Journal article 2026
Acta Astronautica Vol. 249, Part A · pp. 482–490
New Space project planning is not a minor adjustment to legacy practice: it shifts from output-focused, closed and single-party planning toward value-focused, ecosystem-oriented, lifecycle and shared-risk approaches.
The transition from Legacy Space to the New Space Economy changes not only who develops space projects, but also how those projects need to be planned. Traditional approaches emphasize predefined mission outputs, primary stakeholders and tightly controlled delivery. This study examines how commercial and ecosystem-based space projects alter that logic, using a value-based perspective to explain the planning changes required when value must be created across broader actor networks and over longer lifecycles.
How does project planning differ between legacy and new space projects?
The study is based on 40 interviews with managers involved in legacy and New Space projects. Interview evidence is used to develop a conceptual framework explaining differences in project planning, interpreted through Value Theory and the transition from an outcome-based to a value-based perspective. The analysis identifies six dimensions along which legacy and New Space planning logics diverge.
Legacy projects prioritize the immediate project output and value for primary stakeholders. New Space projects plan for broader project value and for an ecosystem that includes users, commercial partners, society and other actors beyond the traditional sponsor-contractor relationship.
Legacy planning emphasizes direct and tangible value associated with project delivery. New Space planning also considers indirect and intangible value, including knowledge, societal impact, future ventures and service adoption, with value emerging throughout the project lifecycle and after completion.
Legacy projects rely more heavily on closed governance and risk concentrated in a primary institutional actor. New Space projects involve broader collaboration, co-development and distributed risk among public, private and ecosystem actors, with different emphases in upstream infrastructure and downstream services.
The framework provides a structured explanation of the shift from outcome-based to value-based planning in commercial space projects. It shows that New Space requires coordinated changes across scope, actors, value streams, time, governance and risk rather than isolated adjustments to traditional project-management techniques.
For space agencies, primes and commercial firms, the six dimensions provide a practical basis for adapting governance, contracting, oversight, incentives and risk allocation to the planning logic of each project. For policymakers, the framework helps distinguish where legacy practices remain useful and where they may conflict with commercial, ecosystem-based value creation.
Paravano, A. (2026). Small Change or Big Bang? The Shift from Legacy to New Space Project Planning. Acta Astronautica, 249, 482–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2026.07.011
← Back to all publications