Check three things first: whether the company has a contracted customer that isn’t a government grant, whether the technology has been tested at a meaningful level, and whether the regulatory approvals it depends on are obtainable on schedule. Space startups fail more often on capital and schedule than on physics, so financial and regulatory diligence matters most. The rocket usually works eventually; the runway usually does not.
Space companies burn cash on a hardware timescale while raising on a software timescale. A satellite company needing three years and forty million dollars to reach revenue competes against businesses showing traction in eighteen months, so bridge rounds and dilution are the norm. Diligence that skips two more financing rounds before revenue is optimistic.
Separating Real Revenue From Grant Funding and Letters of Intent
Ask for the revenue breakdown by contract type. Government contracts and grants validate the technology but poorly predict commercial demand, since the buyer funds development rather than buying a product. Eight million in grant revenue proves a company can win grants, a different business from the one being pitched.
Letters of intent deserve scepticism, since the signing party commits to nothing and most never convert into paid contracts. Look for a signed agreement with pricing, volume commitments, and a termination clause.
Check customer concentration too. A launch company whose manifest is 80 percent one operator carries that operator’s risk, and if the operator is venture-backed and pre-revenue, you’ve taken a leveraged position you didn’t diligence.
Technology Readiness and What Flight Heritage Actually Proves
Technology readiness levels are gameable. A team claiming TRL 6 might mean a full engineering model tested in a relevant environment, or a subsystem that passed thermal vacuum while the rest lives in CAD. Ask what was tested and what failed; a team reporting no anomalies didn’t test hard enough or isn’t telling you everything.
Flight heritage is the strongest signal, but details matter. A cubesat that reached orbit isn’t the same as a production satellite delivering data for eighteen months. Find out how long it operated and whether the production design shares hardware with what flew.
For launch companies the equivalent is engine test hours and stage-level testing, not renders. Most new orbital launch vehicles fail on their first flight, and even successful programmes need multiple attempts to reach reliable cadence.
Regulatory, Licensing, and Export Control Risk
Licensing timelines routinely destroy business plans. US spectrum licensing through the FCC commonly runs six to twelve months and can extend much longer when coordination with existing operators is contested, while remote sensing authorisation through NOAA adds conditions limiting what imagery a company may sell.
Export control is the quieter risk. ITAR and EAR classification affects who a company can hire, which suppliers it can use, and which customers it can serve, and getting it wrong is expensive to fix later. Confirm whether foreign ownership triggers CFIUS review, since that can delay or block a deal entirely.
Because this diligence sits outside a generalist fund’s competence, most investors without an in-house space partner bring in independent space sector advisors to pressure-test the technical and regulatory claims before term sheet. That’s a modest cost against a seven or eight figure cheque, and the same review often surfaces market sizing problems too.
Unit Economics, Capital Intensity, and the Path to Profitability
Build the cost stack: build cost, launch, insurance (often five to fifteen percent of insured value for a first mission), ground segment, licensing, and operations, divided by realistic revenue per satellite over a design life of five to seven years in low earth orbit. Many constellation models only work at scale, meaning the company must survive long enough to deploy dozens of satellites before the economics turn.
Compare their assumed build cost against what they’ve actually paid. First units are expensive, but a plan assuming an 80 percent cost reduction by unit twenty needs manufacturing evidence, not an analogy to another industry.
Market sizing deserves the same scrutiny. Earth observation and satellite communications have both seen investment against addressable markets that were confidently forecast and repeatedly missed, largely because buyers were slow-moving government and enterprise procurement functions.
The thing worth weighing hardest is exit path. Space acquisitions cluster around defence primes and a handful of larger operators, the SPAC window has closed with poor outcomes, and the IPO bar is high. Find out which companies would buy this asset, and whether the startup’s technology, contracts, and ownership make it acquirable.
Article received via email
