At IPPRA, we bring people together to tackle some of the toughest public policy challenges of our time. Our work bridges public policy scholarship with the physical and engineering sciences, building partnerships that cut across natural, technological, and social systems. At the heart of it all is a simple goal: to improve lives. We do this by strengthening the ways communities make decisions, helping people become more resilient in the face of change, and creating opportunities where science and policy can move forward together.
To make that happen, we use cutting-edge data, computation, and social science methods to see the bigger picture. We take a systems-level view of problems that don’t fit neatly into one box. Sometimes that means focusing on local challenges here in Oklahoma; other times, it means working at national or even global scales. Our research reaches into areas that matter to everyone: weather, climate, and water; energy; national security; education; and public health.
We’re also exploring new and emerging issues at the critical intersections where science and policy meet. One example is the U.S. reliance on satellites and other space-based systems. These systems support national security, power economic activity, and make everyday life safer and easier through tools like GPS navigation, global communication, and weather forecasting. But as the space where these satellites operate becomes increasingly crowded and competitive, U.S. leaders face difficult choices about how to protect them and manage their use in a rapidly changing global environment.
As part of this effort, we recently conducted a national survey of 1,498 respondents that explored views on satellites and space-based systems. In the sections that follow, we draw on these results to highlight what the public knows, how they perceive risks, and which policies and organizations they support and trust to protect these critical systems. These perspectives matter for public policy, where leaders must balance technical needs, national security, and public trust when making decisions about the future of space.
We started by asking two simple but important questions: how much people feel they know about satellites and space systems, and how much they think the U.S. relies on them for national security, the economy, and everyday life. These questions provide a baseline for understanding public awareness and perceptions before diving into specific risks and policy options.
More than half of respondents (55%) said they knew a little or nothing at all about the role of satellites and space systems, while only 14% reported knowing a lot or a great deal. Despite that modest level of understanding, about 55%, said they believe that the U.S. relies heavily on these systems to support national security, the economy, and everyday life. This contrast underscores that even with limited personal knowledge, most people recognize satellites and other space-based systems as essential to modern society.
After establishing what people know and how much they think the U.S. relies on satellites, we turned to the question of impact. Satellites and space-based systems underpin everything from national security operations to the flow of global commerce and the convenience of daily life. But what would happen if those systems were suddenly disabled?
To get at this, we asked respondents how serious they thought the consequences would be for U.S. national security, the economy, and everyday life. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (74%) said that a disruption would have a very or extremely serious impact on national security. Sixty percent said the same about the economy, and a similar share said so about everyday life.
We then asked about specific threats, and respondents rated all of them as serious to some degree, but some stood out more than others. Nearly seven in ten respondents (69%) viewed cyberattacks, such as hacking or jamming satellite signals, as a very or extremely serious risk, while 55% expressed similar concern about physical attacks from other countries. Malfunctions and system failures ranked next, with 48% identifying them as very or extremely serious. Concerns about natural threats like solar storms and space debris were somewhat lower but still notable, reflecting growing awareness of the hazards that come with a crowded orbit. These results indicate that people see U.S. satellites as vulnerable to a wide range of dangers, both human-made and natural.
The public expressed broad support for a range of policy actions to protect U.S. satellites and space systems. The strongest backing was for improving cybersecurity protections (80% somewhat or strong support), followed by developing international agreements to prevent conflict in space (73%) and increasing efforts to track and remove space debris (69%). Support was also high for investing in new space security and defense technologies (65%) and limiting the number of new satellites launched into space (51%). The least supported option was closer partnerships with private companies that operate satellites, though even in this case a majority (54%) said they somewhat or strongly supported the policy. These generally high levels of support suggest that the public is open to a mix of technical, regulatory, and diplomatic approaches to safeguarding space systems.
After sharing their views on specific policy measures, respondents were asked about overall government spending on satellites and space systems. Half (50%) said the U.S. should spend either a little more or much more, while another 40% said spending should remain at current levels. Only a small minority felt that spending should decrease. Support for higher spending increased when respondents were asked to consider the expanding capabilities of other countries, such as Russia and China. In that context, the share favoring more spending rose from 50% to 56%, suggesting that concerns about international competition sharpen public willingness to invest in U.S. space systems.
Finally, we asked about trust. Protecting space systems involves many different players—civil agencies like NASA, military organizations such as the U.S. Space Force, and private companies including SpaceX and Northrup Grumman. To understand how the public views these actors, we measured both their perceived effectiveness and whether people believe they act in the best interest of the U.S. public.
Our results showed consistently high levels of trust in civil agencies, with military organizations also earning substantial confidence. Trust in private companies was more moderate. Respondents generally recognized their effectiveness but were somewhat less certain about whether they act in the public’s best interest. This highlights an important dynamic in space policy: industry is essential to advancing U.S. capabilities, and continued collaboration can help ensure that public and private priorities remain aligned.
Taken together, these findings show that the public sees U.S. satellites as both essential and vulnerable, and they support a wide range of policies to keep them secure. From a policy perspective, this creates an opening for leaders to pursue strategies that blend technical investments, international agreements, and cooperative approaches to risk management in orbit.
For IPPRA, these results highlight our continuing commitment to bring social science into conversations about national security, technology, and resilience. They also reinforce our mission to bridge science and policy in ways that strengthen decision-making and public trust. We are excited to continue our work in this area.
