International Approaches to Training Non-Technical Professionals for Traditional and Commercial Space Programs

Rockets and satellites no longer define modern spaceflight. Today, what matters most are services and legal frameworks: Earth remote sensing, satellite communications and navigation, analytical platforms along with data-sharing regimes, licensing procedures, liability rules, and technical standards. In this new reality, non-technical professionals – those from the social sciences and humanities: lawyers, economists, managers, specialists in international relations and communications – are no longer a support function but a driving force in the industry. They are the ones who bridge technology, the market, and international cooperation (ISEB, 2005, p. 4).

Why this matters now

The commercial sector already sets the pace of the global space economy. According to the Space Foundation, the space economy was worth as much as $570 billion in 2023, with 78% of that figure coming from commercial revenue (1, Space Foundation, 2024). McKinsey projects further growth to $1.8 trillion by 2035, up from $630 billion in 2023 (2, McKinsey, 2024). This trajectory inevitably brings an expansion of contractual arrangements, standards, and compliance requirements that shape the commercialization of space services. Private commercial low-Earth-orbit (CLEO) station projects are particularly telling: they illustrate how established legal models are giving way to new forms of collaboration. The implication is clear: workforce policy must adapt. The emphasis is shifting from mass recruitment of engineers toward interdisciplinary teams capable of structuring deals, protecting intellectual property, building partnerships, and assessing the economic returns of space services.

Global experience: three sustainable practices

1. Integration of non-technical functions into agency structures. Leading spacefaring nations institutionalized the “humanities track” long ago. Legal departments, economic analysis units, program management offices, and international cooperation divisions all participate in key decision-making. Even where engineering units prevail, it is these teams who set the rules: from contracts and technology transfer to engagement with private operators and compliance with international obligations (3, NASA, 2025).

2. Networked workforce development: government–university–industry. Effective systems rely on consortia and project-based learning. Students and practitioners work together on issues posed by real agencies and companies. This narrows the gap between theory and practice: graduates enter the workforce not only with a degree but with a portfolio of deliverables – sample contracts, cost-effectiveness assessments, risk maps.

3. Specialized interdisciplinary programs.

A well-known example is the International Space University, whose curriculum stems from the intersection of technology, law, economics, and policy (5, ISUNET, 2025). The logic is simple: to properly draft contract requirements, data-sharing provisions, or risk management frameworks for an international project, a professional needs to grasp the engineering fundamentals – not at developer level, but well enough to make informed decisions.

Another example: this year, ESCP Business School introduced a space economy specialization within its Master in Management (MiM) program. The new track launches in the spring semester of 2025/2026 at the Turin campus. By embedding space economy into a flagship management degree, ESCP becomes one of the first business schools in Europe to include this discipline in a core management curriculum.

4) International partnerships embedded in educational pathways serve as an major accelerator for emerging space programs. Vietnam offers an instructive case through the University of Science and Technology of Hanoi (USTH): a consortium with dozens of French universities, cooperation with CNES, and a partnership with Airbus that anchor training in international standards and industrial supply chains. This model suits countries and regions that are developing traditional space programs and commercial services in parallel.

A proposal: international laboratories for space economy governance

To train professionals with social sciences and humanities backgrounds systematically rather than ad hoc, the proposal is to establish a network of educational-and-project centers hosted by universities and industry partners. Each center will function as a laboratory: its team combines research with the hands-on development of tools deployable across jurisdictions. The output goes beyond academic publications to include ready-to-use solutions:

• standard-form contractual structures and licensing schemes for space services (remote sensing, communications, navigation);
• liability allocation models between government and private operators, particularly in the context of CLEO projects and commercial launches;
• methodologies for assessing the economic impact of space services on adjacent sectors: agriculture, logistics, emergency response;
• intellectual property management and technology transfer tools, from royalty calculations to the accounting of intangible assets and data rights;
• position papers and negotiation roadmaps for international forums (COPUOS, ISY, regional platforms).

Why the model is scalable

It rests on three elements already proven effective in other contexts:

• A network university–government–industry link without rigid hierarchy: partners contribute not merely resources, but also their demands, expertise, and case studies.
• Professional development formats in space law and adjacent disciplines, tested through international programs (e.g., UN/COPUOS courses).
• A unified competency framework – flexible yet structured – that can be adapted to national legislation while preserving a common language for cross-border collaboration.

This makes it possible to replicate centers in new regions without starting from scratch each time.

First steps

1.    Form a consortium of 5–7 partners from different regions: 2–3 universities with strong law, economics, or management programs; a relevant agency or regulator; and 2–3 space service providers.

2.    Launch two educational tracks in parallel:

o   a master’s program (1 year, 20–25 students) with a mandatory project component commissioned by consortium partners;

o   short-term retraining programs for working managers, lawyers, and economists (12–16 weeks, 30–40 participants), focused on solving specific practical problems.

Summary and expected impact

Global practice shows that sustainable space programs depend on the combination of an engineering core and a strong social sciences and humanities track. For Russia, this can be quantified as follows: by our estimates, the target “critical mass” is over 30 lawyers, over 40 economists and analysts, and at least 15 international relations specialists. A separate minimum staffing benchmark for near-term needs is approximately 15 FTEs (6, Уваров В.У., Татарченко Е.А., Профиль). With a network of five centers and moderate cohort sizes, it is feasible to train 100–150 professionals per year (across master’s and retraining tracks combined) while producing a set of standard-form documents and methodologies that lower project transaction costs and accelerate the market launch of space services