Regulatory Clarity De-Risks Commercial Space Investment

Summary

• The current U.S. mission authorization process remains fragmented across the FAA, FCC, and CRSRA, leaving novel space activities without a clear statutory home or predictable approval pathway.
• Regulatory uncertainty operates as unpriceable risk for investor models, inflating discount rates, compressing revenue multiples, and extending pre-revenue burn periods for capital-intensive space ventures like many novel space activities.
• OSC’s March 2026 Space Commerce Certification (SCC) introduces a 120-day review period, a four-part denial test, and presidential escalation, meaningfully narrowing authorization risk for investors.
• A capital-market-aligned framework requires three design principles: defined timelines with presumptive outcomes, transparent criteria-based standards, and centralized single-agency accountability with published precedential guidance.

Ales_Utovko via Getty Images

Jump to:

In August 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14335, Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry. The order directed the secretary of commerce to propose a mission authorization process for novel space activities not clearly governed by existing regulatory frameworks, potentially ending years of structural ambiguity that has plagued the modern-day space industry for some time.

By December 2025, the U.S. Office of Space Commerce (OSC) released a draft concept for public stakeholder input: a new framework proposal designed to consolidate what currently requires multiple overlapping licenses or approvals from no less than three agencies into a single, interagency-coordinated process with firm deadlines. Acknowledging that the current system is “duplicative, opaque, and provides no clear path to ‘yes’ for non-traditional space activities,” the draft’s proposed framework offers a well-designed possibility of converting a compliance process into a market catalyst. The open feedback process also presents a rare opportunity for industry stakeholders to help shape that outcome before the framework is finalized. On March 24, 2026, OSC released an updated proposal, formalizing this framework as the “Space Commerce Certification” (SCC). The update clarifies the certification’s nature: an opt-in process with a 120-day certification deadline and an explicit four-factor test governing interagency objections.

Although the proposed framework has been widely analyzed through national security and international competitiveness lenses, its implications for capital market participation have received comparatively less attention. The structure, predictability, and transparency of a mission authorization regime will directly function as a quantifiable risk-pricing mechanism for space investment models. Accordingly, it is imperative that the draft concept’s design choices be evaluated not only for regulatory sufficiency but also for capital market alignment. When companies can clearly articulate timing, criteria, and accountability of the mission authorization process, investors can model authorization as a known variable, ultimately enabling a more confident and efficient investment.

Since 2015, over $66 billion has been invested in commercial space ventures, and that number only continues to rapidly climb higher as Q1 2026 results begin to be released. Nevertheless, regulatory uncertainty remains a structural challenge that investor enthusiasm alone cannot overcome. When the regulatory pathway to authorizing a novel space activity is unpredictable and unclear, rational investors cannot accurately price that uncertainty. Instead, investors model this uncertainty into higher costs of capital and discount rates, or simply decline to invest altogether. This, in turn, significantly lowers the amount of capital invested in the commercial space sector, and consequently inhibits its greater potential for growth.

This article presents the mission authorization problem as well as OSC’s evolving response to EO 14335 and reframes it as a potential capital market signal rather than an inhibitor, encouraging greater capital market participation by decreasing the level of regulatory uncertainty and risk to investors. Thereafter, this article outlines three principles—timing, criteria, and accountability—that must be prioritized in the mission authorization framework to create a capital-market-compatible structure that serves not only companies building these novel space activities but also the investors whose capital sustains the industry.

The Mission Authorization Problem

The United States’ adherence to Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty has resulted in a regulatory architecture that is structurally misaligned with the modern-day commercial space economy. **** Specifically, Article VI requires signatory states to authorize and continuously supervise the national activities of nongovernmental entities in outer space. The United States has discharged this obligation through a fragmented interagency architecture that has evolved incrementally over six decades. In simplest terms:

• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates launch and reentry operations.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates spectrum and radio frequency use.
• OSC’s Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs (CRSRA) division regulates private remote sensing activities. This regulatory framework was adequate for the space economy of the 1990s and 2000s, during which commercial space activity largely consisted of satellite communications and Earth observation. Yet, the new space economy has vastly outgrown this structure, evidenced by the fact that in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM); commercial lunar payload delivery; on-orbit refueling; commercial habitats; and large-scale commercial low earth orbit (LEO) platforms all fall into regulatory gaps that no existing agency has clear statutory authority to fill. Accordingly, companies pursuing these novel activities are burdened by an unclear, redundant multi-agency approval process with no defined timeline, criteria, or accountability structure, which poses a significant challenge to any company’s ability to efficiently operate its business. Furthermore, these novel space businesses, which often seek financial support from investors, struggle to communicate the rules around the system precisely because there is no exact answer for them to provide.

OSC’s December 2025 stakeholder briefing clearly presented this problem, characterizing the current system as “duplicative, opaque, and provid[ing] no clear path to ‘yes’ for non-traditional space activities.” EO 14335 presents the most significant structural response to this gap in the sector’s history as it requires a rapid response to the mission authorization problem.

Mission Authorization as a Capital Market Problem

The effect of uncertainty on valuation is a fundamental economic concept specifically relevant to the uncertainty inherent in the mission authorization process. Measurable uncertainties—such as launch failure rates, market demand, collision probability, and insurance premiums—are quantifiable risks, which markets have evolved to resolve through due diligence and pricing mechanisms. Once a risk is measurable, it is no longer uncertain in an economically meaningful sense. The risk becomes a cost of doing business that is woven into the price of capital.

Regulatory authorization under the current framework creates a level of uncertainty rendering it immeasurable. The uncertainty regarding mission authorization of novel space activities functions analogously to information asymmetry in capital markets: When investors cannot predict whether a proposed activity will be quickly and easily authorized, at which cost, or timeline, they face a valuation problem that cannot be resolved through typical due diligence because there exists no precedent probability to consult. There is no published reasoning for previous mission authorization outcomes and no comparable situations or data upon which investors can use for pricing models, so the probability of achieving mission authorization approval itself is relatively undefined. Therefore, the uncertainty of the current mission authorization regulatory framework is not a quantifiable risk and cannot be accurately priced by investors.

It is precisely a clear and efficient regulatory framework that provides distinct timelines, criteria, and accountability that will allow investors to make more accurate valuations for novel space companies. As a result, operators will be able to better demonstrate reduced regulatory liability to growth-stage investors who would otherwise demand a higher risk premium. Properly designed mission authorization frameworks can convert otherwise unresolvable regulatory uncertainty into defined, reliable decision processes that investors can quantify and consequently incorporate into financial models.

Unquantifiable uncertainty does not merely raise the cost of capital in the way measurable risks do. Rather, it manifests itself across company valuation metrics through at least three distinct channels:

1. Discount rates. Authorization uncertainty inflates the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) that investors use to project cash flows by embedding an unquantifiable regulatory risk premium into the WACC.
2. Revenue multiple compression. Valuations in capital-intensive, pre-revenue industry areas such as novel space activities are calculated in significant part based on revenue visibility—the degree to which a company can credibly project when commercial operations will begin and revenue can be received. As mission authorization uncertainty prevents a company from estimating the timing and likelihood of regulatory approval, it accordingly prevents a credible revenue generation timeline projection, suppressing the multiples investors are willing to apply and, by extension, the company’s overall valuation.
3. Authorization delays. The frequent delays in granting mission authorization to operators extend a firm’s pre-revenue burn period, which consequently increases total capital requirements and ultimately dilutes early investor returns, discouraging future investment. Therefore, a mission authorization framework that publicly resolves timing, criteria, and accountability uncertainty not only reduces regulatory friction but also improves the financial profile of space companies across the metrics that determine whether institutional capital should be committed at all. Such a framework is not just administratively convenient but also structurally necessary for capital markets to efficiently function in this sector at all.

NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program acts as the most compelling domestic precedent to demonstrate the economic synergy that can result from a structured federal government relationship with commercial operators on defined, reliable terms. Before COTS, NASA procurement was dominated by cost-plus contracting with traditional defense primes—a structure that did not allow for any commercial benefit for private capital and, as a result, did not attract it. The program pioneered a milestone-based private-public partnership model that unlocked substantial private co-investment by defining clear technical milestones, shared development costs, and allowed commercial partners to retain ownership of their intellectual property and service customers beyond NASA. Moreover, it “allowed the companies to move at their own natural speed, not waiting for NASA to approve specific elements.”

The mission authorization problem is structurally identical. If COTS was able to provide a signal to capital markets that NASA was a credible and long-term customer (as opposed to an unpredictable discretionary funder), then a well-defined mission authorization framework could serve a similar function. Such a framework would effectively convert the federal government from an ambiguous conglomerate of authorizers to a predictable decision-maker operating on published criteria and firm deadlines, rendering it a catalyst for capital investment in novel space activities.

Proposed Design Principles for an Investor-Aligned Mission Authorization Framework

In an effort to properly address the aforementioned uncertainties that have resulted in investor hesitancy and discomfort, the following proposes three design principles that mitigate the risks posed by these uncertainties and also considers them in the context of OSC’s certification concept.

Defined Timelines and Presumptive Outcomes

A defined review timeline is arguably one of the most crucial capital market signals in this scenario. Without such, investors are left to model mission authorization delay as a free variable, which often assumes worst-case scenarios and inaccurately discounts investment valuations accordingly. While OSC’s draft concept proposal of a predetermined timeline for interagency review makes meaningful progress toward the regulatory clarity that investors require, such a timeline without legal consequences for missed deadlines does not entirely eliminate the open-ended authorization risk from an investor model perspective. As a result, investors would likely still apply large discounts to account for the possibility of a delay in authorization approval, especially considering the systemic history of FAA launch authorization delays. Therefore, a framework that is truly aligned with capital markets not only requires a defined timeline but also a legal consequence for government inaction to reduce the likelihood of mission authorization backlogs (which could include automatic authorization approval or mandatory escalation to a senior political appointee).

The March 2026 updated SCC proposal materially acknowledges this weakness. Establishing a 120-day review period, capping extensions at 180 days, the proposal explicitly states that “the application must be granted, granted subject to conditions, or denied” upon the 180-day mark. The clear timeline and presumption of approval following the 180th day, should none of the four denial bases be met, converts the authorization period from a free variable into a bounded one—a significant change for the discount rates included in investor models. In addition, the matter can be elevated to the president for a final decision if a unanimous decision cannot be reached between the secretary of commerce and agency in the given amount of time. However, while risk is now meaningfully smaller than it was with open-ended delays, it does not imply zero risk in investor models. Investor confidence in these timelines will therefore depend upon how the presumption performs in early applications.

Transparent, Criteria-Based Evaluation Standards

The current discretionary mission authorization process discourages investment because investors cannot distinguish between high-probability and low-probability authorization outcomes before committing capital and, accordingly, cannot price authorization risk. Not only must investors know when a company can expect to receive mission authorization, but they also must know the criteria upon which authorization is incumbent. Explicit, publicly available evaluation criteria that provide a clear reason for why an operation receives mission authorization, or the lack thereof, is thus a necessary element in order to lower regulatory risk and encourage greater private investment into novel space activities.

While there is no direct precedent in the space industry, the clinical-stage biotechnology sector offers the most comparable scenario for how transparent, criteria-based regulatory evaluation standards published by government agencies function as capital market signals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publishes explicit approval criteria, such as safety and efficacy thresholds, clinical trial design requirements, and phase-specific evidentiary standards. These criteria enable investors to assign meaningful, accurate probability estimates to regulatory outcomes before committing capital to development-stage companies. Financial literature suggests that investors interpret FDA regulatory designations as signals of reduced regulatory uncertainty and accelerated market entry. Such designations consequently produce a significant increase in company valuations precisely because they convert opaque regulatory discretion into transparent, criteria-based assessments of likely outcomes.

Mission authorization for novel space activities presents a structurally similar investment problem as clinical-stage biotechnology: high capital requirements, long pre-revenue periods, and regulatory outcomes whose probability cannot be assessed without clear, published criteria. A mission authorization framework that publishes explicit evaluation standards would therefore enable the same quantifiable function as the FDA’s designations do in the biotechnology sector, converting unquantifiable regulatory uncertainty into probabilistic investment analysis that can be relied on for valuation models.

The March 2026 SCC proposal takes a meaningful step toward the FDA’s model by requiring that any objection satisfy a four-part test: (1) unlikely to or incapable of complying with certification commitments, (2) likelihood and capacity to harm national security interests, (3) likelihood and capacity to cause the United States to violate its international obligations or deleteriously impact U.S. foreign relations, or (4) likelihood and capacity to cause unacceptable dangers to the safety of space operations, assets, or the public. OSC furthermore commits to defining, at initiation, which novel activities are eligible for the certification and which specific agency requirements the SCC will handle versus leave to the regulatory agencies. The inverted yet functionally equivalent structure avoids publishing affirmative approval criteria and is a crucial first step in establishing transparent standards. As a result, investors can now estimate approval probability by evaluating whether a proposed activity triggers any of the four denial grounds and whether any identified risk can be mitigated through certification conditions.

OSC also justified its reasoning for not publishing comprehensive activity-specific rules up front. Novel space activities vary too widely in technical maturity (some have years of industry heritage while others have yet to be attempted), and developing detailed rules for each class prior to accepting applications would further delay actionable rulemaking. Opening the certification process immediately under the transparent, criteria-based denial model enables investors to model authorization under a working set of rules immediately, with these rules sharpening over time as precedent accumulates. What remains to be developed in the March 2026 updated proposal is the explicit commitment to publish precedential guidance derived from early applications that can compound over time. If such guidance can be published in redacted form alongside eligibility and relief scope, the SCC can produce observable probability distributions across activity classes over time for investor use rather than remaining known only to participating applicants and their counsel.

Overall, the proposed framework establishes the possibility for a formal precedent mechanism that enables mission authorization certainty to compound over time as the agency accumulates experience in the certification’s application, which would consequently lower regulatory risk drastically for investors.

Centralized Coordination with Single-Agency Accountability

The existing absence of a unified authorization process means that novel space activities may struggle with adhering to the regulatory jurisdiction of multiple federal agencies simultaneously. From the investor perspective, a fragmented mission authorization structure once again presents a regulatory risk as no single agency has full jurisdiction. The current framework burdens applicants with the task of navigating separate authorization processes among multiple agencies with varying guidelines. There is no single point of accountability, no unified timeline, and no mechanism to prevent any one agency from effectively vetoing or indefinitely delaying a decision. As a result, regulatory risk is not only applied but multiplied among however many agencies claim to regulate even a slight aspect of the novel activity.

OSC’s draft concept addresses this directly by designating the Department of Commerce as the lead coordinator, which is arguably its most important contribution. OSC proposes that the agency will conduct internal Department of Commerce review, circulate to interagency partners, and issue a single determination. The March 2026 SCC proposal elaborates on this proposed structure, establishing a 30-day interagency review window and requiring any objecting agency to satisfy the aforementioned four-part test. As mentioned above, if a unanimous decision cannot be reached between the secretary of commerce and agency, the matter can be elevated to the president for a final decision. This new structure eliminates the possibility of a silent veto, inhibiting any agency from indefinitely blocking certification and ultimately elevating matters to the highest level of political accountability.

The capital market significance of this proposed structure lies not merely in its administrative efficiency but in its additional accountability concentration. When one agency can own an outcome, investors can assess that agency’s developing track record, identify patterns in its determinations, and begin to model authorization outcomes as a defined variable rather than an open-ended function of unpredictable interagency dynamics.

While OSC lacks authority to bind these agencies to accept an SCC in lieu of their own regulatory reviews, the certification’s capacity to consolidate rather than add yet another layer of regulatory red tape can act as an additional risk mitigation factor for investors. However, OSC’s role as a coordinator does not displace the statutory responsibilities of CRSRA, the FAA, or the FCC. In fact, the FCC has been curating its own modernized space regulatory guidelines, which once again forces investors to model two simultaneous and potentially overlapping regulatory pathways for the same novel activities rather than the single consolidated pathway the SCC is intended to provide. It is therefore imperative for the FAA, the FCC, and CRSRA to cooperate on publishing a clear, binding framework, such as that offered by the SCC, providing centralized guidance for novel space operators applying for licensing. It is precisely this centralized coordination and unanimous support that will ultimately give the certification more weight in the eyes of investors.

Final Recommendations

The U.S. Office of Space Commerce presents the opportunity for current stakeholders to provide essential feedback on industry challenges and proposed frameworks through online forms and roundtables. It is imperative for industry participants to proactively engage in these processes to provide timely and accurate information. As policymakers review how mission authorization specifically affects commercial actors, both companies and investors must provide quantifiable evidence of its impact on investment decisions, such as discount rate adjustments, due diligence timeline impacts, and growth-stage investor participation rates. While generic advocacy for regulatory changes is helpful, documented quantitative analysis will provide policymakers with reliable data evidencing the exact capital market mechanics that a well-designed system can unlock.

EO 14335 and OSC’s December 2025 and March 2026 draft concepts represent a consequential moment not only for the commercial space industry but also for the capital markets that finance it. By establishing a single, interagency coordinated certification pathway with enforceable deadlines and defined criteria, mission authorization can be conducted more efficiently and function as a genuine capital market signal. Reducing the authorization uncertainty premium that has been affecting the cost of capital in investment models will address a key inhibitor of the space sector’s growth and potentially widen its investor base.

As the commercial space sector enters a new era of growth, investment in novel infrastructure requires regulatory predictability at an unprecedented scale. The proposed mission authorization framework has the potential to accelerate this transition by positioning the United States as one of the world’s most predictable regulatory jurisdictions for novel space activities, providing the nation with a clear competitive advantage.

The United States is home to one of the most dynamic commercial space sectors in the world. Such a nation cannot afford to let regulatory uncertainty become the limiting factor in realizing its own ambitions.

Endnotes

Authors

View Bio →

Authors

Briana Sparacino

Related Content