As sovereign space ambitions expand, governments face a growing dilemma: how to secure the investment needed to build critical space infrastructure while retaining strategic control. With private capital playing an increasingly central role in the space economy, the question is no longer whether to partner, but how to do so without compromising national interests.   

This panel examined the tension between national priorities, investor requirements, and the practical realities of financing space systems at scale. Featuring Kelli Kedis Ogborn (Strategic Advisor for Global Markets and Industry Engagement, Commercial Space Federation), Praveen Vetrivel (CEO, SLI), Caitlin Heffernan (Senior Vice President, Macquarie Group), and Fredrik Gustavsson (CFO, SWISSto12), the discussion highlighted how to unlock growth through public-private partnerships, new procurement models, and clearer understandings of control versus ownership. As Kedis Ogborn framed it at the outset: “Nations want sovereignty. Investors want bankable structures.” Closing that gap may be one of the defining challenges of the current moment in space. 

Here Were the Top Takeaways from the Program:

1. Sovereignty in space is increasingly about control; not outright ownership

The push to build sovereign space capabilities is running up against a practical constraint: if governments insist on owning every asset, many projects simply won’t get financed. That’s why redefining what “sovereignty” actually requires has become so important. 

Governments may not need to own every asset to claim sovereign capability. Vetrivel argued that “control and ownership are not necessarily the same thing,” urging policymakers to focus instead on whether they control what an asset does, what it produces, and how its data flows are governed. This distinction matters because full ownership can make projects prohibitively expensive and far less attractive to private investment. 

Kedis Ogborn noted that the debate is often clouded by the assumption that autonomy automatically requires ownership. In practice, a more modern definition of sovereignty, grounded in assured access, security, and operational control, could unlock greater private participation, making more projects financially viable without compromising national interests. 

2. Public-private partnership models can be adapted to preserve sovereign priorities

The central challenge is not a lack of financing models, but a reluctance to move beyond familiar procurement habits. Speakers across the panel stressed that governments often underestimate their flexibility, even though proven financing structures exist across other infrastructure sectors and can be adapted for space. 

As Heffernan noted, there are “different models to suit different situations,” including arrangements where the private sector finances and builds assets while the public sector retains key operational roles. Vetrivel reinforced this point with examples from aviation and defense, where governments maintain step-in rights and ensure operational continuity even when delivery is privatized. 

Together, these perspectives highlight a clear takeaway: state actors can tap into more efficient capital flows without giving up core strategic control, if they are willing to rethink traditional approaches. 

3. Governments must structure risk intentionally to make space systems investable

Sovereign space ambitions will only attract private capital if nations take a more active role in structuring and allocating risk. As Caitlin Heffernan noted, “the most efficient way to manage that is just allocating the risk to the party that’s most able to manage that risk,” underscoring that unclear or misallocated risk is often what prevents deals from closing. 

For emerging space nations, this means creating procurement and regulatory frameworks that clearly define who is responsible for what — particularly around political, regulatory, and change-of-law risks that the private sector cannot effectively absorb. Fredrik Gustavsson reinforced that without this clarity, companies are forced to price in uncertainty or avoid projects altogether, making financing significantly more expensive or, worse, unviable.  

In practice, making a space ecosystem investable requires governance systems to provide transparent rules, stable regulatory environments, and contractual mechanisms, such as relief regimes or step-in rights, that give investors' confidence that risks are understood, managed, and ultimately calculable.