The Office of Space Commerce doesn’t typically make waves. It processes orbital debris data, works on space traffic management, and operates in the background of flashier NASA missions and SpaceX launches. But on January 12, 2026, OSC published something more revealing than routine: a detailed call for stakeholder input on doing business in India’s space market. The questions OSC asked—seven categories probing everything from foreign direct investment caps to Earth observation data restrictions—mapped exactly where U.S. companies hit regulatory walls.
This wasn’t a survey. It was intelligence gathering with a diplomatic purpose. The feedback collected by OSC’s January 30 deadline flows directly into the Commercial Space Sub-Working Group (CSSwG) meetings scheduled throughout 2026, where U.S. and Indian officials negotiate market access under the broader Civil Space Joint Working Group framework. India’s space sector represents an $8.4 billion opportunity today, projected to reach $44 billion by 2033 as private companies increasingly operate alongside the Indian Space Research Organisation. The growth trajectory looks compelling. The question is whether American firms can actually access it and whether this stakeholder process will remove barriers or simply document them with precision.
India spent the past three years broadcasting its space sector reforms: the 2023 Indian Space Policy that opened commercial opportunities, the establishment of IN-SPACe as a regulatory facilitator, and most recently a ₹1,000 crore ($120 million) Space Venture Capital Fund accepting foreign investment. Yet U.S. companies remain cautious, tangled in regulatory ambiguity and market access restrictions that official policy pronouncements don’t quite resolve. OSC’s stakeholder input process transforms those industry frustrations into documented negotiating positions. Whether it translates to actual market opening depends on political will, diplomatic leverage, and India’s receptiveness to pressure.
What OSC Is Actually Asking
The OSC announcement laid out seven specific categories for stakeholder feedback, each targeting a concrete friction point. This wasn’t the usual “tell us your thoughts” government consultation. The questions revealed which barriers OSC already suspects matter most—and where the U.S. government needs ammunition for bilateral negotiations.
First on the list, regulatory frameworks and licensing requirements. OSC asked stakeholders to describe their experiences navigating IN-SPACe authorization processes, highlight bureaucratic bottlenecks, and identify where Indian regulations diverge from international standards in ways that create compliance headaches. Translation: document the gap between India’s streamlined-on-paper regulatory promises and the actual timeline to get approved.
The foreign direct investment (FDI) policy got its own category. OSC specifically requested input on how India’s tiered FDI caps—49% for satellite operations, 74% for data products, 100% for manufacturing and launch services—affect business planning and market entry decisions. The FDI architecture creates a trap for smallsat operators: you can fully own the factory that builds satellites, but you need an Indian majority partner to actually operate them commercially. That ownership split complicates capital structures, intellectual property control, and exit strategies.
Local content requirements formed the third inquiry area. OSC asked companies to detail any mandates to source components or services domestically, and how these requirements affect supply chain design and cost structures. The challenge here is less about explicit rules than opaque expectations, procurement preferences that favor Indian entities without formal legal mandates, creating uncertainty about what level of localization will actually win contracts.
Intellectual property protection concerns occupied another question category, particularly around technology transfer expectations in partnerships and joint ventures. For U.S. companies with proprietary satellite designs or processing algorithms, the concern isn’t just legal IP frameworks but practical pressure to share technology as the price of market access.
Earth observation and remote sensing data policies received dedicated attention. India maintains restrictions on high-resolution imagery and requires licensing for data collection over Indian territory. For commercial EO providers whose business model depends on global coverage and rapid data distribution, these constraints can render the Indian market unworkable despite strong demand for satellite imagery services.
OSC also probed market access barriers beyond formal regulations—government procurement practices that favor domestic providers, informal barriers to participation in Indian space programs, and challenges in securing contracts despite meeting technical requirements. This category captures the gap between de jure openness and de facto access.
Finally, OSC asked for broader observations, anything stakeholders wanted to flag that didn’t fit neat categories, success stories worth highlighting, or reform proposals that could unlock market potential. The January 30, 2026 deadline has now passed, with submissions directed to OSCStakeholderFeedback@doc.gov with confidentiality protections for proprietary business information.
The specificity of these questions signals that OSC isn’t starting from scratch. They’ve heard the complaints informally. This process creates an official record.
The Barriers Under Investigation
The FDI architecture deserves closer examination because it illustrates how policy design creates market access problems even when the intent appears liberalizing. On paper, India’s tiered foreign investment caps look like a compromise: restricted for sensitive satellite operations, open for manufacturing and support services. In practice, the 49% ownership cap for satellite constellation operators creates structural challenges that affect deal economics.
