On January 12, 2026, the European Space Agency and the Swiss company ClearSpace unveiled the PRELUDE mission, a new in-orbit technology demonstration that is widely described as “bridging the gap between technology demonstration and operational in-orbit services” while “reinforcing Europe’s leadership in space safety.”
At first glance it reads like many other institutional space press releases: cautious, responsible, safety-oriented, aimed at validating technologies for close proximity operations, relative navigation and future tasks such as debris removal, life extension and satellite inspection. Two small spacecraft will fly together, test manoeuvres and navigation systems, then – mission accomplished – presumably return home for plenty of press releases about how diligent Europe has been in keeping orbit tidy.
The problem with that framing isn’t that safety and sustainability are unimportant. They are. The problem is that safety has become the dominant narrative, the badge Europe wears to distinguish itself, and in doing so it obscures something more vital: the absence of an aggressive, forward-leaning commercial and operational ambition that might actually keep Europe competitive in the global space economy.
Safety as a Cover for Conservatism
When the flagship accomplishment of a space programme is being “safe” and “responsible,” it reflects a certain institutional culture rather than industrial competitiveness. On the surface, PRELUDE is described as a critical stepping stone to operational in-orbit services by validating essential technologies. That message is repeated in every variation of the press material. But dig beneath the surface and the emphasis remains on mitigating risk and operating within established, conservative boundaries.
There are good reasons for safety-centric language. Space is unforgiving. Debris in low Earth orbit travels at tens of thousands of kilometres per hour. Small fragments can obliterate satellites. The European Space Agency’s Space Safety Programme, which underpins missions like PRELUDE and ClearSpace-1, is designed to ensure that Europe contributes to the global imperative of keeping orbital space usable. But mission statements that highlight “reinforcing Europe’s leadership in space safety” are not the same as outlining a strategy that positions European industry as a front-runner in commercial market share.
To be clear, there is value in advancing debris removal, inspection and life extension technologies. Without these capabilities, the orbital environment becomes progressively less safe and economically viable. But there’s a difference between being good at safety and leading the space economy.
Leadership by Launch Counts, Not Mission Statements
One simple way to see Europe’s predicament is by looking at launch cadence and operational tempo. Over the last decade, the most active players – the United States (including SpaceX, ULA, Rocket Lab), China’s national and commercial launch efforts, and India’s growing PSLV and GSLV manifest – have consistently exceeded Europe in the number of orbital insertions per year. Frequent launches create not just economic activity but operational experience, infrastructure scaling and an ecosystem of suppliers, startups and downstream service providers.
Europe’s launcher ecosystem, centred on vehicles like Ariane and Vega, operates at a cadence tied to institutional planning and budgets. That inherently limits volume and response time. There’s no shame in that, but it does mean Europe is not in the same league in terms of presence and flux in orbit.
Meanwhile, private companies in the US and China are not waiting for multi-year technology demonstrations to reach operational milestones. They iterate fast, launch often, and lean into risk when the reward is a competitive market position. Safety matters, but in those markets it is balanced against growth imperatives, investor timelines and customer demand.
So when Europe talks about “leadership in space safety” it sounds a bit like a punchline: Europe may be pretty good at avoiding accidents, but it’s not necessarily at the forefront of shaping the commercial reality where most of the growth will happen. Safety is necessary, but alone it does not create market dominance.
The Risk of Playing Only Defence in a Global Competition
Of course Europe is right to invest in technologies that make space sustainable. Any sensible space policy has to address orbital debris, collision avoidance and responsible end-of-life practices. But if those programs become the de facto narrative by which Europe defines its entire space strategy, then that strategy starts to look like an overly defensive posture.
The broader commercial market is not just about removing debris. It’s about in-orbit manufacturing, refuelling, servicing, data services, commercial constellations and the infrastructure that supports them. Those markets reward boldness, reliability, and a willingness to take calculated risks. They reward companies and nations that deliver services quickly, at scale, and with a value proposition that customers are willing to pay for.
Europe can and should aspire to be part of that. But it needs to embrace a narrative that sits alongside safety and sustainability, not behind them.
A Call for a More Assertive European Space Narrative
Europe’s space institutions have strengths: technical expertise, strong engineering traditions, and a collaborative industrial base. But leaders have to recognise that in the global space economy, rhetoric matters. Describing a mission mainly in terms of “safety” and “responsibility” is not the same as articulating a bold vision for commercial leadership or strategic autonomy.
If PRELUDE’s real objective is to enable operational in-orbit services – and that’s what the technologies it validates are meant to support – then Europe needs to start talking about economic impact, market readiness, commercial partnerships, competitive differentiation, and operational tempo. Leaders in other regions are doing just that, and their launch rates and market presence reflect it.
Safety and sustainability are indispensable, but they must be complements to a strategy that also prizes agility, market aggression and tangible competitive positioning. Otherwise Europe will remain good at being safe, and little else.
