Space Startups - Hot or Not?! Rate these fetching new Space startups.

[SpaceXaddict]

I'm currently learning and trying to discover the next generation of great Space companies. It takes someone like Elon proving it is possible, before people will believe it. But once that's done there will be a lot of followers. We've seen several competitors of SpaceX including Relativity and Rocket Lab.

So here I want to highlight whatever has me turned on and see what others think. I'm a born optimist, with a background in Physics, Electronics, Software and Entrepreneurship, but I don't have a lot of space experience.

I've launched companies, but nothing larger than an Estess model rocket. (Size D engines!)

So, for this edition, here's new companies to me:

Impulse Space.

Access Any Orbit

Economical and nimble last-mile space payload delivery

www.impulsespace.com

Tom Mueller's leading this company that is in the "LEO Tug" category, eg: last mile delivery for your payload and I think they will be de-orbiting or boosting orbit as a service. I think support and life extension for old sats is a great opportunity (not a lot of them in LEO, but I don't think they will be limited to LEO very long.
They're also working on a mars landing with Relativity. This really feels like a candidate to be "the next SpaceX". (Anyone got shares to sell?)

Next up, another company with an early SpaceX vibe is:

Stoke Space

Stoke Space / 100% reusable rockets / USA

www.stokespace.com

The walkthrough with everyday astronaut was pretty mind blowing. I look forward to their upcoming tests, definitely an "excitement guaranteed" moment.

This is the startup that launched my discussion with bxr140, resulting in this epic description of sat costs here: Mar 29, 2023

K2 Space
They believe they can spend mass to bring down the cost of satellite hardware.

K2 Space | Developing large satellites for a post-Starship future

By breaking the historic correlation between mass and cost, the K2 Space satellite bus offers the capabilities of large satellites at the price point of small satellites. A multi-orbit spacecraft for use across commercial, scientific and defense missions.

www.k2space.com

In Orbit
Mass manufacturing.

In Orbit — Mass Manufacturing In Space

www.inorbitaerospace.com

The amazing thing is there seems to be an unlimited stream of new space startups! But these are the ones that caught my attention recently.

 

[bxr140]

A good conference to watch is smallsat.org--it's always in August at Utah State (and you can go if you want to fork over some duckets). It's obviously heavily attended by US (and some Canadia) folks, but there's some international support as well as it's the biggest "not the big satellite show" conference out there (= not oldspace).

Its hard to keep track of everything that's going on, especially when "startup" spans everything from a couple people in a garage to a company with actual salable products, but there's some specific spaces that are worth watching for interesting evolution:

• Commercial earth sensing has been attracting a lot of attention for a decade now--0th order "pictures from space" makes a lot of sense; selling actual products has really focused on analytics since not a lot of people actually want a "picture from space". Planet, while really no longer a startup but was long a startup darling, is kind of the greybeard here. Capella and Hawkeye 360 are pulling in revenue. Muon Space should is working on something compelling. Plenty of other smaller entities with more specialized services/gizmos.
• In-orbit services have a potential future, though the timeline for growth and the magnitude of growth is a bit uncertain. Things like last-mile delivery, assisted deorbit, on orbit assembly, and on orbit manufacturing all have theoretical upsides, in that oder of plausibility/timeline. Momentus and Redwire come to mind.
• Space-as-a-service is another potential market--it turns out many new end-user-product entities in space aren't actually stoked about figuring out satellites and space and stuff, and they really just want to focus on the bottom line of delivering their product. SAAS can both 1) abstract a lot of the space minutia down to a bottom-line data type relationship and 2) time shift what is traditionally a Capex problem (paying up front to get *sugar* into space) into an Opex problem (paying a SAAS entity for SLA-goverend data). Loft Orbital is a great one here.
• Referring to all the discussion about satellite BOM costs, actual aatellite equipment definitely has a lot of theoretical potential, but it seems like its going to be pretty hard to provide a massively differentiating product [that still is reliable enough for someone to want to buy it from you] so I don't actually expect a massive amount of growth here. It seems like suppliers that can get on the megaconstellation train are going to tease out as the winners. Rocket Lab, for instance, is building the Kuiper reaction wheels; they're going to be able to offer similar wheels at a lower price than other folks for no other reason than their already-amortized production line and already-qualified hardware.
• Access to space (mostly launch, but also launch aggregation) was for a while The Bees' in the industry but time has done a bit of sorting and we're kind of in a place where the remaining players are a bit of a less-than-completely-impressive set of "still generally just another rocket, only a little bit better" solutions. Mostly just for fun it's worth keeping an eye on the wackier concepts like Stoke and SpinLaunch.

 

[SpaceXaddict]

A good conference to watch is smallsat.org--it's always in August at Utah State (and you can go if you want to fork over some duckets). It's obviously heavily attended by US (and some Canadia) folks, but there's some international support as well as it's the biggest "not the big satellite show" conference out there (= not oldspace).

Its hard to keep track of everything that's going on, especially when "startup" spans everything from a couple people in a garage to a company with actual salable products, but there's some specific spaces that are worth watching for interesting evolution:

• Commercial earth sensing has been attracting a lot of attention for a decade now--0th order "pictures from space" makes a lot of sense; selling actual products has really focused on analytics since not a lot of people actually want a "picture from space". Planet, while really no longer a startup but was long a startup darling, is kind of the greybeard here. Capella and Hawkeye 360 are pulling in revenue. Muon Space should is working on something compelling. Plenty of other smaller entities with more specialized services/gizmos.
• In-orbit services have a potential future, though the timeline for growth and the magnitude of growth is a bit uncertain. Things like last-mile delivery, assisted deorbit, on orbit assembly, and on orbit manufacturing all have theoretical upsides, in that oder of plausibility/timeline. Momentus and Redwire come to mind.
• Space-as-a-service is another potential market--it turns out many new end-user-product entities in space aren't actually stoked about figuring out satellites and space and stuff, and they really just want to focus on the bottom line of delivering their product. SAAS can both 1) abstract a lot of the space minutia down to a bottom-line data type relationship and 2) time shift what is traditionally a Capex problem (paying up front to get *sugar* into space) into an Opex problem (paying a SAAS entity for SLA-goverend data). Loft Orbital is a great one here.
• Referring to all the discussion about satellite BOM costs, actual aatellite equipment definitely has a lot of theoretical potential, but it seems like its going to be pretty hard to provide a massively differentiating product [that still is reliable enough for someone to want to buy it from you] so I don't actually expect a massive amount of growth here. It seems like suppliers that can get on the megaconstellation train are going to tease out as the winners. Rocket Lab, for instance, is building the Kuiper reaction wheels; they're going to be able to offer similar wheels at a lower price than other folks for no other reason than their already-amortized production line and already-qualified hardware.
• Access to space (mostly launch, but also launch aggregation) was for a while The Bees' in the industry but time has done a bit of sorting and we're kind of in a place where the remaining players are a bit of a less-than-completely-impressive set of "still generally just another rocket, only a little bit better" solutions. Mostly just for fun it's worth keeping an eye on the wackier concepts like Stoke and SpinLaunch.

Thanks very much for the conference recommendation. I don't mind going to conferences and the right conference can be worth 10 times the cost.

I agree with Space-as-a-Service as the direction people at least seem to be heading, and that seems to make sense to me.

I'm kinda seeing two classes of companies here-- ones building platforms and ones depending on others platforms. Even if Rocket Lab or Relativity are just building "a bit better rockets", that launch capability is a kind of a platform, that allows to expand horizontally (?) into being sort of a space industry. On the other hand, a company launching a satellite with a novel imager who wants to sell analysis or rent time on the satellite is more of an "application" and will always be dependent on the platforms.

You've convinced me about the satellite BOM cost, and I think such players only make sense as potential future acquisition targets by the platform players, which is always a risk.

Spin Launch just gives me the heebie jeebies. The physics may work but I just don't like anything you can't send a human on.

Are there any companies you're particularly keen on?

 

[bxr140]

I'm kinda seeing two classes of companies here-- ones building platforms and ones depending on others platforms.

That’s a reasonable way to look at entities aspiring to sell end-user space products. Generally it seems like those who need a number of less complex satellites (and/or an extremely large number of satellites) tend to bring the platform in house. This is quite achievable with smaller sats (cubesats like Planet and Spire) and microsats (the OG Skybox, Blacksky—sorta—through Leostella/Thales, etc.), but also some folks with larger sats (like OW—sorta—through the Airbus JV, and obviously SX). On the flip side, those looking for fewer/larger/more complex satellites tend toward finding a platform/satellite supplier with some degree of pedigree. Some of those suppliers are more vertical with their equipment list, while others are more horizontal and pick and choose from existing subs, but in general what the buyer is looking for is some degree of established concepts/processes/designs/components to shortcut the timeline and cost/NRE of white-paging a platform. FWIW there’s no apparent best solution here; now and for the foreseeable future it seems as though it’s going to be case-by-case.

Space as service kind of abstracts those two camps into more of a reflection of a buyer's core competencies (rather than the magnitude of the infrastructure). To wit, Verizon’s massive agreement with SX is rooted in the same buyer logic as Orbital Sidekick's tiny agreement with Loft Orbital.

Even if Rocket Lab or Relativity are just building "a bit better rockets", that launch capability is a kind of a platform, that allows to expand horizontally (?) into being sort of a space industry. On the other hand, a company launching a satellite with a novel imager who wants to sell analysis or rent time on the satellite is more of an "application" and will always be dependent on the platforms.

For sure, and that’s what Rocket Lab has been up to. Ever since Pete got that sweet sweet SPAC money he’s gone on a shopping spree. In short order he picked up ASI, SolAero, Sinclair, and Planetary (I think that’s it?) and obviously is looking to be a very vertical supplier for some entity looking to get into space. Neutron is the obvious next big step there—when that comes online RL will be by far the most accessible and comprehensive space infrastructure supplier out there. (SX obviously only wants to do mega sized things that aren’t just a distraction to their core work streams, so they really don’t have time for anyone who’s smaller-than-mega)

Spin Launch just gives me the heebie jeebies. The physics may work but I just don't like anything you can't send a human on.

Lol—there’s a lot of rockets out there I wouldn’t want to ride on.

A few months back some guys from Spin Launch told me with a straight face that the 10000g+ loads were manageable to design for because they're quasi-static as opposed to the typical random single g’s environment on traditional launchers. I didn’t know whether to laugh at the absurdity or drop-jaw at the brilliance.

 

[bxr140]

While Northrop Grumman isn't exactly a startup, their SpaceLogistics arm is actually doing some cool stuff in the in orbit servicing realm. TLDR is that typically (or at least, historically) the life limiter of a satellite is its propellant load. These Northrop gizmos effectively add more propellant and thus extend the life of a satellite that is otherwise operationally useful. With GEOs this concept is currently a bit of a catch 22 because you're extending the life of an old technology sat that likely has some degraded performance/reliability (lower solar array power, operating on some redundant units, etc.)...but it's also a fully amortized asset. It's kinda like not simply trashing your otherwise good iPhone 11 just because you got an iPhone 14.

Bigger picture what I really like about this kind of solution is that it pushes the reality of "don't just trash it in space" another step forward. IMO the aspirational goal of disposing space stuff should be 100% reuse or 100% retrieval. So...no disposal in space (every GEO ever is still orbiting at ~36k km...) and no incinerating into the atmosphere (atomizing tons and tons of megaconstellation satellites into the atmosphere is pretty unsustainable).

 

[Grendal]

This list is helpful.

Comparison of orbital launch systems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SpaceXaddict]

FYI, the previously mentioned Stoke is raising their B round now. The info I think I can share safely: Redwood Materials Discussion - They are raising a D round.

 

[SpaceXaddict]

These Northrop gizmos effectively add more propellant and thus extend the life of a satellite that is otherwise operationally useful. With GEOs this concept is currently a bit of a catch 22 because you're extending the life of an old technology sat that likely has some degraded performance/reliability (lower solar array power, operating on some redundant units, etc.)...but it's also a fully amortized asset. It's kinda like not simply trashing your otherwise good iPhone 11 just because you got an iPhone 14.

I've been calling that the "space tug" business. Modules that are really little satellites in their own that attach to geo sats and can raise orbits or extend their life... and/or eventually de-orbit them.

I think since space is highly regulated there will soon be regulations that require some sort of de-orbit facility built into sats, and the provision of a solution to clean up old hardware will become a requirement for new authorizations.

I think this will create a "clean up space as a service" where insurance will cover cleanup costs for failures, companies will buy it in order to get permission for the next sat, and governments will start paying to have it done to clean things up... and I think militaries will start funding a covert-cleanup to give intel on other countries sats (after all a failed sat can disappear and not be missed ,right?)

 

[bxr140]

FYI, the previously mentioned Stoke is raising their B round now.

FWIW in my experience the launch industry (and the space industry in general) is a very foreign thing for a lot of folks...and that manifests as being really difficult to separate fact from fiction. While there’s not really any unique due diligence type things to work (understand practical risks, realistic timelines, etc), making sure one is getting the real story can be quite difficult. There's this weird/stupid agreement amongst everyone in the industry where everyone knows advertised schedules and levels of performance are basically all BS, and so nobody really calls anyone on it or hold those kinds of statements accountable. That's not great for someone looking to

Among the roadblocks to success in the launch space right now:

• Its a pretty worked over sector--there's been tens of launch startups if not more over the past 5-10 years with not a whole lot to show, some of them led by some pretty high profile folks.
• The realistic timeline to any kind of recurring/consistent/stable revenue is nauseatingly long. Firefly and Astra and ABL are good case studies here--look at where they are after 5 or 6 or however many years they've all been around. For bigger rockets bringing a product to market is even more difficult--Neutron and Terran-R are the most credible right now and realistically they're looking at '26 at best to fly, and maybe '28 or later to really start bringing in credible revenue. And to be clear, that’s public domain based realism—just look how long it historically takes companies to actually get a rocket flying, regardless if they’re legacy or new space. Hell, look at how long it took SX to get F9 up and running and look how long it’s talking them to get Starship operational, and nobody does anything as quickly as SX. Figure someone with the maturity of Stoke is probably looking at 2030+ for a credibly stable revenue stream.
• There's still currently imbalance in future demand with potential supply....that's sort of a follow on to the other discussion about the cost of space missions. While future demand inevitably will go up over time, significant cost evolution on the satellite side is absolutely imperative to support the success of more than just 1-2 launchers. So...you’re not just betting on a launcher being successful, you’re necessarily also banking on the satellite industry to really revolutionize itself.
• Inevitable flexibility in Falcon pricing (= price wars) is essentially going to require competitors be state subsidized like Blue or ULA (and SX, at least to a lesser degree) or really REALLY have a compelling product when it comes to cost/availability/reliability. State subsidies are getting pretty saturated, and the existing players’ lobbies are are all pretty established…so that route is going to be a serious uphill battle for a new entrant. The other route isn't exactly easy either, as the new entrant basically has to bring a solution that’s so new and smart and cost efficient that it knocks all the existing new and smart and cost efficient ideas off their pedestal.

I've been calling that the "space tug" business. Modules that are really little satellites in their own that attach to geo sats and can raise orbits or extend their life... and/or eventually de-orbit them.

I think since space is highly regulated there will soon be regulations that require some sort of de-orbit facility built into sats, and the provision of a solution to clean up old hardware will become a requirement for new authorizations.

I think this will create a "clean up space as a service" where insurance will cover cleanup costs for failures, companies will buy it in order to get permission for the next sat, and governments will start paying to have it done to clean things up... and I think militaries will start funding a covert-cleanup to give intel on other countries sats (after all a failed sat can disappear and not be missed ,right?)

Agree with the aspiration, but again timeline is going to be really rough here.

• The idea of a space tug has been around for years, L2'ing to concepts like
  • Periodic transportation (recurring LEO to GTO, for instance)
  • First order mission life extension (like the current NG MEVs that basically just take over for the main sat)
  • On orbit servicing*** (installing solar arrays and reflectors and such once on orbit) via equipment that is:
    • Essentially one-time use, on board the to-be-assembled satellite, OR
    • Persistent equipment on orbit that’s passed from TBA sat to TBA sat , OR
    • A standalone construction-sat that goes from TBA sat to TBA sat
    • ***Can also incorporate disassembly and re-assembly, for repurposing of useful hardware
  • Refueling and fuel top off (extends life or enables less propellant volume on launch)
  • Deorbiting (The Undertaker Sat)
• None have manifest to any significant degree yet for a few reasons:
  • There’s no financial incentive. Relative to a space mission that provides end user service, a space tug (essentially B to B service) costs a lot of money and has near zero return. Far better to just put that money into a new service level asset.
  • There's no practical path to significant financial incentive for any of the above solutions, the most prevalent practical path forward is financial penalties. So its a Honey vs Vinegar situation, then.
  • Thanks to Kepler and his physics <looks up, shakes fist>, you need a LOT of tugs to make a dent in any of the above upsides. You pretty much need a tug in (or VERY close to) every inclination that you want the tug to service, and then you need a LOT of fuel to change altitude. That’s a problem, because until you get quantities up to “A LOT”, capex is going to be pretty untenable.
• Don’t bet on any revolutions in regulatory drivers anytime soon. We’re JUST getting a 5 year deorbit requirement these days (down from 25), and that doesn’t actually have any probability of success or really any kind of Ps vetting associated with it--You basically just say, “yeah, we’re compliant”. That’s also just the FCC’s reg (though its a near certainty that the ITU will ultimately always ~align with the FCC); especially as China’s megaconstellations get closer to reality, global concurrence is really going to be required on these kinds of disruptive regulations.
  • Consider if there’s an end of life disposal requirement/escrow/whatever on end of life disposal for an American or European constellation and there’s not the same stupid tax on a Chinese constellation, the former will normalize to higher cost than the latter—potentially to a significant degree—negatively impacting the former’s product pricing. While that won’t be a problem in the core western service areas (US and Europe) as they will simply not authorize the hypothetical Chinese constellation to operate in those regions, it would impact the viability/salability of the western constellations in other regions.
  • FTR I think regulations are actually the most viable path to managing the growing space debris problem...its just that the path is perpetually going to be overgrown, rutted, and narrow...so I don't expect a lot of consistent forward progress...
• Insurance driven change is kind of a non-starter for the foreseeable future, at least until something goes Kessler and the premiums on constellations goes up so the underwriters can cover their risk posture. The only way the insurance companies get involved is if there's profit in it.
  • FWIW the space insurance industry is literally the same ~20 or so underwriters for anything that ever gets insured (a launch, a satellite’s reliability, etc.). They travel around in a circus to all the manufacturers and operators and and just split up the insured mission based on their companies’ bigger picture portfolios and risk profiles. Its a “I’ll insure 5% of your mission for 7.5%” type of thing.
• Military type intel is not really going to drive anything either. There’s already sat to sat intel out there…and really there’s not a whole lot of value in getting a close look at someone’s old satellite that’s at the end of its mission life. I mean, maybe emerging nations on the US,

I get that there’s a heavy dose of half-empty in all of that, but...space really is hard. It's super fun for everyone to talk about and speculate on what could be, but get down to the botton line of dollars and physics and technology and it's an entirely different world.