The Missing Link: Why Debris Removal is a Logistics Problem, Not a Robotics One

By Ran Livne, Head of Biz-dev

Photo by: Guillermo Ferla

The space industry is currently trapped in a cycle of "demonstration fatigue." We are investing millions into more sophisticated nets, agile robotic harpoons, and AI-driven computer vision, yet we continue to ignore the one fundamental bottleneck that prevents orbital debris removal from ever reaching a meaningful, systemic scale.

We have spent a decade mastering the "handshake" in orbit, the moment a chaser reaches out to grab a defunct satellite. Now, it is time to fix the delivery truck.

A Problem That Has Outgrown the "Demonstration" Phase

Space debris is no longer a theoretical threat or a niche concern for satellite operators; it is a structural risk to the global economy. According to the European Space Agency (ESA), we are currently tracking over 40,000 debris objects larger than 10 cm. Even more concerning are the estimated 130 million fragments down to the millimeter scale that remain untrackable.

At orbital velocities ranging from 25,000 to 28,000 km/h, the physics of impact are unforgiving. Even a fragment the size of a marble carries the kinetic energy of a bowling ball traveling at 100 mph. At these speeds, even a "minor" collision can cause catastrophic fragmentation, fueling the Kessler Syndrome, a self-sustaining cascade of collisions that could render key orbits unusable for generations.

The industry has responded with impressive technical milestones. Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPO), autonomous navigation, and debris characterization are no longer science fiction. We have proven, through multiple missions, that we can safely approach and inspect non-cooperative objects.

So why hasn't systematic removal begun? The answer is not found in technical maturity, but in economic and logistical feasibility. We have the "how," but we don't have the "how often."

The Scaling Paradox: Why Demonstrations Don't Solve the Risk

Market analysts project the global space debris monitoring and removal market will grow from roughly $940 million in 2022 to more than $2 billion by 2032. While monitoring and insurance services are already generating revenue, the actual removal of debris remains a future promise.

The disconnect lies in scale. Removing one or two "trophy" objects as part of an occasional, high-budget demonstration mission does not meaningfully alter the risk profile of Earth’s orbits. Orbital debris is a cumulative, systemic problem. Stabilizing the environment requires the removal of hundreds of high-risk objects every year, sustained over a long-term horizon.

This is where we hit the "Scaling Paradox." While we can reduce the cost of spacecraft through serial production and standardized components, the launch cost remains largely fixed. In a traditional chemical rocket paradigm, launch capacity becomes the primary constraint, overtaking spacecraft development as the dominant driver of failure.

The Math of a Clean Orbit

To visualize the infrastructure gap, let’s look at the approximately 500 to 1,000 large debris objects (greater than one meter) currently in high-value orbits. Removing just half of them would require 500 individual missions.

Comparative Economics for 500kg-Class Removal Missions

Launch Option	Cost per Launch	500 Missions	1,000 Missions	Operational Cadence
Small Launcher	$8M	$4B	$8B	< 1/day
Large Launcher (Primary)	$40–65M	$20B+	$40B+	< 1/day
Rideshare	$2.5–3.5M	$1.25B	$5B	No orbit control
Required Systematic Launcher	$2M target	$1B	$4B	Up to 8/day

Why "Rideshare" is a False Economy

Rideshare is often presented as the "budget" solution for small satellites. However, for debris removal, it is a logistical nightmare. Debris removal requires surgical precision in timing, inclination, and altitude to minimize the amount of propellant the "chaser" must carry.

As a secondary payload on a rideshare mission, the spacecraft inherits someone else’s orbit and schedule. To reach the actual debris target, the spacecraft must then spend months, and a significant mass of fuel, performing orbital maneuvers. This results in heavier, more complex, and more expensive spacecraft, pushing the "savings" from the launch back onto the mission’s hardware and risk profile.

The Infrastructure Gap: Frequency is the Silent Constraint

The space ecosystem has focused almost exclusively on in-orbit solutions while assuming that "access to orbit" is an easy, solved problem. It is not.

Current launch infrastructure is optimized for a "boutique" model: a few dozen launches per year, per site, with months of preparation between missions. Systematic debris removal demands an industrial-grade cadence. If it takes a month to prepare a pad for a single removal mission, we will never outpace the rate at which new debris is generated by collisions and fragmentations.

This is the missing link. We don't need another capture mechanism; we need a delivery system built for frequency, affordability, and precision.

The Moonshot Approach: A Different Physics of Launch

At Moonshot, we are approaching this from the ground up. Our architecture is based on an electromagnetic mass accelerator that shifts the majority of energy generation and storage to the ground.

By decoupling launch cadence from the volatile constraints of chemical propulsion and vertical pad turnarounds, our system is designed for a fundamentally different operational reality:

• High Frequency: Designed for multiple daily launches, enabling the "conveyor belt" of spacecraft needed for orbital cleanup.

• Precision Injection: Providing custom orbital parameters for every payload, ensuring removal spacecraft arrive exactly where they are needed without wasting fuel.

• Economic Decoupling: Moving the cost-per-kilogram into a range where "cleaning up" becomes a viable business model for governments and commercial operators alike.

We are not building a rocket to compete with the heavy-lift giants. We are building the infrastructure that enables missions rockets were never structurally intended to perform.

The Solution is Down Here

Space debris is not primarily a robotics problem. It is a logistics and infrastructure problem. The industry has already proven that we can approach, characterize, and remove defunct objects. What it lacks is the "freight train" required to do so at scale.

Systematic debris removal will only emerge when access to orbit becomes a utility: frequent, affordable, and precise. The solution to the clutter above our heads isn't another harpoon; it's the technology we build on the ground to get us there.