|
Technology: Governance:
The Governance of Space Projects: Towards New Forms of Economic Development for Humanity
by Mr. Alberto Cossu, MBA International Management Consultant & Geopolitical Analyst Sassari, Italy
Link for Citation Purposes: https://www.bwwsociety.org/journal/archive/the-governance-of-space-projects.htm |
The Limits of the Possible Can Only Be Defined
by Going Beyond Them into the Impossible.
(Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of the Future, 1962)
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, space has progressively transitioned from an elite scientific domain to a theatre of global geopolitical competition. If, during the Cold War, the space race was an expression of ideological opposition between the United States and the Soviet Union, in the current context, the stakes have broadened. It is no longer just about demonstrating technological superiority, but about securing long-term strategic, economic, and symbolic advantages. Space is now a functional extension of the terrestrial sphere, essential for communications, satellite observation, crisis management, and, in perspective, access to new extraterrestrial resources. In this scenario, traditional actors—the United States, China, Europe, and India—are recalibrating their strategies to ensure a lasting competitive advantage. Simultaneously, new players such as the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and Brazil are entering the space arena with agile approaches and targeted investments. All share a growing awareness: the ability to achieve and maintain a significant position in space no longer depends solely on the extent of resources invested, but also on their efficient management.
This article aims to analyze an aspect often overlooked in the public and academic debate on space policy: the managerial factor as a determining element for the affirmation of technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy. Through a review of major international experiences, the contribution intends to highlight how organizational models, managerial capabilities, and decision-making structures directly influence the effectiveness of space missions, the competitiveness of the industry, and the geopolitical projection of states. Particular attention will be given to the role of Italy, a relevant but often underestimated actor in the European and global landscape, with a competitive space industry and a recent regulatory overhaul that could represent a turning point. Ultimately, the objective is to show that, in the 21st century, the conquest of space will be less a matter of mere power than of strategic governance capacity and systemic vision.
2. The Global Geopolitical Context
The spatial dimension has transformed into a structured arena of international competition, where strategic, economic, and symbolic objectives intertwine. The United States, China, India, and Europe—the four main poles of current space power—are adopting different but converging approaches in recognizing the value of space as a critical asset for national security, technological innovation, and global influence.
In the United States, space policy has undergone a significant transition from NASA's centrality to a growing synergy with the private sector. The paradigm introduced by Space Policy Directive-1 (2017) and consolidated by subsequent administrations has redefined priorities: return to the Moon through the Artemis program, public-private cooperation (especially with SpaceX), and leadership in global space governance. This model stands out for its ability to integrate industrial innovation and strategic leadership, with a management structure strongly oriented towards results and long-term sustainability.
China perhaps represents the most emblematic case of a centralized strategic approach. The Chinese space program, under the direct control of the China National Space Administration (CNSA) and the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), combines long-term vision and executive coherence. With the Chang’e 5 mission, the Tiangong space station, and recent ambitions towards Mars and the Moon, Beijing has demonstrated a surprising organizational and planning capability, supported by a state-controlled technological-industrial ecosystem. China conceives space as an instrument of international legitimacy and as a pillar for the modernization of its armed forces and industry.
India, despite fewer resources than other major players, has built a solid reputation for efficient project management and the ability to achieve scientific objectives at extremely low costs. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has successfully combined scientific rigor, bureaucratic simplification, and a results-oriented approach, as demonstrated by the Chandrayaan and Mangalyaan missions. India now aims to strengthen its space autonomy and position itself as a reliable provider of services and technology for other emerging countries.
The European Union, through the European Space Agency (ESA), adopts a multilateral model that reflects the complexity of continental governance. Although programs like Galileo, Copernicus, and Ariane represent technological excellences, Europe suffers from a certain slowness in decision-making and fragmentation in industrial management. The recent debate on European strategic autonomy, fueled by the war in Ukraine and dependence on extra-European suppliers, has relaunched the need for a qualitative leap in planning and management capacity.
The Russian Federation continues to play a significant role in the global space arena, although its strategic and operational weight has changed radically compared to the Soviet era. The technological legacy of the space race, which saw the USSR as a pioneer in many endeavors (Sputnik, Gagarin, Luna), still forms the basis of Russian capabilities, but the last two decades have yielded results in terms of innovation, technical reliability, and integrated management capacity below expectations. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia maintained a central position in the International Space Station (ISS) thanks to the Russian orbital segment and Soyuz launchers, which for years were the only means of human space transport after the Space Shuttle's retirement. However, the Russian space system has been heavily affected by industrial fragmentation, reduced funding, and the loss of qualified personnel. In recent years, Russia has attempted to relaunch its space program with symbolically important projects, such as the Luna series of lunar missions. However, the failure of the Luna-25 mission in August 2023, the first Russian probe to our satellite since 1976, highlighted the structural problems afflicting the sector: engineering, managerial, and organizational shortcomings, as well as a lack of transparency. At the same time, the war in Ukraine has further isolated Russia from many Western collaborations, including the suspension of ESA's participation in joint missions such as ExoMars. This isolation has pushed Moscow to strengthen cooperation with China and other Global South countries, aiming to create alternative space infrastructures (e.g., ILRS – International Lunar Research Station in partnership with the Chinese CNSA).
The Russian space system remains highly centralized. Roscosmos performs both regulatory and industrial functions, without a clear distinction between strategic direction, technical execution, and quality control. This model, which is not highly oriented towards transparency and cost containment, has shown signs of chronic inefficiency. The main companies in the sector (such as RKK Energia, Khrunichev, NPO Lavochkin) operate in an environment with little competition and poor integration with global innovation dynamics. The absence of a dynamic startup ecosystem and incentives for management quality (as is the case in India or the USA) makes it difficult for Russia to initiate a structural transformation. Despite these limitations, Russia retains solid engineering expertise, a strategic industrial base, and still relevant technical know-how. The country could maintain a significant position in the global space race, but on the condition of initiating a profound renewal of its management model and opening up to new forms of selective cooperation. The attempt to build non-Western alliances (with China, Iran, India, BRICS) can represent a way to compensate for technological isolation, but it risks accentuating the geopolitical rather than scientific or economic character of Russian space choices. Without management reform and an effective ability to contain costs, Russia risks remaining a symbolic rather than competitive actor in the new space era.
Alongside these major players, new space powers are emerging. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has managed to build a functional and competitive space agency in just a few years, launching the Hope probe to Mars through an effective combination of international scientific partnerships and strategic investments. South Korea, Israel, and Brazil are also developing autonomous capabilities, often relying on industrial consortia and collaboration formulas with more mature agencies. The 21st-century space race is no longer characterized solely by technological supremacy, but by a balance between technical capability, efficient governance, and strategic planning. In this context, management—understood as the ability to orient, coordinate, and optimize resources—becomes a differentiating element, as much as the availability of funds or engineering capabilities. Whoever succeeds in translating political vision into effective organizational architecture will have a decisive advantage in the new geopolitics of orbit.
3. The Role of Management in Space Competition
In the context of the new space race, the availability of economic and technological resources, while necessary, is no longer sufficient to guarantee success. The true differentiating factor today lies in the ability to efficiently and coherently govern the entire life cycle of space programs, from strategic ideation to operational execution. It is in this sense that management takes on a strategic value: it is not just a technical function, but a structural element of technological sovereignty.
Space activities are, by their nature, characterized by high complexity, high risks, long time horizons, and interdependencies among public, private, and international actors. In this context, project management—understood as the ability to plan, coordinate, and monitor complex activities—becomes crucial to avoid inefficiencies, delays, and budget overruns. The historical example of NASA's Space Shuttle program, which experienced significant cost escalation and delays, highlights the limitations of fragmented and inflexible governance. In contrast, the new paradigm adopted by SpaceX and progressively by NASA with Artemis favors an agile structure, clear objective definition, and iterative management, capable of adapting to unforeseen events. It is not just about cutting costs, but about optimizing the decision-making cycle, reducing bureaucratic levels, empowering teams, and shortening the time between conception, testing, and launch. This managerial capability also has direct effects on the strategic resilience of missions, i.e., their ability to evolve rapidly in response to new geopolitical or technological conditions.
Another critical element is the management of human resources and technical knowledge. Space programs require multidisciplinary teams, often distributed across multiple countries and organizations. The ability to build collaborative environments, share standards, ensure knowledge continuity, and promote incremental innovation is now a central competence for space agencies and companies. In this sense, the presence of integrated information systems, a culture of learning-by-doing, and the valorization of human capital become instruments of competitive advantage.
A further area of reflection concerns the relationship between public and private sectors. Partnership models that work are those where the rules of the game are clear, incentives are aligned, and responsibilities are well-defined. So-called Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in space—as in the case of NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program—have shown that effective governance can attract private investment, accelerate timelines, and improve technical quality. Conversely, where decisional opacity or political interference dominates, projects tend to slow down or stall.
Finally, management is also a political lever. A country or agency that demonstrates its ability to effectively manage its space programs enhances its international credibility, attracts scientific and industrial partners, and strengthens its capacity to influence the rules of global space governance. In an era where space economy, space security, and orbital sustainability are discussed, the ability to propose replicable and reliable management models is itself a form of soft power. Management, therefore, is not an ancillary function of space strategy, but represents its operational core. In an increasingly competitive environment, whoever can structure lean, resilient, and results-oriented organizational architectures will be able to dictate the global space agenda for decades to come.
4. Success Stories: Between Public and Private
To understand how management directly impacts the effectiveness and sustainability of space policies, it is useful to examine some concrete experiences, both national and corporate. These cases highlight how different organizational models, if well-managed, can lead to comparable results in terms of efficiency, innovation, and strategic projection. The trajectories of the United States, India, and China, as well as those of companies like SpaceX, Rocket Lab, or Axiom Space, show that there is no single winning model, but that the cohesion between strategic vision and managerial structure is the true multiplier of success.
4.1. National Experiences
United States – A Hybrid Public-Private Ecosystem
NASA, following the structural slowdown after the end of the Shuttle program, has undergone a profound transformation, focusing on greater managerial flexibility and integration with the private sector. The COTS and subsequently Commercial Crew programs demonstrated that by delegating the development and management of launch vehicles and capsules to the market, it is possible to reduce costs, accelerate timelines, and maintain strategic control over critical operations. The adoption of Fixed-Price and Milestone-based contracts incentivized efficiency, empowering companies without compromising technical quality. The Artemis program, although still under development, constitutes a further test of NASA's ability to orchestrate a complex network of public and private partners within a framework of adaptive and multi-level governance. The mission's management—structured in coordinated work packages, clear milestones, and periodic requirement reviews—represents an example of a mature project architecture, capable of supporting strategic ambitions with finite resources.
India – Efficiency as a Cultural Value
The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has built its success on a systemic approach to management, based on cost containment, realistic planning, and operational autonomy. The Chandrayaan and Mangalyaan missions—accomplished with a fraction of Western budgets—were made possible by an organizational culture founded on lean management, highly cohesive teams, and rapid decision-making. The absence of administrative superstructures, along with a strong internalization of processes, has allowed ISRO to effectively manage even complex projects like the recent Chandrayaan-3 mission. These organizational models will likely form the basis of India's upcoming Mars missions planned for 2031. India has also successfully integrated the emerging private sector into specific roles, maintaining central control over governance and strategic objectives. This pragmatic and adaptable hybrid model is now evolving towards more open forms, with the emergence of space startups and the creation of IN-SPACe (Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Center), which will act as an interface between public and private sectors.
China – Verticalization and Centralized Planning
China has developed a profoundly different model, based on long-term planning and vertical control of industrial and scientific structures. The CNSA acts in close coordination with the central government, while conglomerates like CASC and CASIC operate as executive arms of national strategies. This structure has ensured coherence and executive speed, making possible an impressive series of successes: Tiangong space station, Mars rover, Chang’e lunar program. The Chinese logic favors stability and incremental progression, with five-year development cycles and 10-20 year objectives. Although less transparent and participatory than Western models, the Chinese system demonstrates a capacity for mobilization and political-industrial alignment that represents a source of competitive advantage, especially in dual-use sectors.
Europe – A Technological Power in Search of Managerial Cohesion
The European Union, through the European Space Agency (ESA), represents one of the world's leading space powers from a technological and scientific standpoint. However, the European management model often suffers from fragmented governance, due to ESA's intergovernmental nature and the coexistence with the national space policies of individual member states. Successful programs like Galileo, Copernicus, and Ariane are the result of technical excellence, but also of a complex decision-making process, characterized by multi-level negotiations and the difficulty of ensuring clear timelines and responsibilities. In recent years, Europe has recognized the need to strengthen its managerial approach to space, within the broader context of strategic autonomy. Initiatives such as the European Union Space Programme (EUSP) and the strengthening of EUSPA (European Union Agency for the Space Programme) aim to simplify governance and more effectively integrate civilian, military, and industrial instruments. However, the challenge remains to reconcile technical leadership with a rapid and flexible execution capacity in a highly complex political context. The future of Europe in space will therefore depend on its ability to adopt more integrated, agile, and results-oriented management, capable of leveraging accumulated know-how without being trapped by institutional sluggishness. In this perspective, the debate on the Ariane 6 launcher, the new IRIS² constellation, and public-private cooperation in the new space sector will be litmus tests of the European system's managerial maturation.
Private Experiences
SpaceX – Organizational Discontinuity and Execution Speed
Founded by Elon Musk in 2002, SpaceX has revolutionized the space industry through a radical break with established practices. Its management model is based on vertical production, a culture of controlled risk, rapid iteration, and a continuous drive towards cost reduction. The "fail fast, fix faster" approach has allowed the company to test and correct technologies in extremely short times, without compromising the safety of human missions. The success of Falcon 9 and the Dragon spacecraft, as well as the ongoing development of Starship, demonstrate the effectiveness of strong entrepreneurial leadership combined with a lean, horizontal, and problem-solving-oriented organization. SpaceX has also redefined the relationship between public and private, becoming a strategic supplier to NASA while maintaining significant operational autonomy, capable of influencing the US space agenda.
Rocket Lab – Specialization and Modularity
Rocket Lab, a New Zealand-American startup, has focused on a niche management model, concentrating on light and frequent orbital launches. The philosophy is the opposite of that of large national programs: small size, rapid production, modularity, and accessible costs. The Electron vehicle, although not competitive with Falcon 9 in terms of payload, represents a managerial success as it meets a specific market need: rapid, economical, and customized launches.
Axiom Space, Blue Origin, and Others – Governance of Ambition
Axiom Space, involved in developing the first private space station, and Blue Origin, founded by Jeff Bezos, show how the management of ambition must translate into credible governance, strong partnerships, and access to stable funding. Both companies face the problem of transitioning from prototyping to industrial scale, which requires different managerial capabilities than those typical of startups. The challenge for these companies is to transform vision into sustainability, avoiding the trap of overpromising.
Overall, the comparative analysis suggests that there is no single "ideal model" of space management, but that the coherence between strategic objectives, organizational architecture, and managerial tools is key to competitiveness. Both public agencies and private companies that have successfully integrated political vision, technical expertise, and operational discipline have achieved the most significant results. Management, in this sense, is what transforms potential into power.
The Italian Case: Opportunities and Limits of an Evolving Ecosystem
Italy, while not possessing the global-scale space capabilities of major powers, has traditionally been one of the most advanced actors in the European and international landscape. Its relevance is based on technological excellence in niche sectors, a consolidated industrial tradition, and an entrepreneurial fabric capable of innovation, as well as public action that, in recent years, has begun to reconfigure itself in a more strategic key. In this sense, the Italian case represents an interesting laboratory for observing how the quality of management can amplify or, conversely, limit the potential of a spatially active country that lacks autonomous critical mass. The Small Mission to Mars project, scientifically led by Professor Giacomo Cao of the University of Cagliari, involves various public and private entities, including three space districts in Emilia, Campania, and Sardinia, the Polytechnic University of Milan, Cira, Avio, Telespazio, Ali, and numerous other companies. This constitutes an example of an organizational model where a network is created to achieve scientific and technological objectives, as well as managerial ones, following the latest organizational trends in the space sector.
Italy is the third largest contributor to the European Space Agency (ESA) and boasts a significant presence in key programs such as Copernicus, Galileo, Vega, and ExoMars. The national industry, with companies like Thales Alenia Space Italia, Avio, Argotec, OHB Italia, and a widespread network of highly specialized SMEs, is involved in almost all phases of the space supply chain: from the design of payloads and satellites to the production of launchers, ground infrastructure, and data processing. This presence, however, does not automatically translate into leadership capability, precisely because a fully integrated strategic direction between public and private still needs to be developed. Political choices are often conditioned by budgetary constraints, ministerial rotations, and a fragmented vision of the role of space in national industrial policy. In this context, management—both at the agency and corporate levels—must take on not only operational efficiency but also the construction of vision and institutional coherence. A similar approach to what has been done in France with CNES and the SpaceFounders Program could represent a good practice to replicate.
Conclusions: Management as a Lever of Space Power
The analysis clearly demonstrates how, in the current historical phase of global space competition, success no longer depends solely on possessing advanced technologies or having extensive economic resources, but increasingly on the ability to manage space programs efficiently, strategically, and flexibly. In other words, management has become a multiplier of space power. In interplanetary missions, in the construction of orbiting infrastructures, in the management of satellite constellations, and in the development of a private space economy, the quality of organizational decisions, the solidity of partnerships, and the clarity of governance are as decisive as the precision of engineering calculations. The difference between programs that advance and projects that stall often lies in the ability to avoid waste, meet deadlines, manage risks, and adapt quickly to changes in the technical, political, and commercial context.
In this sense, the hybrid public-private models that characterize the US experience (with NASA and SpaceX at the forefront) have proven functional, allowing for risk distribution, innovation stimulation, and acceleration of timelines. Conversely, overly centralized or fragmented systems—like some configurations of European governance—suffer from decision-making inertia and poor adaptability. India and China offer two alternative models of efficiency: one based on lean governance and managerial pragmatism, the other on integrated planning and vertical mobilization of resources. The Indian model, in particular, allows for strong cost containment by using predominantly domestic technological solutions, also providing a strong impetus for innovation in the industrial system linked to the space economy.
Italy, too, with recent regulatory reforms and the emergence of a vibrant industrial ecosystem, now has the opportunity to make a qualitative leap. To do so, however, it must elevate the level of its managerial capacity: within agencies, companies, universities, and research centers. It is necessary to train not only engineers and scientists but also project managers, systems analysts, procurement experts, and risk managers capable of leading complex programs in international contexts. This implies investments in interdisciplinary training, the creation of stable coordination structures, the adoption of independent evaluation tools, and a results-oriented culture that rewards efficiency and transparency. It is also fundamental to strengthen the strategic steering function of the State, which can no longer limit itself to the role of financier or regulator, but must act as the architect of a shared vision, capable of mobilizing the entire country system.
Finally, in a context of increasing geopolitical competition in space, management is not only an operational tool but also an indicator of technological sovereignty and institutional maturity. Those who manage better lead. Those who can adapt structures, incentives, and resources to coherent strategic objectives dictate the rules of the game. In this logic, managerial efficiency and effectiveness become not only a condition for technical success but an essential component of contemporary space power. The future of space will be written by those who know how to plan, guide, and transform it into concrete value—not only economic but also political, scientific, and cultural. Management, from an invisible factor, is now the true center of gravity of the global space race.
References