This is a solid analysis and something I've long suspected as well. The space industry is trying to paint a picture of a booming commercial economy that simply does not exist, and won't for quite awhile. When I started working with [redacted company], they were adamant that they didn't want to be just another government subcontractor like every other space company at the time. By the time I left, their largest customers were the NRO and NASA and they've solidly pivoted toward defense. Outside of navigation and telecom as you've outlined in this article, we haven't yet proven enough commercial use cases to make a truly thriving ecosystem of commercially viable companies.
Hi Tanya, thank you for your comment. I think there is the need of a bit of clairty and transparency, to make sure that the Space industry doesn't become another fossil fuel industry. It takes very little to loose trust in a sector...these numbers might be ok to discuss the importance of the satellite and space industry for governments and private companies (absolutely), but maybe they are not the more transparent representation of the space sector at large...
Honestly, I am not agains the concept of Space industry and Space economy. I am just worried about confusing one with the other..the numbers tell a different story from what the media like to tell...
100% - I think "space industry" is one thing, "space economy" is another, and then a third might be "other sectors that benefit from space industry". It might be useful to talk about that third category if we want to communicate how critical space capabilities are, but it shouldn't be "counted" in the value of the space economy. I mean, we don't include the car industry when measuring the size of the oil and gas industry, even though cars depend (still in large part) on those resources.
Thank you for bringing together the numbers from Eurospace and solid commentary. While I would rather have a vibrant industry with investors wanting to back space companies working on cutting-edge tech, there is ultimately a line we need to draw between infinite optimism and finite markets. I think there are other clues lying around, waiting to be uncovered; for example, Google’s divestiture of Skybox. Google realised that its top line (and bottom line) is stronger if it stays strictly downstream of the “space sector”. Go further up, then incur the CAPEX, OPEX and inconvenient schedule-tied cash flows that typify the space companies of today.
I think of it this way: the space industry, building a satellite or a rover, launching it, and making it talk back to Earth, is still hard, complex, and highly specialised. And that, to me, is a badge of honour. It means it still requires serious skills to get into the game.
This industry deserves support from both investors and governments to keep flourishing and delivering the services it already does so well. But it should be supported not because it’s a “trillion-dollar economy”—it should be supported because it’s a fundamental piece of our society, just like roads, schools, or hospitals.
There’s no need for hype. Its essential role in underpinning the wider economy is more than enough to justify public support. Instead, we get lost in testosterone-driven propaganda… massaging the stats to look bigger. It diminishes us, in my opinion.
This is a solid analysis and something I've long suspected as well. The space industry is trying to paint a picture of a booming commercial economy that simply does not exist, and won't for quite awhile. When I started working with [redacted company], they were adamant that they didn't want to be just another government subcontractor like every other space company at the time. By the time I left, their largest customers were the NRO and NASA and they've solidly pivoted toward defense. Outside of navigation and telecom as you've outlined in this article, we haven't yet proven enough commercial use cases to make a truly thriving ecosystem of commercially viable companies.
Hi Tanya, thank you for your comment. I think there is the need of a bit of clairty and transparency, to make sure that the Space industry doesn't become another fossil fuel industry. It takes very little to loose trust in a sector...these numbers might be ok to discuss the importance of the satellite and space industry for governments and private companies (absolutely), but maybe they are not the more transparent representation of the space sector at large...
So good to see the numbers broken down into reality
Honestly, I am not agains the concept of Space industry and Space economy. I am just worried about confusing one with the other..the numbers tell a different story from what the media like to tell...
100% - I think "space industry" is one thing, "space economy" is another, and then a third might be "other sectors that benefit from space industry". It might be useful to talk about that third category if we want to communicate how critical space capabilities are, but it shouldn't be "counted" in the value of the space economy. I mean, we don't include the car industry when measuring the size of the oil and gas industry, even though cars depend (still in large part) on those resources.
Thank you for bringing together the numbers from Eurospace and solid commentary. While I would rather have a vibrant industry with investors wanting to back space companies working on cutting-edge tech, there is ultimately a line we need to draw between infinite optimism and finite markets. I think there are other clues lying around, waiting to be uncovered; for example, Google’s divestiture of Skybox. Google realised that its top line (and bottom line) is stronger if it stays strictly downstream of the “space sector”. Go further up, then incur the CAPEX, OPEX and inconvenient schedule-tied cash flows that typify the space companies of today.
I think of it this way: the space industry, building a satellite or a rover, launching it, and making it talk back to Earth, is still hard, complex, and highly specialised. And that, to me, is a badge of honour. It means it still requires serious skills to get into the game.
This industry deserves support from both investors and governments to keep flourishing and delivering the services it already does so well. But it should be supported not because it’s a “trillion-dollar economy”—it should be supported because it’s a fundamental piece of our society, just like roads, schools, or hospitals.
There’s no need for hype. Its essential role in underpinning the wider economy is more than enough to justify public support. Instead, we get lost in testosterone-driven propaganda… massaging the stats to look bigger. It diminishes us, in my opinion.