In the previous posts, I outlined what a circular economy might mean in space, and looked at how Earth-based circular systems in shared domains have developed – or struggled to. Now it’s time to get more specific.
If we’re serious about circularity in orbit, we need to look closely at what’s actually up there. Satellites, especially the thousands of small ones launched as part of communications constellations, are the most common man-made objects in space today.
So – what are they made of? How much value do they hold? And is there a meaningful case to be made for recovering or reusing them?
The Rise of Mass-Manufactured Satellites
Over the last decade, the space industry has shifted from bespoke satellites to mass-produced systems, particularly in low Earth orbit. Companies like SpaceX, OneWeb and Amazon are building and launching hundreds or even thousands of satellites each year. Many of these are designed for lifespans of just five to seven years, after which they are deorbited or left to decay naturally.
The advantage of this model is scale. Satellites are cheaper to build, launch, and replace. But that same approach makes them less suited to repair, reuse or recycling. They’re compact, integrated, and not designed to come apart.
In that way, they’re more like early smartphones than shipping containers – optimised for function, not for second life.
Materials and Components: What’s Actually Onboard?
A typical communications satellite – like a Starlink or OneWeb unit – weighs around 300 kilograms, (although they are trending larger now). The specific design varies, but most share a set of common components and materials:
- Aluminium frames and panels – lightweight and corrosion-resistant
- Solar arrays – made of silicon, glass, and rare earth coatings
- Batteries – often lithium-ion, containing cobalt and other metals
- Onboard computers – printed circuit boards with gold, copper, and rare earths
- Antennae and transceivers – with some specialised alloys and ceramics
- Propulsion units – sometimes chemical, sometimes electric (e.g. Hall-effect thrusters with xenon tanks)
In material terms, these satellites contain a mix of valuable metals (aluminium, gold, copper, lithium) and less recoverable components (bonded plastics, adhesives, composite materials).
Theoretically, there is recoverable value in these materials. But value isn’t just about what something contains – it’s also about how easily it can be accessed, processed, and repurposed.
The Challenges of Recovery
On Earth, we already face major challenges recovering materials from small, tightly integrated devices like phones and laptops. In space, the problems multiply.
- No standardisation – each constellation or manufacturer uses different layouts, component choices, and assembly methods
- Extreme degradation – radiation and thermal cycling degrade plastics, electronics, and even some metals over time
- Bonded materials – many components are fused together, making separation difficult without specialised tools
- No disassembly tooling – satellites aren’t designed for access or teardown, and robotic systems capable of doing so in orbit are still experimental
Even if you could recover a satellite in orbit, you’d need infrastructure to process it – either in space, which is complex and costly, or by returning it to Earth, which requires controlled re-entry and capture.
In short, just because there are valuable materials in a satellite doesn’t mean they’re worth recovering.
When Might Recovery Make Sense?
That doesn’t mean it’s impossible – just that the business case needs to be clear.
There are some scenarios where satellite recovery or reuse might be viable:
- High-value components that are relatively isolated – such as propulsion units or rare earth magnets – might be worth salvaging, especially if they could be refitted or repurposed.
- Standardised designs could enable selective reuse of modules or systems, particularly if disassembly tooling becomes feasible.
- End-of-life recovery missions could target satellites for safe return to Earth, where materials can be processed using established terrestrial recycling systems.
- Orbital servicing hubs might one day enable in-space repair, replacement, or disassembly – but this would require a wholesale redesign of satellite architectures.
Today, most of these scenarios remain speculative. But that’s not unusual in early-stage circular systems. Even on Earth, recovery and reuse models often began with targeted interventions in specific product lines, before scaling up.
The key is to understand where the early leverage points are.
Design for the Future, Not the Past
Trying to make today’s satellites circular is a bit like trying to recycle early mobile phones. You can do it, but it’s awkward, expensive, and rarely worth it.
A more useful approach may be to start designing future satellites with circularity in mind. That could mean:
- Using standardised connectors and modules
- Designing systems for disassembly or upgrade
- Choosing materials that are easier to separate or reuse
- Incorporating on-board markers or metadata for servicing robots
- Planning for end-of-life pathways beyond deorbiting
These design choices aren’t free. They come with trade-offs in performance, mass, and cost. But they may also create new economic value – by enabling reuse, reducing launch needs, or supporting future servicing markets.
Is It Worth It?
Whether recovering satellites is “worth it” depends heavily on how you define value. If the calculation is purely economic – based on the resale value of aluminium, lithium, or gold recovered from a single satellite – the answer is probably no, at least for now. The cost and complexity of recovery far exceed the market price of the raw materials.
But that isn’t the whole picture.
Circularity in space isn’t just about reclaiming metals. It’s about reducing launch volumes, extending the utility of orbital assets, and preventing long-term buildup of defunct satellites that increase the risk of collisions and debris generation. Reuse or recovery can contribute to a more sustainable orbital environment – one that is less crowded, more predictable, and safer for future operations.
Those benefits don’t yet show up on a balance sheet. But as the number of satellites in low Earth orbit continues to grow, the sustainability argument will carry more weight. Especially as insurers, operators, and regulators start to factor environmental risk into licensing and liability frameworks.
For circularity to take hold, the economics and the sustainability case will need to align. That means building systems where reuse doesn’t just serve the planet – it makes sense for the business too.
