Shared Space Infrastructure vs Mission Independence
Retain minimum independent fallback capability for critical functions so shared-infrastructure outages do not violate NIS2 continuity and resilience obligations.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Space contradiction TSI034 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Business Context
Shared communications relays, navigation services, servicing systems, orbital platforms, processing resources, and other infrastructure can reduce the amount of dedicated capability individual missions must carry. However, increasing dependence on shared infrastructure creates common failure points and may expose missions to availability, governance, commercial, or operational decisions outside their direct control.
Space TRIZ Resolution
Missions should use shared infrastructure for efficiency while retaining minimum independent capability for essential functions. Critical operations can have alternative service paths, local fallback modes, or limited onboard capability sufficient to maintain safe operations when external infrastructure becomes temporarily unavailable.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 5 – Merging shares common infrastructure where collective use creates efficiency.
Principle 11 – Beforehand Cushioning establishes fallback capability before external services are lost.
Principle 15 – Dynamics switches between shared and independent operating modes according to infrastructure availability.
Expected Outcome
Greater use of shared infrastructure
Lower dedicated spacecraft resource requirements
Maintained mission independence
Reduced common-service vulnerability
Decision Indicators
Early indicators include:
Loss of one external service disables critical mission functions.
Spacecraft duplicate complete infrastructure solely to preserve independence.
Alternative service providers cannot be accessed.
Safe operations depend continuously on third-party infrastructure.
Shared-service outages produce immediate mission interruptions.