Earth’s vicinity than ever before. Each liftoff emits greenhouse gases and ozone‑affecting chemicals, raising concerns about the environmental footprint of an expanding space industry.

A team of researchers has addressed these issues in a paper published in the journal Chem Circularity. They argue that circular‑economy principles — widely used in automotive and consumer electronics industries — should be applied to spacecraft and satellites across their full lifecycles, from design and manufacture to repair, reuse and end‑of‑life recovery.

The paper notes that partial reuse innovations such as SpaceX’s Falcon 9 have cut launch costs and unlocked many new missions. But cheaper access to orbit has also contributed to rising congestion and greater volumes of hardware, much of which is never recovered.

“As space activity accelerates, from mega‑constellations of satellites to future lunar and Mars missions, we must make sure exploration doesn't repeat the mistakes made on Earth,” said Jin Xuan, chemical engineer at the University of Surrey and the study’s senior author. “A truly sustainable space future starts with technologies, materials, and systems working together.”

The authors highlight that valuable materials and components are rarely recovered: many satellites are moved to so‑called graveyard orbits or fragment into debris, while others are deorbited and burn up on re‑entry — effectively losing reusable metals and electronics.

Practical pathways to a circular space economy

To reduce waste and the environmental costs of launches, the paper recommends several practical measures:

• Design for longevity and repairability: build satellites and modules that can be serviced, upgraded or reconfigured in orbit instead of being discarded.
• Modularity and standard interfaces: adopt common docking, power and communications standards so components can be swapped or reused across platforms.
• In‑orbit manufacturing and spare‑parts production: produce replacement parts in space to reduce launch frequency and enable on‑site repairs.
• Refuelling and maintenance hubs: repurpose space stations or dedicated platforms as service centers for refueling, repair and refurbishment.
• Soft recovery and reuse: develop soft‑landing systems (airbags, parachutes, controlled descent) to return hardware intact for refurbishment.
• Active debris capture: use robotic arms, nets or capture vehicles to reclaim valuable objects or clear hazardous fragments.
• Material innovation and tracking: create materials and components designed for recycling in orbit and deploy data systems that monitor hardware health and lifetime.

“We need innovation at every level, from materials that can be reused or recycled in orbit and modular spacecraft that can be upgraded instead of discarded, to data systems that track how hardware ages in space,” Xuan added.

Beyond technology, the authors stress the need for international collaboration and governance frameworks that incentivize reuse, recovery and responsible end‑of‑life practices. They argue that connecting chemistry, design and policy will be essential to make sustainability the default model for space activity.

Implementing a circular approach could reduce the number of launches, lower environmental impact, and make space operations more resilient and cost‑efficient — helping to ensure that accelerated exploration does not repeat terrestrial mistakes.