Evidence-based research and commentary on gender equity and environmental accountability in aerospace.
Commentary
Every satellite begins as a mine. The rare earth elements in aerospace technology come from communities that are rarely consulted, frequently displaced, and almost never compensated.
1 June 2026 · Environmental Cost of Aerospace · IRMA 2025; UNCTAD 2026 · Internal review
Data Analysis
Women hold 22% of aerospace jobs and 11% of agency leadership. We traced where the other half goes, and it is not the pipeline.
14 May 2026 · Gender Equity in Aerospace · UNOOSA Space4Women 2025; EUSPA workforce returns 2026; ESA Diversity Report 2025 · Independent peer review pending
Policy Brief
Based on analysis of 12 space agencies, these five policy interventions — from transparent reporting to funded childcare — could move the needle on female leadership.
5 May 2026 · Accountability & Policy · UNOOSA; ESA Diversity Report 2025; NASA Workforce Data 2025 · Independent peer review pending
Commentary
The pipeline metaphor is broken. It implies women are not in aerospace because they haven't arrived yet. The truth is the industry has been standing at the end of a pipe that it never opened.
1 April 2026 · Gender Equity in Aerospace · EOSYN Space programme data; UNOOSA Space4Women 2025 · Internal review
Data Analysis
1.4 million people are displaced by rare earth mining every year, and 41% of operations have no environmental review. The satellites do not launch themselves.
2 March 2026 · Environmental Cost of Aerospace · IRMA 2025; UNCTAD 2026; OECD Due Diligence Guidance; company sustainability reports · Independent peer review pending
Programme Report
74% of our participants continue into STEM pathways. We published the intervention design, the survey instrument, and the parts that failed.
20 January 2026 · STEM Education for Girls · EOSYN Space programme data; participant follow-up surveys 2024-2025 · Internal review
Press inquiries: press@eosynspace.org
All EOSYN Space research is reviewed by our Research Ethics Committee. Publications involving human participants require informed consent. Research involving mining-affected or indigenous communities follows Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) principles. Read our full research ethics framework →
Every publication on this page passes through the same review before it is posted. The framework below is the standard we hold ourselves to, and the one we will be judged against if we fall short of it.
The Committee reviews the design of any study before data collection begins, and the draft of any publication before it is released. It has the authority to stop a publication. Where a study is reviewed internally rather than independently, the publication says so on its card — "Internal review" is a weaker signal than independent peer review, and hiding that distinction would be the dishonest option.
Research involving human participants requires informed consent in a language the participant reads fluently, with a plain explanation of what will be collected, how long it will be kept, and how to withdraw. Participants under 18 require guardian consent alongside their own assent. Withdrawal removes the individual record from future analysis; where a figure has already been published, we note the change rather than silently restating it.
Research touching mining-affected or indigenous communities follows FPIC principles. Consent must be sought free of coercion, before the research begins rather than after, informed by a full account of the purpose and the funders, and given by the community's own representative process rather than by whoever is most convenient to reach. A community may decline. If it declines, the research does not proceed and we do not substitute second-hand accounts to fill the gap.
Every publication lists its sources. Where a figure comes from our own programme data we say so, because self-reported programme outcomes deserve more scepticism than independent statistics. If a published figure turns out to be wrong, we correct it in place with a dated note explaining what changed. Corrections are never silent.
Funders and partners have no editorial input into research findings. Where a publication concerns a sector in which a partner operates, the relationship is disclosed in the publication itself.
