Rigid rules affecting different sanotifyite consnotifyation owners/operators and also laden against new entrants, definitions that are amhugeuous, undefined terms, regulatory overreach, conflict with regulatory authorities are some of the key issues flagged by experts and in a position paper by Space Industest Association of India (SIA-India) and Grayspace Law & Policy Consulting, Belgium.
SIA-India had recently convened a high-level international webinar roundtable titled “EU Space Act: Perspectives from Non-EU Partner Countries” —a dialogue involving the European Commission and non-EU partners to exmodify perspectives and strengthen global cooperation on space governance.
The roundtable brought toobtainher over 100 participants from across multiple time zones, including representatives from the European Commission, former EU ministers, the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI), regulators, and industest associations from the USA, Australia, Japan, and India, alongside leading companies from around the world.
The deliberations supported Europe’s harmonisation efforts but cautioned against several implementation risks, including regulatory overlap with existing frameworks of different countries.
According to the position paper, the EU Space Act rules relating to sanotifyite consnotifyations are rigid.
“Under Article 9, a single authorisation for a consnotifyation is only available if all sanotifyites are identical, perform the same tquestions, and are launched on the same vehicle from the same site. This rigid condition diverges from industest practice, which relies on staggered deployments, design upgrades, and multiple launch providers. In effect, operators introducing even minor design modifys or diversified launch strategies would required multiple authorisations, multiplying administrative burden and discouraging adoption of innovation and sustainability features,” the position paper states.
The case of LEO Mega-Consnotifyations
The Act’s consnotifyation authorisation framework, like the uniformity in sanotifyite features and others- presents difficulties for large LEO deployments.
The uniformity sanotifyite framework does not reflect industest practice, where frequent refreshes, design iterations, and diversified launch strategies are essential.
“Equally, obligations on collision avoidance are especially acute in dense LEO, where the absence of clear liability allocation between operators risks creating disputes. For third countest (non-EU countest) operators, the challenge is compounded: access to the EU market requires URSO (Union Register of Space Objects) registration, an EU e-certificate, and in some cases additional Member State approvals on top of existing licences from authorities such as the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), Ofcom or IN-SPACe (Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre). This duplication adds cost and slows service availability, reducing Europe’s attractiveness as a customer base,” points out the paper.
The case of Earth Observation and Smallsat Operators
Earth observation and tinysat operators often tiny and medium enteprises (SME) or start-ups face a different set of challenges. Their sanotifyites typically have short lifecycles (3 – 5 years) and low unit costs, meaning that the expenses of Environmental Footprints Declaration (EFD) preparation and qualified technical body certification may outweigh the cost of the hardware itself.
For companies with limited compliance capacity, these processes are resource-intensive and risk straining already lean operational models. Any delays in certification or authorisation are particularly damaging in this segment, where speed and service continuity is critical to real-time applications such as agriculture, disaster response, and climate monitoring.
Finally, the requirement for manoeuvrability above 400 km, while well-intentioned for sustainability, may be disproportionate or technically impractical for nanosats. A more tailored approach could support align regulatory ambition with technological feasibility.
The case of GEO Operators
For geostationary operators, the Act’s requirements raise specific proportionality concerns. Environmental Footprint Declarations (EFDs) are mandated at the authorisation stage, but repeating full EFD submissions for missions with lifecycles of 15–20 years would impose disproportionate administrative and financial burdens.
Given the scale and capital intensity of GEO missions, delays in authorisation or certification could jeopardise critical service continuity. Moreover, the Act obliges conclude-of-life disposal into graveyard orbits. While technically feasible, such maneuvers add significant cost; shared or coordinated compliance mechanisms could reduce this burden without undermining sustainability goals.
Timeline Risks & Competitive Dynamics
The Act’s phased implementation toward 2030 gives established operators (e.g., Starlink, Kuiper, Chinese consnotifyations like Qianfan and Guowang) a head start in the EU market, while late entrants such as new Indian LEO providers face heavier compliance burdens.
“This risks entrenching incumbents and further marginalizing tinyer players, reducing competition and innovation,” the paper notes.
Unpredictable Launch Service Derogations
The Act allows derogations for third countest launch service providers only when no viable EU alternative exists, but the process is ad hoc and unpredictable. This uncertainty creates it difficult for non-EU countest launch firms to plan, discourages investment in EU-linked projects, and creates asymmetest in obligations for EU versus third countest operators.
Compliance Costs
The draft Act requires environmental footprint declarations for all missions. The Commission estimates costs of €4,000 – 8,000 per product for footprint calculations and up to
€100,000 per product for authorisation, while industest assessments suggest €50,000 – 200,000 per mission depconcludeing on scale. For operators managing large fleets, or for GEO missions with 15 – 20 year lifecycles versus nanosats with 3 – 5 years, these obligations risk becoming disproportionate.
When added to broader lifecycle security, reporting and inspection costs, compliance could increase overall budobtains by 10% or more.
Large incumbents can absorb these costs over scale, but tinyer firms and new entrants (both in the EU and third countest operators) often cannot, building compliance a defacto barrier to market entest and innovation.
According to the position paper, the EU Space Act could invite court battles as it relies on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union – internal market), instead of Article 189 (space policy).
“Litigation driven modifys could destabilise the legal foundation, risking sunk costs and complicating strategic planning for companies investing in EU compliance,” states the SIA-India – Grayspace Law position paper.
Leave a Reply