The World Needs a Space Data Commons
Every year, billions of dollars flow into space programmes around the world. Satellites are launched to monitor floods, track crop failures, guide disaster response, and measure progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. Emerging space nations from Kenya to the Philippines to Brazil are betting that small, frugal satellites can leapfrog decades of development data gaps. Development banks are funding space infrastructure as a public good. And a new generation of NewSpace companies is promising that Earth observation will transform how we feed, protect, and govern our planet.
It’s an inspiring story. There’s just one problem: almost none of it is being properly documented.
We don’t have a shared, open record of which satellite design choices lead to reliable, cost-effective missions. We don’t have a structured database of how long frugal space programmes actually take to go from concept to launch, and why they get delayed. We don’t have a rigorous evidence base linking Earth observation capabilities to agricultural outcomes in frontier markets, or to disaster response performance, or to measurable SDG progress. We have fragments. We have papers. We have agency reports buried in procurement databases. But we don’t have a commons.
That needs to change.
The fragmentation problem is costing us more than we realise
When a new space programme in sub-Saharan Africa is deciding whether to build a remote sensing satellite or buy data services, they face a wall of opacity. The cost data from comparable missions is proprietary. The reliability track record of smallsat subsystems is scattered across academic papers and conference proceedings. The evidence on whether Earth observation actually improved agricultural decision-making in similar contexts is anecdotal at best.
So they reinvent the wheel. They make decisions based on incomplete information. They duplicate research that has already been done and repeat mistakes that have already been made.
This isn’t just inefficient. It’s a structural barrier to the democratisation of space. The established space agencies, NASA, ESA, JAXA, have decades of institutional memory. They have internal cost models, reliability databases, and evaluation frameworks built up over generations. Emerging programmes don’t have that. And without a commons, they never will.
The result is a compounding disadvantage. The countries that most need frugal, high-impact space capabilities are precisely the ones least equipped to navigate a fragmented, opaque information landscape.
What a Space Data Commons would actually do
Get Arjuna Sathiaseelan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The vision is straightforward, even if the execution isn’t: a shared, open, governed infrastructure that links satellite design decisions to real-world outcomes.
It would track which subsystem choices, commercial off-the-shelf components versus heritage hardware, simplified testing regimes versus full qualification, correlate with on-orbit reliability and mission cost. It would record concept-to-launch timelines across frugal and conventional programmes, so we can actually learn what drives delays and what enables speed. It would link Earth observation features to farming outcomes in frontier markets, not just “EO can support food security” as an abstract claim, but concrete evidence of which mission capabilities, at what resolution and revisit rate, led to measurable changes in smallholder productivity. It would build an evidence base on disaster response: when a satellite was in the right orbit with the right sensor, did it actually help? And it would map mission outputs to SDG indicators in a way that goes beyond capability mapping into genuine impact evaluation.
Multiple datasets. One commons. An open infrastructure that any programme, funder, or researcher can contribute to and draw from.
None of these datasets exist today in the form they need to. ESA has done important work mapping which EO data can inform which SDG indicators, but that’s a capability map, not an evidence base. The Aerospace Corporation maintains cost models for smallsats, but they’re proprietary, and they don’t capture the frugality dimension. Academic researchers have published satellite reliability analyses, but they’re one-off studies, not a living, queryable database. The pieces are scattered. The commons would bring them together.
This is what open infrastructure looks like in practice
We’ve seen this model work before. The Human Genome Project created open data infrastructure that unlocked billions in downstream research value. The Copernicus programme’s free and open data policy transformed Earth observation from an elite resource into a global public good. The Open Data Cube gave developing nations the tools to actually use satellite imagery for agricultural and environmental monitoring without building their own processing infrastructure from scratch.
The Space Data Commons is the same bet, that making evidence open and structured creates far more value than keeping it siloed. That a smallsat engineer in Nairobi designing their first remote sensing mission should have access to the same quality of cost and reliability data as one at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. That a development bank evaluating a space programme investment should be able to point to a rigorous, comparable evidence base rather than a handful of self-reported success stories.
This isn’t naive idealism. It’s the infrastructure that serious, scaled impact requires.
The window to get this right is now
The frugal space era is already here. Hundreds of smallsats are launching every year. Emerging space nations are making billion-dollar bets. Development funders are asking hard questions about return on investment. And the 2030 deadline for the SDGs is close enough that the time to build the monitoring infrastructure is not later, it’s now.
If we don’t build the commons now, while the field is still young enough to establish norms and standards, we will spend the next decade drowning in incomparable, self-serving mission reports that tell us nothing about what actually works.
The space sector has always been good at the hard technical problems. Getting a satellite to orbit is genuinely difficult, and we’ve gotten remarkably good at it. The harder problem, and the more important one, is building the shared knowledge infrastructure that turns individual missions into collective learning.
That’s what the Space Data Commons is. A commons for evidence, built for those who need it most, governed by no single owner, and open to all. The data exists. The missions are flying. The urgency is real. What’s missing is the shared infrastructure that turns all of it into collective knowledge. We can build it. We should.
