Keywords

1 Introduction

The fascination with space-related activities has roots dating back to at least the beginning of the Cold War (Jora et al., 2023). However, for many years, these activities remained beyond the reach of private companies and certainly out of reach for end customers (Vidmar, 2020). While people are familiar with significant events like the Soviet Union’s launch of the first satellite into space or the American moon landing (Gupta et al., 2022), these occurrences were distant news read in the media rather than firsthand experiences for people. The dominance of powerful governments played a central role in keeping the space ecosystem a realm exclusive to a handful of nations (Gupta et al., 2022), leaving the rest of the world as mere spectators. Over the last two decades, a notable shift occurred with the private sector making significant inroads into the space ecosystem (Bousedra, 2023; Vidmar, 2020; Weinzierl, 2018), challenging established standards and beliefs that previously considered such endeavors as the exclusive domain of governmental entities. This evolution enabled the private sector not only to be part of the space ecosystem but also to directly deliver space-related applications to end customers, paving the way for a new era often denoted as New Space (Di Tullio et al., 2023; Madan & Halkias, 2020; Parrella et al., 2022; Robinson & Mazzucato, 2019).

The integration of digitalization into the space ecosystem has not only transformed the configuration of the ecosystem but has given rise to entirely new paradigms within the New Space Ecosystem (Bousedra, 2023; Vidmar, 2020). However, this transformation might not be solely attributable to digitalization; it extends to the underlying mindset steering this technological shift (Jora et al., 2023). The incursion of the American capitalist mindset, personified by influential figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson (Bousedra, 2023; Vidmar, 2020; Weinzierl et al., 2022), has been a defining factor in reshaping the space ecosystem. Accordingly, the integration of these various factors into the dynamics of the New Space introduced new value chains that surpass the traditional distinction between upstream and downstream. The upstream segment, while retaining its fundamental player categories, has undergone substantial advancements with the entry of the private sector (Borroz & Korber, 2023). This is particularly evident in terms of satellite miniaturization and the cost reduction of launch activities (Parrella et al., 2022; Vidmar, 2020). As a result, the upstream advancements have cascaded downstream (Lamine et al., 2021), giving rise to a diverse array of endeavors, particularly applications developed by third-party developers through utilizing the space-related data (Onwudiwe & Newton, 2021). Accordingly, these initiatives have actively played a role in restructuring the downstream segment of the value system. Nevertheless, our understanding of the New Space Ecosystem’s architecture remains incomplete.

Our primary objective is to conduct a systematic review to unveil the architectural configuration of the New Space Ecosystem. Accordingly, we aimed to curate a diverse selection of articles that explore distinct value chains, both upstream and downstream, within the overall value system of the New Space. Upon analyzing the selected articles, we observed striking parallels between the architecture of the digital platform ecosystem and that of the New Space. Therefore, following the presentation of the methodology in Sect. 2 and the discussion on the evolution of the space ecosystem in Sect. 3, we uncovered the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem in Sect. 4. Further, in Sect. 5, we proceeded to present the architecture of the digital platform ecosystem, drawing parallels between its structure and that of the New Space Ecosystem. We posit that the literature on digital platforms serves as a valuable starting point to comprehend the intricacies across different layers within the New Space Ecosystem. Accordingly, this study centers around three main contributions. First, we identify the key dynamics that have shaped the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem, namely, the incursion of the private sector, the miniaturization of satellites, and the surge in space data applications. Furthermore, we delineate the distinct layers composing the New Space Ecosystem, which emerges as a layered structure consisting of three primary layers: the infrastructure layer, the data layer, and the application layer. Lastly, we propose a prospective research agenda derived from the parallels drawn with the digital platform ecosystem, mainly centered around the dynamics of network effects within the New Space Ecosystem, the orchestration of the ecosystem, and the applicability of the platform business model within and across the different layers of the New Space Ecosystem.

2 Methodology

To achieve the objective of uncovering the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem, conducting a systematic review emerged as the optimal approach. Accordingly, it was crucial to curate a diverse array of articles that could provide valuable insights into this realm. The initial step entailed the identification of relevant search terms, followed by the establishment of selection criteria, as outlined by Tranfield et al.’s (2003). We required that the selected articles have at least one of the following keywords in their titles: “new space” OR “space econom*” OR “space industr*” OR “space sector*” OR “space ecosystem*” OR “ecosystem of space” OR “space firm*” OR “space business*” OR “space activit*” OR “space innovation*” OR “space technolog*”. We utilized Elsevier’s Scopus, which is recognized as one of the most effective tools for literature searches (Falagas et al., 2008). Concerning the selection criteria, as depicted in Fig. 1, our emphasis was on the domains of business and management. Specifically, we targeted peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters published after the year 1999. This timeframe aligns with the private sector’s significant involvement in the space ecosystem, as highlighted by Gupta et al. (2022).

Fig. 1
A flowchart of the search process. Phase 1 has defining relevant search terms and establishing selection criteria leading to 137 articles. Phase 2 has initial screening of titles or keywords and thorough examination of the abstracts or the entire paper leading to 51 articles.

Search process

Full size image

The initial search yielded 137 articles; however, three of them were duplicates, resulting in a final count of 134. Furthermore, after an initial screening of titles and/or keywords, we excluded 24 articles that did not specifically focus on New Space. For instance, some focused on “new space” as a physical space, particularly within architectural and real estate contexts. Besides, upon thorough examination of the abstracts and/or the entire remaining articles, we excluded 59 articles, as it became apparent that they would not contribute to answering our main research question. Thus, we were left with 51 articles to uncover the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem.

Furthermore, the systematic approach of the review extends beyond the search process to encompass the analysis phase (Spanuth & Urbano, 2023). This entailed a comprehensive analysis of the 51 articles, initially categorizing each as either upstream or downstream, based on the definitions provided by Lamine et al. (2021), OECD (2022), and Onwudiwe and Newton (2021). However, during the categorization process, it became evident that certain articles did not align with either the upstream or downstream segments. Consequently, this approach allowed us to systematically identify the distinct layers constituting the New Space Ecosystem, as illustrated in Sect. 4.

3 From Old Space to New Space: The Evolution of the Space Ecosystem

The economic interest in space began to gain momentum during the Cold War, where the space ecosystem was predominantly monopolized by two major countries, the United States and the Soviet Union (Lee et al., 2021). The Soviet Union launched the world’s first satellite, Sputnik, in 1957, followed by the first human to orbit Earth in 1961. On the American side, the Apollo Moon missions involved more complex missions. These missions ultimately lead to the historic moon landing by humans in 1969 (Gupta et al., 2022). Alongside Russia and the US, other participants such as France, Japan, and the United Kingdom entered the scene. However, all of these activities conducted in the first few decades were dominated by state-funded initiatives, commonly referred to as traditional space or old space (Gupta et al., 2022). The primary objective of such early space initiatives was exploration and scientific pursuits (Bousedra, 2023). Nevertheless, in contemporary times, there has been a shift away from the traditional goals of exploration and science toward socio-economic objectives, with a particular focus on innovation and economic performance (Bousedra, 2023). Additionally, during the past few years, the space ecosystem has shifted from being dominated by a handful of leading space nations, mainly through the public sector, to now involving more than 60 countries. These countries, along with their private commercial entities, are actively engaged in the space ecosystem (Robinson & Mazzucato, 2019).

3.1 Unfolding the Evolution: Three Key Phases

Various scholars have categorized the evolution of the space ecosystem into distinct eras or phases. The majority of these classifications typically revolved around three or four different space eras. Robinson and Mazzucato (2019) categorized space waves into four: Space 1.0, encompassing astronomy; Space 2.0, focusing on the space race and the Apollo era; Space 3.0, involving the International Space Station era and integrated international initiatives; and Space 4.0, featuring more nations, diverse types of space players, spin-off, spin-in, and spillover, indicating closer ties to consumers and society. Other scholars, such as Jora et al. (2023), have classified the evolution of the space ecosystem into three distinct time frames. In their classification, the first stage commenced at the beginning of the twentieth century, emphasizing scientists’ theoretical research on the potential uses of space. The second stage, spanning from 1950 to 1970, marked the initiation of practical exploration projects, military considerations, and initial economic contemplations related to the cosmos. The third stage, post the 1970s, witnessed a shift toward collaboration between the governmental and commercial sectors in space endeavors (Jora et al., 2023). In a similar vein, Vidmar (2020) outlined three distinct eras: the first phase, spanning the 1960s and 1970s, characterized by the dominance of a few nations, notably the US and the Soviet Union; the second phase, spanning the 1980s and 1990s, marked the commencement of commercialization by large multinational corporations; and the final phase, post the 2000s, represents the democratization of space activities driven by innovation and entrepreneurship. Regardless of the various categorizations offered by different scholars, they can all be distilled into three key phases. The first encompassed the theoretical phase of space activities, preceding the Cold War era. The second phase entailed space activities monopolized by a few nations and distanced from private businesses, consumers, and society, primarily during the Cold War era. And the final phase, predominantly observed in the past two to three decades, witnessed the private sector’s increasing involvement in space-related activities. This involvement has reshaped our perceptions of space and the benefits derived from such endeavors. Academically, this last phase is commonly denoted as the New Space era.

3.2 Defining the Dynamics of the New Space Ecosystem

In contrast to the old, or traditional, space era, which predominantly originated with the beginning of the Cold War, the New Space era lacks a specific date or event marking its commencement (Gupta et al., 2022). Nevertheless, various events occurring around the 2000s collectively signified the initiation of the New Space era, notably the entry of the private sector into the space ecosystem (Gupta et al., 2022). As a result, space-related activities witnessed a transition from the (dominated) government sector to the private sector, particularly with the advent of the capitalist mindset into the space ecosystem (Jora et al., 2023). Besides, in discussions regarding New Space, SpaceX consistently emerges as a focal point. The company indeed has achieved remarkable milestones in the space ecosystem, notably being the first private company capable of returning a space vehicle from low Earth Orbit. Also, it holds the distinction of being the first private company to successfully deliver a shipment to the International Space Station (Yazici & Darici, 2019). However, the emergence of New Space cannot be solely attributed to the advent of SpaceX and its groundbreaking launch capabilities. Therefore, the New Space Ecosystem has been influenced by various factors, let alone the transformative impact of digitalization (Bousedra, 2023; Vidmar, 2020).

While a universally agreed-upon definition of New Space may currently be lacking, we posit that the emergence of New Space Ecosystem was influenced by at least three major dynamics: (1) the growing interest in the commercial tendering of government practices and the involvement of the private sector in the space ecosystem (Bousedra, 2023; Vidmar, 2020), (2) the miniaturization of satellites (Parrella et al., 2022; Vidmar, 2020), that is, the reduction in both size and weight of the satellite (Bousedra, 2023; Gupta et al., 2022; Vidmar, 2020), and (3) the surge in space data applications propelled by the impact of digitalization (Vidmar, 2020). Besides, when referring to ecosystems, we adhere to Adner’s (2017, p. 40) definition, where an ecosystem is described as “the alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners that need to interact for a focal value proposition to materialize”.

4 The Architecture of the New Space Ecosystem

Researchers commonly classify the space ecosystem into upstream and downstream, e.g., Lamine et al. (2021) and Onwudiwe and Newton (2021). On the one hand, the upstream segment represents the “scientific and technological foundations of space programmes (e.g., science, R&D, manufacturing and launch)” OECD (2022, p. 30). On the other hand, the downstream segment encompasses the products and services delivered through the utilization of space infrastructures and the data they provide (Lamine et al., 2021), or what is referred to as the “Space-derived activities in other sectors” in the OECD (2022, p. 31). Besides, it is noteworthy to emphasize that the OECD (2022, p. 30) defines the downstream segment as encompassing activities such as the “Daily operations of space infrastructure and “down-to-earth” activities that directly rely on the provision of a space capacity”.

With the miniaturization of satellites and increase in launcher capacity, there has been a notable increase in the number of satellite launches into space. Consequently, a surge in data generation from these satellites has been observed (Harris & Baumann, 2015). Nevertheless, raw data alone does not yield any economic benefit, requiring substantial practical efforts to harness the economic potential inherent in this data (Harris & Baumann, 2015). For this reason, a data layer has begun to emerge between the upstream and downstream segments. The increased availability of data and enhanced computing power is paving the way for novel commercial opportunities, especially in the fields of data processing and analysis (Vidmar, 2020), as exemplified by entities like SkyWatch, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services. Accordingly, we propose that the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem can be illustrated as a layered structure, consisting of three primary layers: (1) the infrastructure layer, (2) the data layer, and (3) the application layer.

4.1 The Infrastructure Layer

The infrastructure layer encompasses a spectrum of activities related to the development, manufacturing, launch, and ongoing operations and management of space-bound infrastructure. To a certain extent, this layer is considered mature, subject to extensive regulation by the public sector (Lamine et al., 2021), and characterized by substantial intellectual property protection and a high level of secrecy (Vidmar, 2020). Until recently, the private sector did not significantly influence or contribute substantial value to the various activities within this layer (Vidmar, 2020). However, over the past two decades, this layer has progressively opened up to the private sector, marked by the emergence of public–private partnerships between government entities and private companies like SpaceX led by Elon Musk and Blue Origin founded by Jeff Bezos (Onwudiwe & Newton, 2021). As a result, novel actors became actively engaged in this layer, playing a crucial role in paving the way for the emergence of the New Space phenomenon (Vidmar, 2020). One prominent example in this layer is SpaceX, which is an American company specializing in the design, manufacturing, and launch of advanced rockets and spacecraft.

4.2 The Data Layer

A key outcome of advancements in the infrastructure layer is the heightened flow of data (Vidmar, 2020). A space infrastructure, namely a satellite, has a restricted capacity for carrying data on its payload, which emerges from its instrumentation. Consequently, there is an ongoing necessity to relay the data to an external source (Ellipsis Drive, 2023). However, extracting and acquiring data from the infrastructure layer is anything but straightforward. Transmitting this data to Earth can be slow and costly due to limitations in frequency and bandwidth, as well as the demand for specific IT skills (Gupta et al., 2022). Alternatively, employing space-based cloud networks for data analysis can significantly enhance speed, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, eliminating the need to download massive amounts of data back to Earth (Gupta et al., 2022). Regardless of the method employed to extract data, it is certain that novel value chains are emerging within the broader space ecosystem. Further, extracting data constitutes just one aspect within the data layer, as the mere provision of raw data does not inherently lead to substantial economic benefits (Bousedra, 2023; Harris & Baumann, 2015). Therefore, a considerable amount of work is essential to unlock the economic potential inherent in this data (Harris & Baumann, 2015). Alongside data extraction and processing, several companies have emerged offering processed data. This data is mainly provided in the form of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), allowing external parties to develop complementary applications atop the extracted data from the infrastructure layer. Thus, the data layer encompasses all activities related to the space-related data derived from the infrastructure layer, including, but not limited to, extraction, processing, and provision. SkyWatch Space Application exemplifies a company functioning within this layer. The company aggregates remote sensing data from the infrastructure layer, offering customers the tools necessary to maximize the benefits of such data. Simultaneously, SkyWatch provides the infrastructure layer with a remote sensing data distribution solution, facilitating the efficient delivery of data to the market.

4.3 The Application Layer

In contrast to the well-established and regulated nature of the infrastructure layer, the application layer emerges as a dynamic and less structured one (Lamine et al., 2021; Vidmar, 2020). An illustrative example within the application layer involves the first artificial satellite, Sputnik. Upon being launched into Earth’s orbit, Sputnik transmitted a series of audible beeps accessible to anyone with a radio receiver. A few years later, with advancements in encryption technologies during the 70s and 80s, broadcasting and telecommunications emerged as the predominant offering in the application layer. This was mainly driven by the minimal processing requirements for the data (Vidmar, 2020). However, with the emergence of the New Space era, a diverse array of data types has emerged, opening up possibilities for the development of various applications built on top of the data layer. A notable example is the utilization of Earth Observation data, which offers a versatile portfolio of offerings spanning industries such as transportation, education, insurance, and banking (Lamine et al., 2021). Another example is the utilization of satellite navigation data, particularly when coupled with smartphones (Reid et al., 2020). Thus, space-based applications are gaining momentum, both in terms of volume and the diversity of offerings being developed (Bousedra, 2023). For instance, the identical dataset extracted from an Earth Observation satellite can be simultaneously employed by various players in the application layer. This allows them to develop diverse offerings across different industries, incurring low or even negligible costs for the firms in the data layer (Bousedra, 2023). Thus, the application layer encompasses a diverse array of offerings crafted for end customers, whether in a business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C) context. These offerings are built upon space-related data originating from the infrastructure layer and extracted, processed, distributed, and transferred by the data layer. Within this layer, Orbital Insight exemplifies a company that analyzes billions of geospatial data points, providing essential input for strategic business decisions. These decisions span a range of areas, such as cost reduction, time savings, revenue and margin enhancement, improved asset utilization, accelerated due diligence, and more.

4.4 The Layered Structure

The New Space Ecosystem, Fig. 2, emerges as a layered structure, consisting of three primary layers: (1) the infrastructure layer, (2) the data layer, and the (3) application layer. First, the infrastructure layer encompasses all activities related to the manufacturing, launching, and control of space infrastructure. Further, the data layer includes all activities associated with extracting, processing, distributing, and transferring data derived from the infrastructure layer. Lastly, the application layer involves the development of offerings, comprising both products and services, built on top of the data extracted from the infrastructure layer as well as processed and disseminated by the data layer. The infrastructure layer reflects the transformative journey from a government-centric space domain to one characterized by private sector participation, notably exemplified by companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. The data layer, as a pivotal intermediary, highlights the increased availability of data and computing power, fostering novel opportunities in data processing and analysis. Meanwhile, the application layer embodies the innovative spirit of the New Space era, showcasing the diverse offerings developed by third-party complementors across various industries. Accordingly, this conceptual framework delineates the intricate interplay among the different layers that define the evolving dynamics within the New Space Ecosystem. Nevertheless, these layers are not entirely distinct. While we have provided examples of different players within specific layers, there are firms that extend across two or three layers. An illustrative case is the emergence of Starlink, which is a division of SpaceX. In this instance, the parent company expanded its activities to encompass the diverse layers, offering high-speed internet services to end customers almost anywhere.

Fig. 2
A block diagram of the layered structure of the New Space Ecosystem. It is as follows. Infrastructure layer, encompasses all activities related to the manufacturing. Data layer, includes all activities associated with extracting. Solution layer, involves the development of offerings.

The layered structure of the New Space Ecosystem

Full size image

5 The Digital Platform Ecosystem and the New Space Ecosystem

When examining the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem, parallels can be drawn with another digital infrastructure-based ecosystem, namely, the digital platform ecosystem. In Sect. 5.1, we define digital platforms, while in Sect. 5.2, we explore the architecture of the digital platform ecosystem. Further, in Sect. 5.3, we briefly explore the digital threads within the New Space Ecosystem. Accordingly, in Sect. 5.4, we compare and contrast the architectures of the digital platform ecosystem and that of the New Space, elucidating the underlying similarities and differences between these two distinct ecosystems. Finally, in Sect. 5.5, we present certain areas of future research from the lens of the digital platform ecosystem, mainly drawn based on the parallels presented in the previous section, Sect. 5.4.

5.1 Defining Digital Platforms

As we explore the parallels between the architecture of the two ecosystems, it is crucial to define our understanding of digital platforms. The term itself lacks a standardized definition in the literature, and various scholars offer distinct terminologies, definitions, and classifications for digital platforms. In broad terms, one of the clearest and most straightforward categorizations is presented by Cusumano et al. (2019). They have classified technological platforms associated with network effects into two primary categories. On the one hand, there are (1) transaction platforms, which facilitate transactions between different market sides, e.g., Apple App Store. On the other hand, there are (2) innovation platforms, which enable third-party complementors to create complementary innovations on top of the platform through utilizing the extensible codebase provided by the platform owner or the platform provider, e.g., Apple iOS. Furthermore, (3) hybrid platforms are situated between transaction and innovation platforms, blending functions from both types, e.g., Apple. Technological platforms associated with network effects are referred to as industry platforms and defined as “products, services, or technologies developed by one or more firms, serving as foundations upon which a larger number of firms can build further complementary innovations, potentially generating network effects” (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014, p. 420). Besides, what distinguishes an industry platform from other types, such as internal, company, product, or supply-chain platforms, is its ability to potentially generate network effects (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014). Network effects occur when the value of the platform increases for one side as the number of parties on the other side increases (Katz & Shapiro, 1985).

Thus, when drawing parallels from the digital platform ecosystem, we are specifically referring to the second type of industry platforms, known as innovation platforms according to the strategic management literature (Gawer, 2021, 2022). Alternatively, innovation platforms are known as digital platforms in the information systems literature and are defined as “purely technical artifacts where the platform is an extensible codebase, and the ecosystem comprises third-party modules complementing this codebase” (de Reuver et al., 2018, p. 126). Therefore, regardless of the terminology used, we are referring to technological platforms that: (1) are associated with network effects and (2) provide an extensible codebase. This codebase enables third-party software developers to create complementary applications atop the platform, primarily facilitated through the provision of APIs (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013).

5.2 The Architecture of the Digital Platform Ecosystem

It is crucial to grasp the architecture of the digital platform ecosystem, akin to the depiction of the layered structure of the New Space Ecosystem. A digital platform ecosystem is typically illustrated as having a core-periphery structure (Modol & Eaton, 2021). The platform owner is situated at the core, surrounded by various actors within the ecosystem, such as producers and consumers. Modol and Eaton (2021) presented a comprehensive analysis spanning a 20-year period, detailing the evolution of the digital infrastructure concept, resulting in the architectural manifestation of a digital platform with a core-periphery structure. Furthermore, as outlined by Baldwin and Woodard (2009), the digital platform ecosystem comprises three distinct elements: (1) a stable core characterized by limited variety, (2) a variable periphery exhibiting high variety, and (3) interfaces in between, defined as “specifications and design rules that describe how the platform and modules interact and exchange information” (Tiwana et al., 2010, p. 676). Boundary resources, such as standardized development tools (Miric et al., 2022), software libraries (Fink et al., 2020), and Application Programming Interfaces (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013), exemplify some of these interfaces. Boundary resources are defined as “the software tools and regulations that serve as the interface for the arm’s-length relationship between the platform owner and the application developer” (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013, p. 175). Thus, these boundary resources serve as interfaces between the platform core and its periphery. Further, within this core-periphery structure, or, in other words, within the digital platform ecosystem, four distinct layers exist: (1) the platform owner, who controls the platform and decides on participation eligibility and criteria, such as Google owning Android; (2) the platform provider, who manages the platform interfaces, exemplified by Samsung providing Android; (3) producers, who are software developers creating applications on top of the platform, for instance, applications available in the Samsung App Store, e.g., Angry Birds; and (4) consumers, who purchase or use the developed applications (Van Alstyne et al., 2016).

5.3 Digital Threads in the New Space Ecosystem

Bousedra (2023, p. 8) contends that “the incursion of digital technologies into the space sector offers new market opportunities for space data”. The pervasive adoption of digital technologies has brought about significant disruptions across numerous industries. These disruptions include reducing entry barriers, intensifying business dynamics, introducing novel business models, or encompassing all of these aspects. However, digitalization is just one of the factors contributing to the evolution of space-related activities. Earlier, we discussed the penetration of the capitalist mindset into the space sector. To explore further, it is crucial to specify that it is the American capitalist mindset at play (Jora et al., 2023). More precisely, it is embodied by key figures associated with digital giants leading the ongoing space race. This is exemplified by individuals like Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon (Blue Origin), and Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal, Amazon, and Tesla (SpaceX) (Bousedra, 2023). These individuals are not only leveraging their economic fortunes but also drawing upon their previous experiences in the Information Technology (IT) sector. Their approach involves advancing innovation and disrupting the status quo (Madan & Halkias, 2020). Consequently, the initiatives led by these figures have primarily penetrated the infrastructure layer, where the upstream innovations have had a downstream ripple effect (Lamine et al., 2021), bringing space-related activities closer to end customers. This is mainly evident through the development of space-related applications. Therefore, whether through the widespread adoption of digital technologies or the initiatives of specific influential figures, such digital threads have actively contributed to reshaping the dynamics within the New Space Ecosystem.

5.4 Architectural Parallels Between the Digital Platform Ecosystem and the New Space Ecosystem

A platform is characterized by a core and a periphery, featuring a singular owner positioned at the center of the ecosystem, responsible for orchestrating the diverse ecosystem actors in the periphery (Zeng et al., 2022). Nevertheless, the core-periphery structure does not precisely capture the essence of the New Space Ecosystem, given the absence of a singular actor responsible for orchestrating the diverse actors within the ecosystem, as shown in Fig. 3. Within the infrastructure layer, neither the satellite manufacturer, the satellite owner, nor the launcher bears the responsibility for this orchestration task. Similarly, in the data layer, neither the data extractor, the data processor, nor the provider of processed data shoulders the responsibility for orchestration. This principle is similarly applicable to the application layer. For that reason, the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem is more accurately depicted as a layered structure rather than a core-periphery one, given the absence of a single player responsible for orchestrating the entire ecosystem.

Fig. 3
2 diagrams of architectural contrasts. The core periphery structure of the digital platform has a core with owner, and provider and periphery with producers and consumers. The layered structure of the New Space Ecosystem has infrastructure layer, data layer, and solution layer.

Architectural contrasts: Digital platform ecosystem versus New Space Ecosystem

Full size image

Revisiting the diverse layers within both architectures, parallels can be drawn based on the roles played within the different layers, as shown in Table 1. Whether it is the platform owner layer or the infrastructure layer, both are, in one way or another, responsible for the digital infrastructure that is at the heart of the ecosystem, be it the platform in the case of the digital platform ecosystem or the satellite in the case of the New Space Ecosystem. Thus, the platform owner’s ownership of the digital infrastructure, the platform, aligns with the infrastructure layer, representing those players who are directly responsible for the infrastructure, the satellites. Correspondingly, the platform provider layer aligns with the data layer, given that both serve as providers of interfaces, mainly in the form of APIs. Similarly, the producers align with the application layer, analogous to the role of third-party developers creating complementary applications atop the APIs. These APIs are provided by the platform provider in the digital platform ecosystem and by the data layer in the New Space Ecosystem. Finally, consumers, present in both digital platforms and the New Space, represent individuals or entities benefiting from the applications developed on top of these (digital) infrastructures. Accordingly, as we navigate into the diverse layers of the digital platform ecosystem, a growing convergence of similarities becomes evident when compared to the New Space Ecosystem.

Table 1 Comparison of roles across the diverse layers: Digital platform ecosystem versus New Space Ecosystem
Full size table

5.5 Implications and Future Directions

Significant parallels emerge between the architectures of the digital platform ecosystem and the New Space Ecosystem, particularly in the distinct layers characterizing each. This observation leads us to assert that exploring the architecture of the digital platform ecosystem can serve as a crucial foundation for a more in-depth exploration of the New Space Ecosystem, mainly in the reams of: (1) the dynamics of network effects within the ecosystem, (2) the orchestration of the layered New Space Ecosystem, and (3) the adoption of the platform business model within and across the different layers.

5.5.1 The Dynamics of Network Effects Within the New Space Ecosystem

As more satellites join the infrastructure layer, the data layer becomes richer and more diverse, thereby enhancing the overall value for diverse actors in the application layer. Exploring how the growth of the infrastructure layer contributes to positive, or potentially negative, network effects unveils the dynamics within the New Space Ecosystem. The impact of an expanding satellite network on the data and application layers, and consequently on the value proposition for end-users and stakeholders, provides valuable insights into the power of network effects within the New Space Ecosystem. Thus, the literature on digital platform ecosystems serves as a valuable starting point to understand the dynamics of network effects within the New Space Ecosystem, particularly due to the fact that network effects are the main distinguishing factor that sets digital platforms apart from all other types of platforms (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014).

5.5.2 The Adoption of the Platform Business Model Within and Across the Different Layers of the New Space Ecosystem

Throughout this study, our focus has been on the architecture of the digital platform ecosystem rather than on the applicability of the digital platform as a business model. However, when examined as a business model rather than merely an ecosystem, the digital platform business model can be effectively employed across the various layers of the New Space Ecosystem. While the infrastructure layer and the data layer are typically associated with B2B contexts due to their upstream positions, it is worth noting that digital platforms in B2B contexts are not entirely absent, even though the literature has predominantly focused on examining such platforms in B2C and C2C contexts (Abed Alghani et al., 2024; Loux et al., 2020). Moreover, while our focus in this paper has predominantly been on innovation platforms, it is worth noting that another type of industry platforms, namely transaction platforms (Cusumano et al., 2019), could also find application across various layers within the New Space Ecosystem. Thus, whether adopting an innovation or a transaction platform business model, both possess the capability to introduce novel value creation, delivery, and capturing initiatives within the different layers of the New Space Ecosystem.

5.5.3 The Orchestration of the Layered New Space Ecosystem

An essential takeaway from the digital platform ecosystem is the understanding of governance mechanisms responsible for guiding and stimulating innovation within the ecosystem. In broad terms, there is a need to implement rules and regulations to strike a balance between controlling and fostering innovation (Boudreau, 2012; Hagiu & Wright, 2018). This is particularly crucial between the data and application layers, mirroring the governance mechanisms employed by platform owners or providers to orchestrate the behaviors of third-party developers in the digital platform ecosystem (Boudreau, 2017). Digital platforms providing an extensible codebase for external complementors underscore the importance of a regulatory framework that fosters innovation while maintaining an adequate level of control. For instance, through a detailed case study of Apple’s iPhone platform, Ghazawneh and Henfridsson (2013) developed a theoretical model to characterize the design and use of boundary resources, centered on two main drivers: resourcing, “the process by which the scope and diversity of a platform is enhanced”, and securing, “the process by which the control of a platform and its related services is increased” Ghazawneh and Henfridsson (2013, p. 176). Ghazawneh and Henfridsson (2013) linked the developed model to process theory, in which causation requires the sequential presence of essential conditions to achieve a specific outcome, and where causation is both contingent and bidirectional. Such insights could provide valuable contributions to the New Space Ecosystem, particularly in the interplay between the data layer and the application layer, by promoting regulatory environments that encourage innovation initiatives while maintaining essential control. Therefore, there is a wealth of knowledge to be acquired from the digital platform literature, covering insights into boundary resources (Eaton et al., 2015; Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013), control mechanisms (Parker & Van Alstyne, 2018), gatekeeping strategies (Zhang et al., 2022), and even the softer governance mechanisms (Foerderer et al., 2021) employed by platform owners to orchestrate diverse actors within the digital platform ecosystem.

6 Conclusion

In brief, the primary objective of this chapter was to unveil the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem. To achieve this, we initially depicted the evolutionary trajectory from the Old Space to the New Space era, emphasizing the three key dynamics that defined the New Space Ecosystem. As we pursue our primary objective of uncovering the diverse layers, namely infrastructure, data, and application layers, we have identified significant parallels between the architectures of the digital platform ecosystem and that of the New Space. Consequently, our aim was to draw parallels between the two ecosystems, extracting insights from the literature on the digital platform ecosystem. Building on these findings, we presented a future research agenda, primarily driven by insights from the literature on digital platforms. We firmly believe that the presented research agenda establishes the groundwork for future research and in-depth investigations into the New Space Ecosystem.

An essential theoretical contribution of this chapter lies in the identification and elucidation of the core dynamics that have shaped the architecture of the New Space Ecosystem. These insights not only enrich our understanding of the New Space Ecosystem but also pave the way for a comprehensive and unified definition, not only for New Space but also for the broader New Space Ecosystem. Further, we explored the architectural intricacies of the New Space Ecosystem, revealing its layered structure. This exploration allowed us to map out the various layers constituting the ecosystem, shedding light on the nuanced relationships and interactions between them. Last but not least, we have laid the groundwork for future research by drawing parallels with the digital platform ecosystem. Accordingly, this has the potential to serve as a valuable starting point for a deeper exploration of the New Space Ecosystem.

On the practical side, this paper serves as a valuable resource for practitioners seeking to grasp the dynamics and architecture of the New Space Ecosystem. It enables them to evaluate whether their organizations can engage with this promising ecosystem, either within a single layer or across the diverse layers. Furthermore, shedding light on the absence of an orchestrator within the New Space Ecosystem, along with outlining its various layers, could serve as a valuable starting point, especially for policymakers. These insights might incentivize legislators to reexamine whether there should be a designated entity responsible for orchestrating this evolving ecosystem and, if so, who should assume the role of the orchestrator. Besides, expanding upon the identified parallels, we proposed the potential application of the platform business model across diverse layers. Such insights offer practitioners a valuable foundation to innovate and develop novel business models within the dynamic landscape of New Space Ecosystem. Lastly, the identification of the application layer highlights that any industry has the opportunity not only to participate in the New Space Ecosystem but also to reap benefits from its involvement. Therefore, we firmly believe that “Your Company Needs a Space Strategy. Now” (Weinzierl et al., 2022).