The top reason surveillance isn't adopted now is cost.
Not the cost of cameras, which can be very cheap. In addition to those cameras you need storage - which can get expensive. You will also need transmitters, power (this stops many police departments who insist on dedicated transmitters, or pay engineering firms for custom solutions). There's a non-trivial amount of system architecture also involved : what does the camera do when connecting to the central server is impossible - does it try backup communication methods, compressing local storage, alternative destinations, increasing the spacing between frames or decreasing resolution to increase the time until local storage is full.
Especially in space, where time delays can be extensive and clocks can mismatch due to gravitational and velocity-based relativistic effects, it would be good not to trivialize how much effort is required to get reliable (authenticated and high quality) data into the system.
On the server side there's also a lot of decision-making (and cost). How do sensors prove who they are? What do you do with data that has arrived out of time because of broken communication? What do you do with multiple pieces of data claiming to come from the same device and time? Can anyone edit videos? How is access to the server auditable so that you can trust that what's on the server isn't deepfake? How do you associate metadata (officers and device, location and device)? How do you search through the video? What processes grainy or poor video? What do you do with the raw feed? Keep it, in case of questions? Dump it?
Who maintains the cameras - cleaning dirty ones and servicing or repairing broken ones? How do you know which cameras need attention?
Especially as the volume increases : processing raw data to add meta, fix errors, and searching become the greatest single costs.
Cost could be driven way down by a shrink-wrapped solution. However, most places want some custom answer to these questions, which usually costs more than most organizations want to pay. Even shrink wrapped, the operating cost is high - which is why many places install highly visible cameras of such poor quality as to be essentially useless.
Here's an idea of how this scales :
Bandwidth = resolution x frame rate x number of cameras.
For a simple building with a hundred cameras, Macintosh 120 frames per second, and 3 megapixels, that's 3.6 Gb per second. Running that building for one year generates 108 million Gb of raw video on disks. That's only a single building with a modest number of cameras. Scale this up even further to a single planet of a modest 7 billion buildings, and now the total is very close to the number of molecules in 22 liters of gas, and approaching real physical limits on data density. But add in 9 planets and maybe 100 moons, dwarf planets, smaller bodies, and a few thousand ships and vessels in a single solar system - that's a lot. And it wouldn't be cheap.