## 8 Discussion
This review synthesizes secondary sources and industry statistics; it does not supply any original datasets or new empirical tests of the modified S-C-P model. Therefore, descriptions of structure, conduct, and performance remain illustrative rather than rigorous assessments of inferences among the elements of the modified S-C-P framework. Regarding performance, assessing technical and allocative efficiency in the space economy would ideally require standardized input-output datasets and a uniform production function, conditions that do not exist. Some limited numbers regarding technical efficiency were presented; however, they should be treated only as proxies. As a result, statementsabout X-efficiency gains or potential welfare losses from concentration remain qualitative rather than econometrically validated. Given the specificity of the space economy, the performance assessment should go beyond efficiency. However, the paper does not compute any universal social welfare measures. National security benefits, public good outputs, and global externalities cannot be collapsed into a single welfare metric; any performance judgment inevitably reflects implicit value choices. Readers should also be aware that although major space powers are covered in the study, data availability--mainly releases by U.S. and European institutions and large Anglophone commercial providers--skews the perspective toward U.S. and allied programs, providing only limited insight into China, Russia, India, and emerging actors with much less transparent reporting. As a result, the structural and conduct patterns derived here may underestimate non-Western launch capacity, alternative financing models (e.g., state-owned conglomerates), and region-specific regulations. Therefore, generalizing the modified S-C-P conclusions beyond the triad (U.S.-EU-Japan) context should be performed cautiously. This paper should be treated as a preliminary, interdisciplinary, and descriptive study of the space economy through the lens of the modified S-C-P framework. The limitations listed above could be justified at this stage. However, attempts to mitigate them will be welcomed. Addressing the above limitations will require new data collection and tailored analytical tools. The following avenues of future research are essential to incorporate more scientific rigor. Firstly, attempts to build comprehensive and comparable datasets will be welcomed both at the national and firm levels. This could allow using the standardized quantitative metrics regarding structure (e.g., Herfindal-Hirschman index), conduct (e.g., harmonized cost breakdowns, utilization rates), and performance (e.g., comparable inputs and outputs datasets allowing estimation of production function or total-factor-productivity indices). Secondly, empirical testing will not only require comprehensive and comparable data but also a new analytical tool. The great challenge will be constructing a multi-criteria performance index that weights economic efficiency, public good provision, and national-security value. Thirdly, future research would benefit from multilingual data collection. Thus, to expand geographic coverage, future studies should attempt to compile the Mandarin, Russian, and Hindi language literature, including the \"grey\" literature. International partnerships with regional researchers and analysts to validate and interpret such sources would be a great idea. Addressing these topics will be a challenge. However, pursuing these research paths would supply the primary evidence, quantitative rigor, and global balance needed to test--and refine--the modified S-C-P framework proposed in this review. It would solidify the analytical bridge between industrial-organization theory and the distinctive realities of the space economy.