Start-up Space Tauri Group 2016 -

Start-Up
Space
Rising Investment
in Commercial Space
Ventures
January 2016

About the Tauri Group: The Tauri Group Space and Technology Practice applies deep knowledge
in the global space and satellite sectors to the needs of government and commercial clients. Many
of the existing, authoritative data sets characterizing the space industry and sub-segments were
originated by The Tauri Group or by Tauri analysts. The Tauri Group provides official launch industry
data to the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation; assesses technology investments
for NASA; delivers industry analysis and acquisition support for the Department of Defense; and
provides market, investment, strategic, and technology analysis for leading aerospace organizations
around the world.

3
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose and Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of Start-Up Space Ventures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Overview of Space Investors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Space Investment by the Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Space Investors by the Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Venture Capital Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Private Equity Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Banks and Other Financial Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Investor Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The State of Investment in Start-Up Space . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Why Has Venture Investment in Space Increased?. . . . . . . 35
What Motivates Individual Investors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
What Does an Investor Look for in a Venture?. . . . . . . . . 38
Most Challenging Element of a Space Investment. . . . . . . 39
Future Outlook and NASA Role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Future Outlook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
NASA Role in the Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Contents

Start-Up Space examines space investment in the 21st century and analyzes
investment trends, focusing on investors in new companies that have acquired
private financing. Space is attracting increased attention in Silicon Valley and in
investment communities world-wide. Space ventures now appeal to investors
because new, lower-cost systems are envisioned to follow the path terrestrial tech has
profitably traveled: dropping system costs and massively increasing user bases for
new products, especially new data products. Investors say that large valuations and
exits are demonstrating the potential for high returns.
Start-Up Space reports on investment in start-up space ventures, defined as space
companies that began as angel- and venture capital-backed start-ups. The report
tracks seed, venture, and private equity investment in space ventures as they grow
and mature over the period 2000 through 2015. The report includes debt financing
for these companies to provide a complete picture of the capital available to them
and also highlights space venture merger and acquisition (M&A) activity.
Significant Investment. Space ventures have attracted over $13.3 billion of
investment, including $5.1 billion in debt financing, since 2000. Over 80 angel- and
venture-backed space companies have been founded since 2000. Eight of these
companies have been acquired, at a total value of $2.2 billion. See Table E-1.
iii
Executive Summary
“You can now make
money with space
investment, which
wasn’t largely a true
statement before.”
–Silicon Valley VC
Table E-1. The magnitude of space investments varies based on investment
type and time period.
Investment
Type
2000-2005
(millions)
2006-2010
(millions)
2011-2015
(millions)
Total
2000-2015
(millions)
Seed/Prize/Grant $640 $286 $328 $1,254
Venture Capital $186 $373 $2,300 $2,859
Private Equity $240 $900 $695 $1,835
Acquisition $0 $568 $1,651 $2,219
Public Offering $0 $0 $23 $23
Total Investment $1,066 $2,127 $4,997 $8,190
Debt Financing $0 $3,969 $1,098 $5,067
Total with Debt $1,066 $6,096 $6,095 $13,257
Recent Growth in Space Investment. Space investment activity has increased
dramatically.
• Looking at investment only (excluding debt financing), nearly two-thirds of
investment in space ventures since 2000 has been in the last five years.
• In the early 2000s, an average of three space companies were started per
year. In the last five years, the number of new companies has averaged eight
per year.
• Three-quarters of the value of acquisitions of space ventures since 2000
has been transactions in the last five years ($1.7 of $2.2 billion). Monsanto
acquired the Climate Corporation for $930 million in 2013, Google

acquired Skybox Imaging for
$478 million in 2014, ViaSat
acquired WildBlue for $568
million in 2009, and Uber
acquired deCarta in 2015 for an
undisclosed amount.
Record-Setting 2015. The year 2015
was a record-setting year for space
ventures with investment and debt
financing of $2.7 billion.
• 2015 was the largest investment
year (excluding debt financing)
of in the 15-year study period
with investment of $2.3 billion.
• More venture capital ($1.8
billion) was invested in space in
2015 than in the prior 15 years,
combined.
• More than 50 venture capital
firms invested in space deals in
2015, the most in any year.
Space Unicorn. One start-up space
company, SpaceX, has joined an elite
group of companies, called “unicorns,”
which are private companies with a
valuation of $1 billion or more. Planet
Labs could be the next unicorn in the
space industry.
Hundreds of Investors. This research
has identified over 250 investors in
start-up space companies; all investors
are not always disclosed, so the total
number of investors is higher. Investors
in space companies are primarily based
in the United States, representing 66
percent of the total; California is home
to half of these investors. The non-U.S. investors, representing 34 percent, are based
in 25 countries. Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk are well known “space
billionaires”; of the 1,826 people on Forbes’ Billionaires List, 21 have an affiliation to
a space enterprise.
Leading VCs Investing in Space. Over 110 venture capital (VC) firms have
invested in space companies. A handful of VCs have repeatedly invested in common
with others; notably, Bessemer, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, First Round Capital,
Founders Fund, Khosla, and RRE Ventures. At least two of them have invested
in each of these firms: Accion Systems, Planet Labs, Rocket Lab, Skybox Imaging,
SpaceX, Spire Global, and The Climate Corporation. See Figure E-1.
iv
Bessemer
DFJ
First Round
Capital
Founders Fund
Khosla
RRE Ventures
Accion
Systems
Planet Labs
Rocket Lab
Skybox
SpaceX
Spire Global
The Climate
Corp.
Figure E-1. Common investments among VCs

v
Executive Summary
Expectation of Sizable Returns. Angels and VCs—many involved in the largest
deals in 2015—talked to The Tauri Group about their outlook and motivations.
Interviewees attributed the increase in venture investment in space to more attractive
opportunities and to successful exits (that is, situations in which early investors have
seen returns on their investments). One investor summed up investor expectations
succinctly, “You can now make money with space investment, which wasn’t largely a
true statement before.”
Note that analysis of investment magnitude (i.e., dollar value) throughout this report is
based on data through December 31, 2015. Analysis of investors and transactions is
based on data through October 2015.
The Tauri Group conducted this study to characterize those in the investment community who
are pursuing space opportunities, and to understand the motivations of these investors. This
report will inform NASA and the public about activity in this emerging space ecosystem, and
assist government and industry leaders in decision-making as new space firms and capabilities
create new options and alternatives. In addition, the report will be a resource for commercial
space ventures that seek investors. The report and the project on which Start-Up Space is
based were funded in part through a research grant from the Emerging Space Office located
at NASA Ames Research Center in support of the Office of the Chief Technologist at NASA
Headquarters.

Start-Up Space characterizes investment in start-up space ventures and
provides insight into the investor’s perspective.
Space is attracting increased attention in Silicon Valley and in investment
communities world-wide. In fact, more venture capital was invested in space in
2015 than in all of the previous 15 years, combined. Space ventures have become
attractive to investors because new, lower-cost systems are envisioned to follow the
path terrestrial tech has profitably traveled: dropping system costs and massively
increasing user bases for new products, especially new data products. Investors say
that large valuations and exits are demonstrating the potential for high returns.
Space ventures are defined here as space companies that began as angel- and venture
capital-backed start-ups. (This terminology and definition are intended to generally
differentiate space ventures from aerospace and defense contractors and large,
publicly-traded space enterprises.) Start-Up Space seeks to provide insight into the
dynamics of this growing space industry segment and the investment driving it.
Purpose and Background
Increased investment in space ventures has meaningful consequences for the space
industry in general, for how NASA operates, and for the opportunities and public
benefit the industry will yield in the future. Insight into investment in space ventures
will inform NASA about the goals and objectives of investors so that it can better
partner with industry as a developer of technology, provider of expertise, flight
provider, and customer. NASA also seeks appropriate mechanisms for engagement
with investors in the space ecosystem.
The Start-Up Space report and the project on which it is based were funded in
part through a research grant from the Emerging Space Office (ESO), located at
NASA Ames Research Center, in support of the Office of the Chief Technologist
at NASA Headquarters, and in part by The Tauri Group. The project and report
support ESO’s mission of “monitoring, investigating, and reporting on opportunities
enabled by the rapidly growing national and international entrepreneurial space
communities,” by conducting an analysis of entrepreneurial trends in commercial
space since 2000.
The Tauri Group conducted the study on which Start-Up Space is based and produced
the report. The Tauri Group has provided support to this project as part of its on-
going commitment to aiding good decision-making in industry, government, and
academia by providing the space community with rigorous analyses of industry
dynamics.
Start-Up Space examines space investment in the 21st century and analyzes investment
trends, focusing on investors in new companies that have attracted private financing.
This is a key aspect of current investment trends in space: desirable capital that
could be directed at any industry sector is flowing into space companies. This report
seeks to inform NASA and the general public about activity in this emerging space
ecosystem, and to aid government and industry leaders in decision-making as new
space firms and capabilities create new options and alternatives to consider.
1
Start-Up Space
characterizes
investment in start-
up space ventures
and provides insight
into the investor’s
perspective.
Introduction

Introduction
2
Methodology
Our data set consists of publicly-reported investment transactions in start-up space
ventures as they grow and mature, with details on investment level and investors
where reported; additional companies for which little or no transaction data was
reported, but which we have identified as space ventures; and qualitative data about
investment trends and investor motivations. A key element of the qualitative data
is results from interviews with industry leaders and private investors from around
the world, including Silicon Valley/San Francisco, Washington, DC, London, Hong
Kong, and Sydney.
Definition of Start-Up Space Venture
What is a start-up space venture?
Our definition of a space company is a business entity that provides space products
or services, specifically one that:
• Manufactures satellites, launch vehicles, or other space-based systems
• Manufactures ground equipment
• Provides services that rely on these systems, such as satellite TV, radio, and
broadband
• Provides analytic services based on data collected from space-based systems,
either alone or in combination with terrestrial systems
Some firms do not have a clear enough business model to be easily identified as a
space company. Particularly in analytic services, the use of satellite data may not be
explicit.
To define a space start-up venture, we used a screening criterion that accepted
those space firms that have received and reported seed funding, venture capital, or
private equity investments. We term these firms start-up space ventures throughout
this report. (There is no one standard, widely accepted definition for what constitutes
a start-up. Typically, different stages within start-ups are described. For example, one
typology is: seed stage is an idea that is not yet operational; early stage has begun
operations but not yet fully operational; growth stage has commercial revenues but
needs outside capital to scale; expansion stage is just prior to an initial public offering
(IPO). These are examples; there is no universally agreed-to set of definitions.
Venture capital firms may focus on a particular stage, for example building a
portfolio of early stage companies, or one with a growth stage focus.)
Data Set
We include in our data set all firms that meet this criterion at any time during the
period 2000–2015. Analysis of investment magnitude (i.e., dollar value) throughout
this report is based on data through December 31, 2015. Analysis of investors and
transactions is based on data through October 2015.
Note that the data set includes all types of investment (seed, venture, private equity,
acquisition, and public offering) in the firms that fall within the definition of start-up
space ventures. A firm that receives venture funding and then receives a significant

investment from a private equity group would be considered a start-up space venture
by our definition, and the investments of both the venture firm and the private
equity group would be included. On the other hand, a long-standing aerospace firm
that recapitalizes and receives an investment from the same private equity group
would not be considered a start-up and the private equity investment would not be
included in this analysis. The focus of this analysis is new space ventures and the
capital they are attracting.
Note that the seed category includes funding from prizes (such as business plan
competitions or XPRIZE), foundations, and crowdfunding campaigns. We also
include debt financing for space ventures to provide a complete picture of the capital
available to the management team at these companies.
Sources of data on companies and investments include Tauri Group databases;
company and investor press releases; annual reports, investor materials, and SEC
filings; financial newsletters and databases such as CrunchBase, PitchBook, and CB
Insights; news articles from major media outlets, such as Wired, Bloomberg, Fortune,
and Forbes; trade press, such as SpaceNews, Milbank’s Space Business Review, and
business journals; and on-going engagement with industry subject matter experts.
Where possible, we confirmed the details of each investment using multiple
sources. We further validated our data with investment bankers, industry experts, the
management team at space companies, and through targeted interviews.
The data set includes only publicly reported transactions; it does not include
proprietary investment information. In some cases, transaction value, funding round,
or investor is undisclosed.
The data set generally excludes government funding, except for certain grants. A
few quasi-government corporations are included, where they participate in funding
rounds with economic development objectives.
3

4
Overview of Start-Up Space Ventures
Over 80 new angel- and venture-backed space companies were started in the
period 2000 to 2015. In the early 2000s, an average of three such companies
was started per year. In the last five years, the number of new angel- and venture-
backed companies averaged eight per year, and that average excludes new firms
that have not yet secured investment. There is generally a multi-year lag from
when a company is founded to when it receives external investment. Therefore,
recently founded companies have not had a chance to raise (and/or announce)
external funding. The number of examples of start-up space ventures that have not
announced investment in the box below further signals a continuing growth trend.
Examples of start-ups that have not announced investment
Alpha CubeSat
Andespace
Aquila Space
Asteroid Mining
Corporation
AstroTechnic Solutions
Carbon Origins
Corvix Space Systems
DMCii
Electrospray Propulsion
Systems
Exploration Solutions
Generation Orbit Launch
Services
Hybrid Galactic
ImageSat
Kosmo Studio
Kubos
Made in Space
Moonspike*
Norstar
OffGlobe
Orion Applied Science &
Technology
PlanetiQ
RocketShip Tours
Send2Space
Solstar Communications
Space Travel Alliance
SpaceBIT
Stylish Astronaut
Sunstar Aircraft
Industries
Swiss Space Systems
Tempus Global
United Space Structures
XpressSAR
*unsuccessful Kickstarter
campaign; funds raised were
forfeited per Kickstarter policy
Space start-ups that have received funding from announced sources are listed
throughout the report, and there is a group of companies so new that they have
not announced any investment. (The list below contains examples). Reasons for not
announcing funding include actively pursuing funding or protecting a competitive
advantage. Another group of companies has announced investment, but not who
the investors are. These companies include ARTEMIS Space, Escape Dynamics,
Falcon Nano, Gateway Galactic, GeoOptics, HySpecIQ, ispace technologies,
Microlaunchers, and Spaceknow.
Figure 1. Over 80 angel- and venture-backed space companies have been founded
since 2000. Excludes companies that have not announced investment, including many founded in the last
few years.
Average 8
Average 6
Average 3
Number of Start-Up Space Ventures Founded

5
#StartUpWeekend Space
Indicative of the growth in start-up space, “StartupWeekends” are intense weekend
events, pitching and prototyping start-up ideas, some of which may turn into new
companies. A StartupWeekend for space in 2015 reflects increased interest in space
start-ups. With the slogan “Think big, be bold, #BeSpacial,” the first StartupWeekend
Space in Europe and Asia took place in April 2015 in Bremen and Shanghai
simultaneously. With 124 participants across the two regions, the events attracted
aspiring and current entrepreneurs from within and outside the space sector to
create space start-ups. Eleven teams in Bremen and seven in Shanghai were formed,
supported by experienced mentors with technical, managerial, entrepreneurial, and
policy backgrounds. The simultaneity of the events allowed the mentors to provide
support to both locations, giving the teams developing their business ideas insights
into a market in a separate region.
The events ended with short ﬁve-minute pitches to panels of judges comprised of
investors, entrepreneurs, and technical experts. Winning teams chosen by the panels
were awarded prizes aimed at advancing their presented business concepts. Six
months later, six of the eleven Bremen teams are continuing their projects with one
team incorporated and funded. Since the pilot events, StartupWeekend Space has
gained grassroots traction in Europe and Asia with a follow-up event occurring in
Gdansk, Poland in October 2015 and additional events being planned in both regions.

Overview of Space Investors
Types of Investor
This analysis considers six categories of investor, to aid in understanding trends
in investment and investor motivation. The investor typology consists of:
angel investors, venture capital firms, private equity (PE) firms, banks (typically
not strictly investors, but an important source of capital), corporations (as strategic
partners and/or internal investors, or through corporate venture funds), and public
markets. This typology conceptually groups some investor types that could be
treated separately but share characteristics, such as sovereign wealth funds (included
in private equity category) and hedge funds (included in the venture capital firm
category). While investor categories continue to shift and evolve, the typology here
provides a useful (and generally accepted) broad brushstroke description of groups
of investors and their typical investment behaviors.
We describe each type of investor and typical (1) role as a funding source, including
the stage of involvement, (2) preferred funding instrument (e.g., debt, equity,
or hybrid debt/equity instruments) and (3) general objectives in investing. For
illustrative purposes, examples of select space deals are also provided.
Angel Investors
Typically, angel investors are individuals or families (to include family offices) that have
accumulated a high level of wealth and seek potentially high returns by investing in
ventures during their early stages. Investment by angels into space ventures is usually in
the form of straight equity into the company. Investments often range from $50,000 to
more than $1 million. There is a highly-visible special category of angel investor in the
space ecosystem, consisting of billionaires and other ultra high net worth individuals who
have personally staked new space companies. The investment level by space billionaires
far exceeds typical angel levels.
By getting in at the ground floor (i.e., when a company is usually at its nascent stage, just
starting development of its product or service), an angel investor can realize an attractive
potential return, as the early investment will secure a significant foothold in the investee
company. Time horizons for angel investors are about 5 to 7 years, meaning they seek
to realize their return (i.e., exit) about 5 to 7 years from the date of investment. Angels
may expect an equity stake in the company as high as 30 to 40 percent in return for their
investment; however, frequently, angel stakes are much lower, especially after subsequent,
larger investors join the capital structure. Upon exit, angels may expect to receive at least
5 to 10 times their investment. Angel investors range from those who can comfortably
make a $50,000 investment to, as noted, particularly in commercial space ventures, multi-
billionaires who have already made their mark in technology-driven enterprises, such as
Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin (Amazon) and Elon Musk of SpaceX (PayPal).
Venture Capital Firms
Venture capital (VC) firms are groups of investors that invest in start-up, early stage,
and growth companies with high growth potential, and accept a significant degree of
risk. The trade of risk for potential high returns results in a high failure rate; a recent
research study by a Harvard Business School faculty member finds that, “About
three-quarters of venture-backed firms in the U.S. don’t return investors’ capital.”
6

VC funding has traditionally come in stages (or rounds), generally designated
Series A, Series B, Series C, etc. The form of investment is equity; specifically, the
instrument is usually preferred stock, which gives the VC firm an equity ownership
stake in the investee company, but at a higher priority (or preference) than investors
at common equity (e.g., founders, employees, and angels) and a lower priority
than any holders of company debt. The preferred shares are usually convertible
to common stock in the instance of an IPO (see “Public Markets”) or sale of the
company, which are the typical instances of a VC’s exit. There is substantial variation
in the size of rounds, but Series A investment rounds typically range from $2 to
10 million; Series B, in the low tens of millions of dollars; and Series C, in the high
tens of millions of dollars. Investment syndicates comprised of multiple VC firms
may significantly increase these levels. Note that the distinct ‘series’ model for VC
investments is evolving with more continuous investment by an ongoing team of
investors emerging as a trend.
An example of a space-based
company receiving multi-stage
VC investment is Skybox
Imaging, a company founded
in 2009 with the intention of
building and launching small
satellites in constellation form
to provide frequent Earth
imagery updates to customers
around the globe. Its first
round of VC funding was a
$3 million Series A tranche
(by Khosla Ventures) in 2009,
followed by an $18 million
Series B funding (by Khosla
Ventures and Bessemer
Venture Partners) in 2010. In
2012, Canaan Partners and
Norwest Venture Partners
joined the original two firms,
leading a Series C funding
that raised an additional $70
million (for a total of $91
million in VC funding). The
exit for these VCs took place
in 2014 when Google bought
Skybox Imaging for $478
million (representing about
5.5 times the total VC funding). Another example is Planet Labs, which reported
five investment rounds at increasing valuations, as shown in Figure 2. These rounds
represent $206 million of investment (including debt financing), involving 17 named
investors and others. Many investors participated in multiple rounds.
Space-oriented VC funds are emerging from this class of investors. Seraphim Capital
is a $126 million space-focused fund raised by Airbus Defence and Space, Thales
7
Figure 2. Angel and venture capital investment in Planet Labs.
**Amount shown for Series C is current as of July 10, 2015, per SEC Form D;
$26,749,999 left to be raised in amended investment round.
Series C**
$106,048,691
Series B
$52,000,000
Series A
$13,100,000
Debt Financing
$25,000,000
Undisclosed
$10,000,000
Total
$206M
25%
51%
12%
6%
5%

Alenia Space, Telespazio, Com Dev, and Avanti Communications (per Via Satellite).
Based in London and focused mostly on UK-based companies, the fund represents
an interest in space investments (broadly defined, to extend to technologies
developed for use in space and now being applied in other areas). Bessemer Venture
Partners announced a $1.6 billion fund to invest in innovative companies, to include
the space sector. They note their investment in Skybox Imaging “was just the
beginning.” Rocket Lab and Spire Global are also part of their portfolio. Russia and
China launched a venture fund in 2015, with space technology as one focus area
(reported by Fortune).
Private Equity
Private equity firms or groups are formed by investors to directly invest in companies.
They typically invest in established companies (not start-ups) at large transaction sizes,
and often acquire an entire company or a group of related companies that can be
merged. Examples of investors represented include many types of institutional investors
(e.g., large pension funds), as well as aggregated pools of high net worth individuals.
The larger investment firms, which typically have multi-billion dollar investment funds
from which to draw, have shown some interest in space over the past 15 years. Firms
such as Blackstone, Columbia Capital, Permira, Apax, and Carlyle Group have historically
shown an appetite for investing in space-based firms, typically in the telecom industry
or government contracting. Larger private equity firms are likely to invest between $100
million to $1 billion, usually in the form of equity. Sometimes, they invest in the form of
later stage capital (i.e., later than angel and VC investors) or through outright purchase
of targeted companies. This has been the case for several large commercial satellite
operators.
Examples of private equity investment in space include Blackstone’s $200 million
investment in Sirius Satellite Radio and its nearly $1 billion purchase of the commercial
satellite capacity provider, New Skies Satellite; Columbia Capital’s substantial investment
in XM Satellite Radio; and Apax, Permira, and Carlyle Group’s multi-hundred million
dollar investments in the acquisitions of large satellite services companies, such as
Intelsat, Inmarsat, and PanAmSat from 2003 to 2004. Permira bought Asia Broadcast
Satellite for $200 million in September 2010; however, there have been few space-related
private equity deals since the financial downturn in 2007/2008. Investment of $490
million in Virgin Galactic by Aabar Investments in 2009 and 2011 is one example. Being
a start-up founded in 2004, providing launch services sets it apart from earlier private
equity deals in existing satellite communications companies.
Corporations
Corporations have often provided the funding necessary to bring space-based
programs to initial operating capability, as well as to sustain ongoing programs.
Corporations invest internally, in R&D, in manufacturing, in operations and
processes, and in many other areas to enhance capabilities to create or strengthen
an existing expertise/advantage. (A special category of internal investment typical
of space firms for whom the U.S. government is a major customer is “independent
research and investment (IR&D),” which is a type of government-sanctioned R&D
8

expenditure that affects how the government pays a contractor firm for the work that
it does.)
A corporation may also provide funding for a venture, usually in the form of straight
equity or sometimes in the form of debt, with the option to convert the instrument
into equity of the investee company. Some companies may also invest through a
corporate venture fund, which acts as a company-owned VC equivalent.
Examples of where the corporation serves as a strategic partner include Liberty
Media, a longtime cable operator, investing in DirecTV; WildBlue, a satellite-based
broadband delivery platform; and O3b, a fledgling satellite-based internet delivery
constellation, in the multi-hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion from
2006 to 2010. In 2009, SES, a commercial geosynchronous orbit (GEO) satellite
fleet operator, invested $75 million (30 percent stake, early in the investment cycle)
in O3b. More recently, the industry has seen a bevy of disparate investors in space,
with Google buying Skybox and major companies, such as Virgin, Coca-Cola,
Intelsat, Airbus, Qualcomm, and Hughes Network Systems, investing a total of
$500 million in a satellite constellation, focused on providing customers internet
access. In addition, Google invested $900 million in SpaceX in February 2015 “to
support continued innovation in areas of space transport, reusability and satellite
manufacturing.”
Corporations also acquire firms. A recent record-setting example is the AT&T
purchase of DirecTV in 2015 for $48.5 billion, which set a new bar for acquisition
of a space company. Note that DirecTV is not a start-up venture by our definition.
This transaction is more typical of the merger and acquisition activity for established
companies. Corporations have recently acquired firms that fit the model of start-up
space ventures; The Climate Corporation by Monsanto for $930 million and Skybox
Imaging by Google for $478 million represent exits by new space ventures.
Banks
Banks have been heavily involved in providing funding for space-based programs
of large, established firms (such as GEO satellite operators) during the past 15
years. The basic model is that equity investors provide a substantial “cushion,” (e.g.,
30 percent of the total capital expense, or CapEx, required for a certain program,
such as deployment of a satellite or satellites). The remainder of CapEx (or other
types of programmatic expenditure) is financed by debt, sometimes in the form of
“convertible debt,” meaning that the initial instrument is in the form of debt. At
certain trigger points, the debt can be converted, in whole or in part, into an equity
stake in the financed company.
Commercial banks such as Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, in the U.S., and
Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, and ABN AMRO, in Europe, have provided debt
financing at a magnitude of $100 million to $1 billion (sometimes exceeding $1
billion) per funding event. Most of the companies financed are companies with large
satellite CapEx requirements, such as Intelsat, SES, and Inmarsat, for which multiple
GEO satellites are required: each costs $250 million to $300 million to build, launch,
and insure. Other companies financed (e.g., Iridium and GlobalStar) have $2 billion to
$3 billion CapEx requirements for low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations. 9

In addition, government-backed banks (i.e., export credit agencies), such as U.S.
Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank and COFACE of France have provided debt funding
(or guaranteed third-party debt funding) for several satellite systems. Ex-Im Bank has
provided multi-hundred million dollar debt financing over the past 3 years to satellite
operators, including ViaSat of the U.S., AsiaSat and Asia Broadcast Satellite in Asia,
and Space Com in Israel. COFACE has backed the debt obligations of several
satellite constellations, including O3b, GlobalStar, and Iridium. Both Ex-Im Bank
and COFACE have provided loans and debt guarantees to an Australian company,
NewSat, for $400 million. Moreover, Ex-Im Bank provided $525 million in debt
financing for ViaSat in November 2014. Proceeds were earmarked for the build and
launch of the company’s two Ka-Band (broadband) satellites.
Banks are less likely to have a major role in providing financing start-up ventures.
Note that investment banks and investment bankers, often visible actors in complex
investment transactions typically involving private equity, corporations, and/or
public markets, act as brokers arranging and facilitating these transactions, rather
than lenders or investors. Investment banks play a variety of roles, including advising
on capital raising approaches and more strategic transactions such as merger and
acquisition (M&A), as well as underwriting a capital raising event (e.g., an IPO).
Investment banks often focus on large transactions (typically in the multi-$100
million to over $1 billion range) and all the leading space/satellite communications
companies have their “top drawer” financial advisors in the name of investment
banks. These institutions will usually take the role of “lead managers” of a financing
transaction, often with several fulfilling that position (e.g., J.P. Morgan, Lehman
Brothers, and UBS acted as joint lead managers for a $500M capital raise in 2007
for mobile satellite services fledgling operator, TerreStar (now owned by DISH
Network)).
Public Markets
Toward the later stages of a space-based company’s funding trajectory, there can be
a public sale of the company’s equity (common stock), or IPO. The IPO enables
additional capital to be raised to supplement prior fundings and also provide
previous investors an exit vehicle for their investments (i.e., sell their equity shares
in the public market place). Many established space companies and government
contractors have long since had their IPOs and continue to trade publicly. Examples
include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, and Harris Corporation.
IPOs in the space industry have ranged from around $100 million (e.g., GlobalStar
and Orbcomm) to about $2 billion (e.g., Intelsat). Secondary offerings (post-IPO)
also serve to provide funds for capital expenditures and other corporate purposes
(e.g., operations, working capital, and retirement of debt). In 2014, Iridium raised
$170 million through public sales of $50 million in common stock and $120 million
in convertible preferred stock. IPOs of space start-ups have been very limited, such
as UrtheCast going public on the Toronto Stock Exchange through a reverse IPO in
2013. See Table 1.
10
The Export-Import
Bank's authorization
lapsed in July 2015.
On December 4, 2015,
the Bank resumed
activities with
President Obama's
signature on the
reauthorization bill.

11
Type of
Investor
Characterization
of Investor
Typical Space
Industry
Investment
Investment
Type
Examples of
Transactions
Expected
Returns/Exit
Horizon
Angel
Investors
High-wealth individuals
or families seeking high
returns through early stage
investment
$50K - $1M Equity
Space Angels
Network and
NanoRacks
5-10X investment/
5-7 years
Venture
Capital Firms
Groups of investors
focusing on early stage,
high growth ventures and
accept a significant degree
of risk
$2M - high tens
of millions
Equity,
preferred
stock in
several
tranches
(e.g., Series
A, B, C)
Skybox Imaging
with multiple VCs
investing $91M
5X investment/
5 years
Private Equity
Firms
Large investment houses,
which have multi-billion
dollar investment funds
–focus on established
companies
$100M - $1B Equity
Blackstone $200M
investment in Sirius
Sat Radio
3-5X investment/
3-5 years
Corporations
Large companies
providing strategic
investments to support
large CapEx space
projects
Internal R&D for special
projects
Independent R&D as
government contractor
Merger and acquisition
activity
Venture investing
$100M - $1B
Equity and
sometimes
debt
Google $900M
investment in
SpaceX
SES investing
$75M in O3b
Significantly less
returns than for
PE firms/horizon is
over a long term
Banks
Private and government-
backed banks providing
substantial debt funding
layered over equity
$100M - $1B
Debt,
sometimes
convertible
into equity
Ex-Im Bank
providing $525M
in debt to finance
ViaSat satellites
Straightline interest
rates (e.g., 5-10%)
Public
Markets
Later stage funding
vehicle for supplementary
fundings
$100M - $2B Equity
Iridium raising
$170M in an IPO
Serves as a vehicle
to allow the earlier
investors to exit
Table 1. Different types of investor pursue different types of investment objectives.

Space Investment by the Numbers
Cumulative investment (including debt financing) in start-up space ventures since
2000 totals $13.3 billion. This includes seed investment (and a small amount of
grants and prizes), venture capital, private equity, acquisitions, public offerings, and
debt financing. Looking at investment only (excluding debt financing), nearly two-
thirds of investment in start-up space firms since 2000 has occurred in the last five
years. The vast majority has been venture capital.
The year 2015 was a record-setting year for space ventures, with investment and debt
financing of $2.7 billion. It was the largest investment year, $2.3 billion (excluding
debt financing), of the 15-year study period. More venture capital ($1.8 billion) was
invested in space in 2015 than in the prior 15 years, combined.
The mix of investment types (including financing) has evolved over the last 15 years.
Seed funding is evident in most years, though comparatively small compared to other
investment types. Private equity and debt financing are prominent in the middle
years of this timeframe, whereas acquisitions and venture capital become more
pronounced in recent years. See Figure 3 for year-by-year investment. In addition,
Table 3 shows investment by type in three periods, 2000-2005, 2006-2010, and 2011-
2015, and Table 4 shows annual averages for each.
12
Figure 3. The mix of types of investment in space companies varies over 2000 to 2015.
USD(millions)
Magnitude of Investment in Start-Up Space Ventures

13
Seed Funding
For the total period, seed funding is $1.3 billion. Note that the large seed funding
amount in 2000 primarily represents an estimated $500 million commitment by Jeff
Bezos to Blue Origin; that amount is counted here in the year of the company’s
founding. However, the timing of the commitment is not public. It may be
spread more evenly over the 15-year period, and (based on company activity and
employment) appears to have been spent at a higher rate in recent years. Excluding
the investment in Blue Origin in 2000, seed funding has increased in each of the
periods considered, with nearly half (43 percent) in the 2011 to 2015 period.
Venture Capital
Venture capital investment totals $2.9 billion with 80 percent in the last five years.
In fact, venture capital in 2015 outstrips all venture capital to date by a factor of 1.7.
VCs invested $1.8 billion in 22 firms (such as series A funding for Astroscale and
Orbital Insight, and series B funding for Mapbox and Spaceflight Industries) in 2015.
In the years prior, VC investment totaled $1.0 billion in 31 firms. The largest venture
rounds were in 2015: They were SpaceX’s $1.0 billion series E and OneWeb’s $500
million series A.
Private Equity
Private equity investment in space start-ups is $1.8 billion with 49 percent in the
second time period. Aabar Investments provided $380 million to Virgin Galactic in
2009 and another $110 million in 2011. O3b received investment of $230 million
in 2010 from an assortment of investors, including Google, North Bridge Venture
Partners, Allen & Company, SES, Liberty Global, HSBC Principal Investments,
Development Bank of Southern Africa, Sofina, and Satya Capital. In 2011,
LightSquared raised $265 million.
Acquisition
Acquisitions total $2.2 billion with 74 percent ($1.7 billion) in the last five years.
Over 80 angel- and venture-backed space companies have been founded since 2000;
eight of these companies have been acquired. The substantial values for acquisitions
in 2013 and 2014 represent Monsanto’s acquisition of the Climate Corporation
for $930 million and Google’s acquisition of Skybox Imaging for $478 million,
respectively. The next largest acquisition was WildBlue by ViaSat for $568 million in
2009.
Investors in start-up ventures can see substantial returns if the start-up is acquired.
Table 2 shows three companies that started and exited during the study timeframe.
Note that in the Skybox transaction, the acquisition value was approximately 5.3
times the reported previous investment. In the Climate Corporation example, it was
8.5 times. Other acquisitions during the study timeframe include BlackBridge by
Planet Labs (undisclosed), Deimos by UrtheCast ($84.2 million), and SkyWave by
Orbcomm ($130 million).

14
Public Offering
One hundred percent of the $23 million raised through public offering (UrtheCast)
is in the last five years (2013 and 2015).
Debt Financing
Debt financing for space ventures totals $5.1 billion with 78 percent in the 2006 to
2010 period. The transactions were for Protostar (2006, 2008), WildBlue (2006), O3b
(2009, 2010, 2011), LightSquared (2010), and DigitalGlobe (2011). In 2015, O3b,
Planet Labs, and UrtheCast obtained significant debt financing.
Table 2. Investors in several space start-up ventures have seen substantial returns through acquisition.
Company
Seed
Investment
(millions)
Venture
Capital
(millions)
Private
Equity
(millions)
Debt
Financing
(millions)
Acquirer
Acquisition
Value
(millions)
Skybox
Imaging
- $91 - - Google $478
deCarta - $52 $4 - Uber undisclosed
The Climate
Corporation
$4 $109 - - Monsanto $930
WildBlue -
$206
(+$187 pre-2000)
- $420 ViaSat $568
Table 3. The magnitude of space investments varies based on investment type
and time period.
Investment
Type
2000-2005
(millions)
2006-2010
(millions)
2011-2015
(millions)
Total
2000-2015
(millions)
Seed/Prize/Grant $640 $286 $328 $1,254
Venture Capital $186 $373 $2,300 $2,859
Private Equity $240 $900 $695 $1,835
Acquisition $0 $568 $1,651 $2,219
Total Investment $1,066 $2,127 $4,997 $8,190
Debt Financing $0 $3,969 $1,098 $5,067
Total with Debt $1,066 $6,096 $6,095 $13,257

15
Table 4. The annual average of space investments varies based on investment
type and time period.
Investment Type
Average
2000-2005
(millions)
Average
2006-2010
(millions)
Average
2011-2015
(millions)
Average
2000-2015
(millions)
Seed/Prize/Grant $107 $57 $65 $78
Venture Capital $31 $74 $460 $179
Private Equity $40 $180 $139 $115
Acquisition $0 $114 $330 $139
Average Investment $178 $425 $999 $512
Debt Financing $0 $794 $220 $317
Average with Debt $178 $1,219 $1,219 $829
The average investment level per year, as noted above, is $829 million, which is
affected by a surge in debt financing in 2010. Looking at the other investment types,
the average venture capital level is $179 million per year, with an average of $460
million in the most recent five-year period. The average acquisition level is $139
million per year, but is $330 million per year in the most recent period. The average
seed funding level was $65 million per year in the last five years, up from $57 million
per year in the prior period. These three investment types show an upward trend,
while private equity is trending down. See Figure 4.
Figure 4. Seed, venture funding and acquisitions are trending up, while PE and debt
financing are trending down.
AverageInvestmentperYear($M)
Average Investment in Start-Up Space Ventures, by Period

16
Valuation
Substantial valuations can accompany substantial investment in space ventures.
While valuations for all companies are not publicly available, there are some notable
valuations. SpaceX has joined an elite group of companies, called “unicorns,” which
are private companies with a valuation of $1 billion or more. SpaceX is valued at
$12 billion and holds the number 8 spot on Fortune’s Unicorn List, which numbers
just over 130 companies as of August 2015. Two more space start-ups have been
highlighted as potential unicorns. Planet Labs was identified by CB Insights as being
on track to a $1 billion valuation. Accion Systems won a start-up pitch contest at
Fortune Magazine’s Brainstorm Tech conference, convincing the judges that it might
be worth $1 billion someday.

17
Overall
This research has identified over 250
investors that have provided funding
to early stage and start-up space companies.
All investors are not always disclosed, so the
actual number of investors is even higher.
Over the 15-year time period, we looked at
the distribution of investors across the five
categories. Venture capital firms represent
the largest number of investors in space
companies, followed by angel investors. These
two investor groups comprise two-thirds
of the investors in space ventures. Private
equity firms, corporations, and banks (debt
financing) make up the remaining third. There
is small participation by a few altruists, who
have provided grants or prizes, such as Thiel
Foundation, Knight Foundation, XPRIZE
Foundation, and Space Frontier Foundation,
primarily through business plan or other competitions. See Figure 5.
The number of investors has grown over the last 15 years. From 2000 to 2005, the
number of investors per year averaged 7, and from 2006 to 2010, averaged 19. From
2011 to 2015 (partial year), the average is 55 investors. This is nearly an eight-fold
increase from the first period to the third. Figure 6 shows the unique investors in
each year.
Figure 5. By number of investors, VCs are the largest
investor group for space start-ups.
Venture Capital
Firms
27%
Angel Investors
Corporations
Private
Equity
Banks
14%
7%
9%
43%
NumberofInvestors
Figure 6. The average number of space investors per year has grown from 7 to 55.
Average 55
Average 19
Average 7
Number of Investors in Start-Up Space Ventures
Space Investors by the Numbers

18
The mix of investors changes from year to year, as shown in Figure 7. The trend
for each investor group is discussed in the sections below. Venture capital firms
are prominent in almost every year. Angels are also pronounced, particularly in
the second half of the period. Activity by private equity firms and corporations is
notable throughout. The year 2015 was also an active year for corporations investing
in space companies, particularly with the slew of international firms investing in
OneWeb. There is very little activity in public markets as UrtheCast is the only
company that goes public (through a reverse IPO). Banks (typically providing debt
financing) appear prominently in 2010 and 2011. Deals for O3b and LightSquared
brought many banks to the table in 2010 and O3b and DigitalGlobe in 2011.
Figure 7. The mix of investors in space companies varies year to year.
NumberofInvestors
Number of Investors in Start-Up Space Companies
Investors in space companies are primarily based in the United States. These 176
investors make up 66 percent of the total. California is home to the majority of
investors (81), representing 30 percent of the total. The other 95 investors or 36
percent are located elsewhere in the United States, with New York as a notable
example.
The non-U.S. investors are based across the globe. These 90 investors are in 25
countries, represented in 4 regions. The United Kingdom and Canada are each home
to more than 10 investors in space companies, with the United Kingdom hosting
about 20 percent of non-U.S. investors. Japan, Hong Kong, and Russian Federation
are home to five or more space investors.

19
Angels
Since 2000, over 60 angel investors have invested in early stage space companies.
Angel investors include individual angels and groups of angels. Angels must be
accredited investors, as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission, with
either earned income that exceeds $200,000 (or $300,000 if married) per year or
has a net worth over $1 million. For example, Space Angels Network has over 100
accredited angels. To be included in the data set, at least one angel has announced
their investment. Most angel investments are not made public, so the actual number
of investors is higher.
The most prominent angel investors are “space billionaires.” These billionaires have
accrued their wealth through other successful businesses or investments and have
either founded a space company or invested their own money in a space company.
Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk are usually the first billionaires
mentioned, but they are not the only ones. Of the 1,826 people on Forbes’
Billionaires List, 21 have an affiliation to a space enterprise. This represents about
one percent of billionaires. See Table 5.
Other notable individual angel investors are Dylan Taylor and Esther Dyson. One
has been involved with 6 different space start-ups, while the other has been involved
Middle East
Asia/Africa/Oceania
Americas
Europe
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Russian Federation
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Israel Jordan United Arab Emirates
China
Cote d’Ivoire
Hong Kong
India
Japan
Korea, Republic of
New Zealand
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina Brazil Canada Mexico

20
with Space Adventures and XCOR Aerospace. Two companies that included many
individual investors are Astroscale (8) and Dauria Aerospace (6).
Angel investors have found power in numbers and pool their resources. Angels
come together and invest in groups, often called syndicates, such as Boston Harbor
Angels, which invested in XCOR Aerospace, and Green Angel Syndicate, which
invested in Global Surface Intelligence. Space Angels Network has been particularly
active with more than a dozen different transactions in the last 10 years.
Angels investing in space companies are primarily based in the United States. Angels
based in the United States comprise 71 percent of the total. California is home to
the majority of angels, representing 32 percent of the total. The other 39 percent are
located elsewhere in the United States, including Washington, DC and New York.
The non-U.S. angel investors are based across the globe. Seven countries are
represented in three regions. Japan, Russian Federation, and United Kingdom are
home to multiple angels investing in space companies, with the Japan hosting about
a third of non-U.S. angels.
Forbes
Rank
Name
2015 Net
Worth
(billions)
Source of Wealth Notable Space Affiliation
1 Bill Gates $79.2 Microsoft, self-made Kymeta
15 Jeff Bezos $34.8 Amazon.com, self-made Blue Origin
19 Larry Page $29.7 Google Planetary Resources
43 Charles Ergen $20.1 Satellite TV, self-made DISH Network
51 Paul G. Allen $17.5 Microsoft, investments
Scaled Composites,
Stratolaunch Systems, Vulcan
Aerospace
56 Ma Huateng $16.1 Internet, self-made Satellogic, Moon Express
81 Sheldon Adelson $31.4 Casinos, self-made SpaceIL
100 Elon Musk $12.0
PayPal, Tesla Motors, Solar
City, self-made
SpaceX
137 Eric Schmidt $9.1 Google, self-made Planetary Resources
168 Ricardo B. Salinas $8.0 Retail, media OneWeb
330 Richard Branson $4.8 Virgin, self-made OneWeb, Virgin Galactic
393 Subhash Chandra $4.2 Media, self-made Teledesic, ICO
462 Lynn Schusterman $3.7 Oil and gas, investments SpaceIL
557 Yuri Milner $3.2 Facebook Planet Labs, SETI
847 Peter Thiel $2.2 Facebook, Palantir, self-made SpaceX
1006 Kavitark Ram Shriram $1.9 Venture capital, Google Planetary Resources
1054 Craig McCaw $1.8 Telecommunications Teledesic, ICO
1105 H. Ross Perot Jr. $1.8 Computer services, real estate Planetary Resources
1324 Charles Simonyi $1.4 Microsoft, self-made Planetary Resources
1324 Kenji Kasahara $1.4
Social networking website, self-
made
Astroscale
1741 Morris Kahn $1.0 Software, self-made SpaceIL
Table 5. Twenty-one billionaires have a notable space affiliation. (Source: Forbes Billionaires)

21
Funded by Space Angels Network
Altius Space
Machines
Ansible Space
Communications
Systems
Astrobotic
Technology
Deep Space
Industries
Firefly Space
Systems
Golden Spike
LaserMotive
NanoRacks
OmniEarth
Orbital Outfitters
Planetary
Resources
Space Adventures
World View
Enterprises
XCOR Aerospace
Zero Gravity
Corporation
Non-U.S. angel investors
have funded multiple
space companies
Accion
Systems
Astroscale
Dauria
Aerospace
Global Surface
Intelligence
Oxford Space
Systems
Planetary
Resources
Satellogic
Germany Russian Federation United Kingdom
Europe
India Japan Singapore
Asia/Africa/Oceania
Argentina Canada
Americas
Angels have been increasingly investing in space companies. From 2000 to 2005,
the average number of angel investors per year was 1. There was no angel activity
publicly reported in 2001, 2003, and 2005. From 2006 to 2010, the average was 3.
Starting in 2011, the average number of angel investors per year jumped to 14—a
five-fold increase over the previous five years. See Figure 8.

22
Figure 8. Angel
investor activ-
ity increased in
2011 and con-
tinues to today.
NumberofInvestors
Example deals
noted.
Average 1
Average 3
Average 14
Blue Origin
Scaled
Composites
SpaceX
The Climate
Corporation
XCOR
Dauria
Moon
Express
Planetary
Resources
Accion
Systems
Astroscale
Number of Angel Investors in Start-Up Space Ventures
Angel investors funded over 30 space companies since 2000
Accion Systems
Altius Space Machines
Ansible Space
Communications
Systems
Astrobotic Technology
Astroscale
Bigelow Aerospace
Blue Origin
Dauria Aerospace
Deep Space Industries
Firefly Space Systems
Global Surface
Intelligence
Golden Spike
Kymeta
LaserMotive
Mapbox
Mishaal Aerospace
Moon Express
NanoRacks
OmniEarth
Orbital Outfitters
Oxford Space Systems
Planetary Resources
PrecisionHawk
Satellogic
Scaled Composites
Space Adventures
SpaceX
Stanford Systems
Stott Space
Stratolaunch Systems
Swift Navigation
The Climate Corporation
WildBlue
World View Enterprises
XCOR Aerospace
Zero Gravity Corporation

23
Figure 9. VC
investor activity
jumped in 2012
through today.
Example deals
noted.
Average 3
Average 8
Average 27
NumberofInvestors
ALOHA
Networks
WildBlue
deCarta
SeaMobile
ProtoStar
WildBlue
SpaceX
SpaceX
Skybox
The Climate
Corporation
Planet Labs
Kymeta
Spire
Global
Kymeta
SpaceX
Planet Labs
Venture Capital Firms
Since 2000, over 110 VC firms have invested in early stage space companies. VCs
generally focus on start-ups and early stage ventures. We include incubators and
accelerators in this investor group, since they provide funding as well as mentoring
and networking. In 2015, over 50 VCs invested in space companies. This is the
highest number over the period and it represents a partial year. See Figure 7. (We
include Fidelity Investments in this investor group, since they provide venture
capital to high-tech companies (and, in particular, invested in SpaceX) even though
traditionally it runs mutual funds that focus on public company equity and debt.)
The number of VC firms investing in space companies has jumped significantly
since 2012. From 2000 to 2005, the average number of VCs per year is 3. Over the
next five years, the average is 8. From 2011 through a partial 2015, the average is
27. This is nearly a three-fold increase over the last ten years. See Figure 9.
The Tauri Group talked
to VCs involved with the
largest deals in 2015.
We also spoke to many
others through research
interactions and related
discussions.
Number of VC Investors in Start-Up Space Ventures

24
VCs investing in space companies
Acorn Technology Fund
AME Cloud Ventures^
Amplify.LA^
Anthemis Group
Asset Management
Ventures
Atomico
Base Ventures
Bessemer Venture
Partners^
Bright Success Capital
Broadband Capital AG
Business Instincts Group
Cambrian Ventures^
Canaan Partners
Capricorn Investment
Group^
Cardinal Venture Capital
citizen.vc^
CNF Investments
Cottonwood
Technology Fund^
CrunchFund
Data Collective^
DBL Partners^
Draper & Associates
Draper Associates
Draper Fisher
Jurvetson^
DST Global^
Elevator Ventures
E-Merge
Felicis Ventures^
Fidelity Growth Partners
Asia
Fidelity Investments^
FIER CPVC - Montreal
L.P.
First Round Capital^
Formation 8^
Founder Collective^
Founders Fund^
Foundry Group^
Fresco Capital^
Galvanize Ventures^
General Catalyst
Partners^
GettyLab^
Grishin Robotics
Haiyin Capital^
HMS Hawaii
Management
I2BF Global Ventures
Ignition Partners
Index Ventures
Industry Ventures^
Innovate Indiana Fund
Innovation Endeavors^
In-Q-Tel
Internet Ventures
Scandinavia A/S
IQ Capital^
JAFCO (Asia)^
Jump Capital^
K1W1^
Khosla Ventures^
Kinetic Ventures
Kleiner Perkins Caufield
& Byers
Lemnos Labs^
Longwall Venture
Partners^
Lurkin^
Lux Capital^
Maryland Venture Fund
(InvestMaryland)
McLean Watson Capital
MENA Venture
Investments
Merus Capital
Mistletoe^
Mitsui & Co. Global
Investment
Mobius Venture Capital
Moose Capital
New Enterprise
Associates
NewGen Venture
Partners^
North Bridge Venture
Partners
Norwest Venture
Partners
NXTP Labs
Observatory Capital
O’Reilly AlphaTech
Ventures^
OS Fund
Osage University
Partners
Pangaea Ventures^
Par Equity
Pitanga Fund^
Pritzker Group^
Promus Ventures^
Radiant Venture Capital
Rainbow Seed Fund^
Raymonds Capital
Razor’s Edge
Ventures^
Redpoint Ventures^
RedShift Ventures
Richmond Global
Rothenberg Ventures
RRE Ventures^
SDF Ventures^
Sequoia Capital^
Seraphim Capital
Shasta Ventures
Sherpalo Ventures
Silcon Badia
Sixela Venture Leasing
SK Ventures
Slow Ventures^
Telcom Ventures
TenOneTen Ventures^
Thrive Capital^
Translink Capital
Valor Capital Group^
Vanedge Capital
VantagePoint Venture
Partners
VegasTechFund
Venrock^
Vilicus Ventures
Vulcan Capital^
Wavemaker Partners
Western Technology
Investment^
Y Combinator^
^ VCs with a deal in 2015 are highlighted

25
VCs investing in space companies are primarily based in the United States. VCs with
headquarters in the United States make up 74 percent of the total. The plurality
of VCs are based in California, representing 39 percent of the total. The other 35
percent are located elsewhere in the United States, with New York and Maryland as
notable examples.
The international investors have headquarters across the globe. Fifteen countries
are represented in four regions. United Kingdom, Canada, Hong Kong, Jordan, and
Switzerland are home to multiple VCs investing in space companies, with the UK
hosting about one third of non-U.S. VC firms. See Figure 10.
Examples of
Incubators
Lemnos Labs invested in
Spire Global (small satellites)
NXTP Labs invested in
Satellogic (small satellites)
Y Combinator invested
in Bagaveev Corporation
(launch)
Europe
Middle East
Asia/Africa/Oceania
Americas
Belgium
Denmark
Russia
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Israel Jordan
China
Hong Kong
Japan
New Zealand
Singapore
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
Figure 10. VCs
headquartered
outside the U.S.
have invested in
a range of space
companies.
ALOHA
Networks
Arabia Weather Ardusat Astroscale
Boundless
Spatial
Dauria
Aerospace
Oxford Space
Systems
Planet Labs Rocket Lab
Planetary
Resources
Rockzip SatCap
Satellogic
SkyWave Mobile
Comm.
The Climate
Corporation
Spire Global
XCOR
Aerospace
Global Surface
Intelligence
HuaXun
Microelectronics
NanoRacks
OmniGlobe
Networks
Insight Robotics
Masterson
Industries

26
Nine VCs have invested in three or more space companies. Draper Fisher Jurvetson
and Founders Fund have each invested in five companies; the rest invested in
three. A couple of these firms indicate that they have a space specialization in their
portfolio. See Figure 11.
A handful of VCs have repeatedly invested in common with other investors. These
include Bessemer, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, First Round Capital, Founders Fund,
Khosla, and RRE Ventures. At least two of them have invested in each of these
firms: Accion Systems, Planet Labs, Rocket Lab, Skybox, SpaceX, Spire Global, and
The Climate Corporation. The relationships are diagramed in Figure 12.
VC firms funded over 45 space companies since 2000
Accion Systems
ALOHA Networks
Arabia Weather
Ardusat
Astroscale
Bagaveev Corporation
Boundless Spatial
Dauria Aerospace
deCarta
Descartes Labs
DigitalGlobe
Firefly Space Systems
GATR Technologies
Glactica
Global Surface Intelligence
HuaXun Microelectronics
Insight Robotics
Kymeta
LightSquared
Mapbox
Mapsense
Masterson Industries
Moon Express
NanoRacks
O3b Networks
OmniGlobe Networks
Orbital Insight
Oxford Space Systems
Planet Labs
Planetary Resources
PrecisionHawk
ProtoStar
Rocket Lab
Rockzip
SatCap
Satellogic
SeaMobile
Skybox Imaging
SkyWave Mobile Communications
Spaceflight Industries (includes
BlackSky Global)
SpaceX
Spire
Swift Navigation
TerraGo Technologies
The Climate Corporation
UrtheCast
Weather Analytics
WildBlue
World View Enterprises
XCOR Aerospace

27
Rocket Lab
Skybox Imaging
Spire Global
Bessemer
ALOHA Networks
HuaXun
Microelectronics
Mapbox
Planet Labs
SpaceX
DFJ
Planet Labs
Swift Navigation
The Climate
Corporation
First
Round
Capital
Accion Systems
Moon Express
Planet Labs
SpaceX
The Climate
Corporation
Founders
Fund
Ardusat
Insight Robotics
Spire Global
Fresco
Capital
GATR
Technologies
TerraGo
Technologies
Weather
Analytics
In-Q-Tel
Rocket Lab
Skybox Imaging
The Climate
Corporation
Khosla
Accion Systems
Spaceflight
Industries
(includes
BlackSky Global)
Spire Global
RRE
Ventures
Kymeta
Orbital Insight
Planet Labs
Lux
Capital
Figure 11. VCs investing in multiple space companies

28
Bessemer
DFJ
First Round
Capital
Founders Fund
Khosla
RRE Ventures
Accion
Systems
Planet Labs
Rocket Lab
Skybox
SpaceX
Spire Global
The Climate
Corp.
Figure 12. Common investments among VCs

29
Private Equity Groups
Since 2000, over 20 private equity firms have invested in early stage space companies.
The number of PE firms investing in space companies has varied over the time
period, but the average is constant at 2. LightSquared and O3b transactions dominate
in 2000, 2004, 2010, and 2011. See Figure 13.
Figure 13. Private
equity investor
activity is variable
over the time period.
Example deals
noted.
Average 2
NumberofInvestors
LightSquared
SeaMobile
Virgin
Galactic
LightSquared
Virgin Galactic
SkyWave
LightSquared
O3b
Spire
Global
Insight
Robotics
SpaceX
Number of Private Equity Investors in Start-Up Space Ventures
PE firms investing in space companies are split between the United States and
elsewhere across the world. Firms with headquarters in the United States make
up 44 percent of the total. The majority of U.S. firms are based in New York and
California, representing 24 percent of the total. The other 20 percent are located
elsewhere in the United States. Non-U.S. firms comprise 56 percent of the total. See
Figure 14.

30
U.S.
Ampal-American Israel Corporation
Beamonte Investments
Chart Capital Partners
Columbia Capital
Desert Sky Holdings
Fall Line Capital
Harbinger Capital Partners
Kresge Foundation
Spectrum Equity Management
Tennenbaum Capital Partners
Valor Equity Partners
Non-U.S.
Aabar Investments PJS
BMO Capital Partners
Caldera Pacific Capital Partners
Coralinn
Desjardins Business Capital régional et
coopératif
Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund
Financial Force Ltd
Israel-Canada (T.R) Ltd
Luxempart
Nevis Capital
Polar Communication
Satya Capital
Sofina
TechnoPlus Ventures
Figure 14.
Private equity
firms reported
to be in space
start-ups are
distributed
between U.S.
and non-U.S.
locations.
The international investors have headquarters across the globe. Eight countries
are represented in four regions. United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada are home to
multiple private equity firms investing in space companies, with the U.K. hosting
about one quarter of non-U.S. PE firms.
Europe
Middle East
Asia/Africa/Oceania
Americas
Belgium
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Israel United Arab
Emirates
Hong Kong
South Africa
Canada
One of the largest
single investments in
a space venture by
non-U.S. investor was
$280 million by Aabar
Investments in Virgin
Galactic in 2009.

31
Corporations
Since 2000, over 30 corporations have invested in space ventures. The number
of corporations investing in space ventures rose steadily since 2012. We include
corporate venture funds in this investor group. 2015 was a peak year for the number
of corporations investing in space ventures. From 2000 to 2005, the average number
of investors per year is 1, and from 2006 to 2010, the average is 3. From 2011 through
a partial 2015, the average is 7. This number more than doubled. See Figure 15.
PE firms have been reported as funding 15 start-up space ventures since 2000
Clyde Space
Insight Robotics
Kymeta
LightSquared
O3b Networks
OmniGlobe Networks
SeaMobile
Shiron Satellite Communications
SkyWave Mobile Communications
SpaceX
Spire Global
Swift Navigation
Virgin Galactic
WildBlue
XCOR Aerospace
Figure 15.
Corporations
investing in
space ventures
picked up
starting in 2012.
Example deals
noted.
Average 1
NumberofInvestors
Average 3
Average 7
WildBlue
O3b
Virgin
Galactic
deCarta
WildBlue
WildBlue
O3b
Climate
Corp.
Kymeta
Climate
Corp
UrtheCast
Skybox
SkyWave
SpaceX
OneWeb
Number of Corprations Investing in Start-Up Space Ventures

32
Corporations investing in space ventures are split between the United States and
elsewhere across the world. Firms with headquarters in the United States make up 56
percent of the total. The majority of U.S. firms are based in California, representing
20 percent of the total. The other 26 percent are located elsewhere in the United
States, with New York as a notable example. Non-U.S. firms comprise 44 percent of
the total.
Both traditionally space companies and non-space companies are investing in
new space ventures. Existing space corporations represent 47 percent of this
investor group, while non-space corporations represent 53 percent. Existing space
corporations that are headquartered in the U.S. make up 22 percent, while non-U.S.
corporations make up 25 percent. Non-space corporations that are headquartered
in the U.S. make up 33 percent and non-U.S. make up 19 percent. See Figure 16 for
the distribution between U.S. and non-U.S. companies and space and non-space
companies.
In 2015, OneWeb
reported a group of
companies spanning
the globe had
invested $500 million
U.S.
Hughes Network Systems,
Qualcomm Incorporated, The
Coca-Cola Company
Non-U.S.
Airbus Group (Netherlands),
Bharti Enterprises (India),
Intelsat (Luxemboug),
Virgin Group (UK), Totalplay
(Mexico)
Hughes Network
Systems
Lockheed Martin
Orbcomm
Planet Labs
SkyTerra
Communications
Space Florida
TerreStar Networks
ViaSat Inc.
Autodesk
Bloomberg Beta
Ford Venture
Capital Group
Google
Google Ventures
Liberty Media
Midland
Development
Corporation
Monsanto
National Rural
Telecom.
Cooperative
Qualcomm
Ventures
The Coca-Cola
Company
Uber
Airbus Group SE
Inmarsat
Intelsat SA
SES
SK Telecom
Company
Space Expedition
Corporation (SXC)
TMI
Communications
and Company
UrtheCast Corp.
Virgin Group
Bharti Enterprises
Ltd
Jabbar Internet
Group
Liberty Global
Longford Energy
Qihoo 360
Technology
Tencent Holdings
Totalplay
Non-Space U.S.Space U.S.
Space Non-U.S. Non-Space Non-U.S.
Figure 16. Corporations investing in space ventures are more likely to be
headquartered in the U.S. and less likely to be considered a space company.

33
The corporations outside the United States have headquarters across the globe. Nine
countries are represented in four regions. Canada and United Kingdom are home
to three or more corporations investing in space ventures. China, Luxembourg, and
Netherlands each have two companies that have reported investing in space ventures.
Europe
Middle East
Asia/Africa/Oceania
Americas
Luxemboug
Netherlands
United Kingdom
United Arab
Emirates
China
India
Korea, Republic of
Canada Mexico
Corporations have invested in over 20 space ventures since 2000; about a third of
them are acquisitions. Acquisitions include BlackBridge by Planet Labs, deCarta by
Uber, Deimos by UrtheCast, Skybox Imaging by Google, SkyWave by Orbcomm,
The Climate Corporation by Monsanto, and WildBlue by ViaSat. Additionally,
UrtheCast went public through a reverse IPO with an existing company, Longford
Energy.
Corporations have invested in over 20 space ventures since 2000;
about a third of the investments were acquisitions
Arabia Weather
BlackBridge Corp. (acquired)
deCarta (acquired)
Deimos (acquired)
Kymeta
LightSquared
Moon Express
O3b Networks
OneWeb
Orbital Insight
Orbital Outfitters
Rocket Lab
Satellogic
Skybox Imaging (acquired)
SkyWave Mobile Communications (acquired)
SpaceX
Spire Global
Swift Navigation
The Climate Corporation (acquired)
UrtheCast (reverse IPO)
Virgin Galactic
WildBlue (acquired)
XCOR Aerospace

34
Banks and Other Financial Institutions
Relatively few—about 1 in 10—of the transactions covered in this analysis have
reported debt financing as a significant component. Some examples of ventures
receiving debt financing are:
• BlackBridge received $22 million in debt financing from the Business
Development Bank of Canada and Bank of Montreal in 2014.
• DigitalGlobe received $600 million in debt financing in 2011.
• O3b Networks received $525 million in debt financing from COFACE,
France’s export credit agency and others.
• Planet Labs received a debt facility of $25 million from Western Technology
Investment.

35
Investor Motivations
Akey objective of this study is to understand commercial space from the
perspective of those investing in creating new companies. Who is involved in
space investing, and how has that changed over time? What are their motivations?
What is the vision they have for the future of the industry? How do they perceive
the industry to have changed over the previous 10 years? Who has driven this
change, and what has NASA’s role been? What metrics do they seek in a company in
which they invest?
The perspective of investors significantly enhances the analysis of the investment
deals described in the previous section. Investor behavior is the key to understanding
why space investments are trending up and what we might see in the future. This
analysis targets the investment community behind start-up space ventures—the
sources over the last few years of billions of dollars to fund dozens of new,
entrepreneurial space firms.
We talked to venture capitalists, mostly senior partners, at some of the most
successful firms in Silicon Valley, as well as angel investors, entrepreneurs, investment
bankers, venture attorneys, and international investors. We interviewed investors in
the largest recent space deals and investors in firms that have invested in multiple
space deals. We also interviewed investors in leading firms that have chosen not to
invest in space.
Here is what they said.
The State of Investment in Start-Up Space
The investors we interviewed agreed that space investment activity has significantly
increased. One senior partner in a space-leading venture fund said, “For established
venture funds, I would guess that 10 percent have seriously considered investing
in a space-related start-up. Three years ago, that number was 1 percent.” Another
investor said, “You just had Steve Jurvetson [partner at DFJ, board member of
SpaceX, and investor in Planet Labs] three years ago.”
Why Has Venture Investment in Space Increased?
Interviewees attributed the increase in venture investment in space to more attractive
opportunities and to successful exits (that is, situations in which early investors have
seen returns on their investments). One summed up investor expectations succinctly,
“You can now make money with space investment, which wasn’t largely a true
statement before.”
New opportunities enabled by decreased costs and higher potential returns
Interviewees saw increased investment opportunities primarily (though not
exclusively) related to small satellites, driven by decreased costs and by new potential
for returns. Interviewees pointed to the reduction in cost of satellites associated with
what one called the “CubeSat revolution” and to “commodity components that are
powerful and cheap.” Satellite systems use off-the-shelf technology and very small
satellites that are easily and quickly manufactured to present a much different value
proposition for investors. The timeline from design to operations has also shortened
significantly, which means investors can potentially expect to see returns on their
investment more quickly.

Decreased costs make venture investing feasible for space. Instead of hundreds
of millions or billions of dollars to deploy a space system, small satellites can be
developed for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and full systems can be
deployed for tens of millions.
A partner in a major venture capital firm said, “You actually can experiment now. If
you are spending $300 million on a satellite and launch, you have to know exactly
what you are doing. You can’t do things prospectively. You really can’t take much risk.
It is hard to take a risk on completely new technology that is so new that it might not
be space-qualified if it costs that much. But if it is cheap to try things out, people are
not limited.”
Interviewees attributed improved potential for returns primarily to the products
and services enabled by data analytics (combined, of course, with reduced costs).
Satellite systems are seeing technical advancements in the way they process and use
data. Many start-up space ventures are vertically integrated, with the end product or
service based on data analytics and tools like those used in IT/web/terrestrial tech
ventures. This has drawn interest of investors who
are familiar with data analytics-driven businesses, and
who see significant potential in satellite businesses that
track and analyze economic activity around the world
or predict weather on a frequent, detailed, local basis.
Exits and demonstrated value creation
Successful exits are the lifeblood of venture investing
trends. For space investments, many interviewees
pointed to SpaceX building a valuable company and
the sale of Skybox to Google. One noted, “SpaceX
has really opened the doors. Space used to be the
domain of NASA and large military contractors, and
SpaceX showed that it is possible to build a purely
commercial enterprise doing launches. They have out-executed some of the more
traditional folks. That gave permission to a whole bunch of other folks to think
about the problem.” Some interviewees also held up Planet Labs as an example of
successful value creation.
Deal flow is still limited
A number of interviewees pointed out that space deal flow is limited. One suggested
that the peak of new space starts has passed, at least for the next year or two, while
investors wait and evaluate the performance of the current crop of new starts to see
if anticipated market demand materializes.
What Motivates Individual Investors?
One interviewee said, “In Silicon Valley, you have the winners and you have
everybody else.” Given the competitive VC culture, it was interesting that investors
often identified personal affinity as a reason they invest in space, as well as financial
motivation.
When investors spoke of why they put money into space, they binned themselves
pretty consistently into one of three categories:
36
“I love [space]. I
remember going to
NASA’s visitor center
as a kid, and that got
me into engineering. I
have a passion for it.”
–VC partner

37
• I am interested in space, and financially motivated by a particular investment
(with the emphasis on space interest)
• I am financially motivated, and interested in space (with the emphasis on
financial motivation)
• I am financially motivated, and I don’t care that it is space (typically focused
on the view of space systems as another type of IT platform with unique
capabilities, that is undergoing the same transformation that combines
dropping hardware costs with massive growth in applications and demand)
The first two categories were a bit more common than the third. One VC felt this
was a generational difference. That investor said, “[Space] is still something of a
vanity investment, with extraneous reasons beyond the financial returns. I am like
that, Steve Jurvetson is like that. I would guess
that others are like that. More junior investors
have to focus on the return. Older, established
investors can say, ‘Well, I might lose that $10
million, but it’s worth the chance.’”
An investor at one of the world’s most successful
venture capital firms, said, “Individual investors
have personal interests in space. That includes me,
but it is a very secondary factor…I have invested
because it is a new source of revenue, not out of
infatuation with space.”
Finally, the remarks of one investor reflect the
views of a small but significant subset of non-
space focused interviewees. He said the space
aspect was completely unimportant not only for
him, but for the entrepreneur that is leading a
satellite company he funds; both focused on the
investment value associated with new mass market
products on a platform with rapidly dropping
costs.
Interest and activity increased, but not all
investors are putting money into space. What
accounts for the investors who pass on space
deals? We spoke to investors who would be good
candidates for space investment—technologically-
oriented and even space affiliated, and asked
why they chose not to invest. Their answer: a
combination of limited deal flow and questions
about risks and return. An established, strongly
space-affiliated investor (education, interest, life
experiences) said that he has looked for space
investments but has not made any; he does not
see deal flow for space deals that fit his particular model, which is post-revenue with
returns in 3 to 5 years.
A senior and respected space operations expert now working in start-up space
captured concerns about risk and return: “There are a lot of guys out there who are
“There are not many
entrepreneurs who
dreamed of better data
storage as kids. But
space entrepreneurs are
turning their childhood
passion into real
businesses.
The people I have
worked with [in space
ventures] are serious
business people. Maybe
they have more of a
twinkle in their eye than
other entrepreneurs,
but they are not running
businesses differently.”
–Silicon Valley
attorney specializing in
technology ventures

unfortunately attracting money but won’t be able to deliver on the promise. Either
they won’t be quick enough or they won’t be able to close the business case… But
too many folks say: ‘I’ve got an imaging satellite, and I can solve your problem. What
is your problem?’ What do your clients look for?”
What Does an Investor Look for in a Venture?
Much as with investments in other industries, investors consider the strength of
the management team, the strength of the technical solution, and potential demand
for the product or service when deciding to make an investment. Leadership and
market were the two most consistently mentioned considerations. One comment
was, “We look for three things when we invest:
Great management, billion dollar market, and an
unfair advantage (IP or technical edge). The question
I always ask is, what is the market?” Another
interviewee said, “There always needs to be a big
“E” entrepreneur who is the keeper of the vision of
the company. And then you augment that expertise
as required.” And, “What is the product? This is the
most important. How does it scale?”
The focus of the investor group was an important
consideration. Many investors said we do invest in
this or we don’t invest in that, and that shapes our
choices. Focus ranged from business or product type
(for example, we don’t invest in consumer internet
products, or we focus on software), industry (we
specialize in transportation), business phase (we
are looking for early stage firms with unique IP), or
time frame (we will accept longer returns, up to seven years). This investor focus
is particularly important for an entrepreneur. And, of course, some investors
specifically use affinity as a key element of their investment decision process, such as
Space Angels, a long-standing group of space-focused angels investors based in the
U.S., and a newly-established venture fund, Seraphim, in the United Kingdom created
to invest in space opportunities and leverage U.K. national investment in space and
satellite applications. Matchmaking a fund’s focus to a venture’s needs significantly
increases odds of investment.
VC firms typically make investment decisions by seeking the approval of a group of
partners, and they like to invest in management teams that they know, or that have
proven track records. Several interviewees noted that building a relationship prior
to seeking funding can make it easier to get partner agreement on an investment.
One gave this guidance to entrepreneurs who don’t value track records: “Come see
me before you need money, and introduce your business. Drop by every quarter
for a year. Tell me what you plan to do in the next quarter, and then come back
and show me you did it. If your business is interesting to us, I’ll mention this to my
partners every quarter, and then, when it is time to write a check, you will have built a
reputation and credibility with us. I won’t have to start from ground zero to persuade
people to agree to the investment.”38
“The evolution of
the satellite industry
is paralleling the
development of
software systems that
use 98 percent COTS.”
–VC with a
background in
network systems

39
Finally, an investor in a highly successful venture capital firm laid out the topics that
are key to the firm’s evaluation process, and how they apply to space investments.
1. Can a new market form? Many start-up space companies are using new data,
doing different things without a direct analog in the past. We try to assess the
markets for these products and services analytically, but a lot of it ends up being a
judgment call. Once companies get a ways along and have a better handle on what
they are doing, you can be more analytic. But generally, for a company creating a new
market, a lot is subjective.
2. Do they have access to resources they need? Here we are asking not about
money, but about other things like the inputs to their products (for example, a
satellite data stream).
3. Team We look at the background of the team and whether we think it is credible
for the team to put a real solution together. Also, we like to see a team that is
pragmatic. One of the challenges of this general area is that people are infatuated
with space, and they have big ideas. They don’t always match the idea that investment
is about financial return.
4. Threats We try to make sure the government or
some of the large companies can’t disturb the market.
For example, we look at where Skybox and Google
might be headed when looking at a related venture to
see if they will likely enter that area. Also, historically,
some technologies related to space were fairly heavily
regulated by military concerns, which creates risks,
although that is changing as the government changes
its views.
Most Challenging Element of a Space
Investment
Interviewees said that the challenging parts of space investments were gauging the
market opportunity and managing the time horizon. One interviewee spoke about
the challenges of the space supply chain, describing it as “very weak, especially
for smaller providers” and in fact pointed to this as a future market opportunity.
Another said the difficulties are “almost never about the technology or the
management team.”
In general, market opportunity was the number one challenge; space markets were
described as “hard to define, size, and time.” An interviewee captured the views of
many investors, saying he tells visionary entrepreneurs, “I agree with you that this is a
huge opportunity in 20 years, but what about 2 or 5 years?”
“We want founders
with big vision, and
the credibility to pull
it off, but they can’t
be completely crazy.
We are not a not-for-
profit activity.”
–VC partner

Future Outlook and NASA Role
Future Outlook
Investors we interviewed had an overall rosy view of the future of the space
industry. Several investors mentioned that they thought that in the long term
we would see a trend of commercialization of space, to include private space
travel or colonization of the Moon or Mars. In the
nearer term, many mentioned launch availability,
cost, and frequency as being drivers of change and
advancements in the space industry. While some
investors mentioned that the near future would
provide an opportunity for new technologies and
system architectures to be tested in the real market,
there was a general feeling that the markets of space
weather and climate monitoring, data communications,
and vertical integration of data and data analytics
will be successful areas within the space market. One
investor envisioned a future where space-provided
data was so ubiquitous that it would be a competitor
with terrestrial internet providers. A few investors
mentioned the idea that a successful human spaceflight
operator and customers could draw new markets and
new investments, and make space investments more
mainstream. One thing most investors agreed on, is
that the space market is changing—summed up by one
investor as the next 7 years will have the same amount
of change as the last 50.
Start-up space investors are optimistic about the future of space ventures—that,
after all, is why they are start-up space investors. They differ, however, in their views
of the immediate future of investing. One experienced Silicon Valley hand said
succinctly, “Once everyone knows that space is a good place to invest, it’s too late.”
A number of investors highlighted the rich opportunity now for venture investing in
space, compared to potentially fewer opportunities in the future. One concern raised
was the near-term (one-to-two-year) time horizon for
a market correction or dramatic downturn associated
with highly valued technology firms. “If there is a
tech crash, it will increase the risk factor for everyone.
Now is the boom time.” Such an event could eliminate
available capital and limit investor appetite, said some
interviewees. Another concern was straightforwardly
that the market might become saturated, and that
the ventures funded now reflect the full range, for
example, of imaging companies and products that can
be supported.
And some interviewees also saw future risk arising from the speculative nature of
new space ventures and competition from more established space enterprises. “For
a lot of companies, I think we’re going to see soon what they can really do. Will it
be the big guys who build in the bunny suits? Rad hard, or who cares? It’s not totally
clear that the new business models work yet.”
40
“We are clearly at
an inflection point
where interest and
investment are
increasing. Lots
of companies are
now competing for
excellent people.”
–Silicon Valley
attorney specializing
in technology
ventures
“The next 7 years
will have the same
amount of change as
the last 50.”
–Silicon Valley
investor

For every view that the start-up space market is
reaching its limits, however, there was another view that
it is just beginning, because new capabilities will create
unpredictable and potentially massive demand. “New
businesses create demand. Since Uber and Lyft arrived,
the market for cabs in San Francisco has multiplied by
10.” Another opinion was that there will be continued
investment in space start-ups, because investors with
less clout and fewer resources than the Silicon Valley
leaders are still looking for space opportunities. Several
interviewees raised the question of whether the next
group of ventures seeking funding will have business
plans as attractive as the ground-breaking first wave.
Many interviewees highlighted a number of areas they felt would attract future
investment. These included:
• Support services for satellite ventures. “The most interesting stuff
is companies that are solving problems around the satellites.” Another
interesting view was “…standards are market share. We need a canonical
architecture for small satellites. This is the inception of open architecture
for small satellites.”
• Satellite technology. “In the near term, the
focus will be on small sat propulsion, sensors.”
“Other areas that will get attention are:
hyperspectral, antennas.”
• Software. Software included “disaggregated
systems that are software controlled” as well as
data analytics tools.
• Launch systems that reduce cost and
increase frequency. Many investors said
that lower cost launch and more frequent
launch (one said “at least weekly”) were very
important to them. For example, one said, that companies that will succeed
are those that can “drive innovation in a fundamental area [such as launch].”
Another observed, “I believe that if you make access to space easier there is
a bigger chance we can see a flowering industry. I might be wrong about the
timeline. But I believe that, and it drives investment.”
Finally, some investors (more typically space-enthusiast angels than VCs) also talked
about the future of humans in space, predicting habitation of the Moon and Mars,
some with a recognition that the business case may not be the driver. One summed
up, “philanthropists will make it happen” and another said, “that depends on the
next [Presidential] Administration.” A related topic was the idea that launches of
humans would be a driving force for future space investment and market growth,
through their personal experience of space. “I see one catalyzing event being the
flights of Virgin Galactic. Those early passengers may be future funders of space
businesses. Putting people in space is actually key.”
41
“NASA is an
excellent place to get
technical expertise…
They have lots of
smart folks.”
–VC partner
(multiple space
ventures)
Many investors
said that lower cost
launch and more
frequent launch
(one said “at least
weekly”) were very
important to them.

NASA Role in the Future
The perception of NASA’s role in the new space environment is generally positive,
though mixed. Most interviewees viewed NASA as a valued technical resource,
some viewed it as an important customer or facilitator, and a few viewed NASA as
irrelevant or even an impediment.
NASA as a Technical Resource
NASA’s expertise is widely recognized and valued.
Many interviewees noted that NASA has played a role as an incubator for
technology, concepts, and talent, benefiting the start-up space arena.
Interviewees described NASA expertise migrating to start-ups through
entrepreneurship of NASA personnel, recruiting of NASA staff by ventures, and
board memberships and consulting by retired NASA leaders. Comments included
“New space companies are borrowing heavily from people with NASA or military
backgrounds,” and “The people at NASA, current and former, are also good and
smart and you have to have people.”
Investors also valued NASA’s facilities and technology. One pointed to NASA as
a resource, saying, “When a company is bootstrapping, they need to test in space
(flight test). When they are in the seed and A rounds of funding, they need access to
facilities.”
Moreover, NASA’s engagement or participation—especially through a research
partnership or collaboration—was viewed as an indicator of credibility for a venture.
NASA was widely viewed as a capable judge of technical merit.
NASA as a Customer
Some interviewees recognized the role of NASA’s commercial launch initiatives has
played in the changing space market over the last decade. Depending on their market
focus, some said NASA’s “biggest role is as a customer.” One commented on NASA
as having a unique role in space, in that “NASA is the most important customer in
the world, in a way that doesn’t exist in other areas.”
On the other hand, some investors did not have a working knowledge of NASA’s
current role in the space industry, and saw NASA only as a potential customer or
an example of the space industry of the past. (For example, one investor in a space
company that was founded by NASA alums and actively uses the International Space
Station answered that NASA was not really relevant to that business, when asked a
question about the role of NASA.)
The dynamics of working with the government as a customer were a source of
concern, as well as interest. Some investors praised NASA’s recent efforts. “COTS
has been a good program, after NASA made many mistakes in commercialization
earlier (SpaceHab).”
Some investors were uninterested in working with the government, and by extension
NASA. One interviewee pointed out that “NASA feels it is its job to create
competition,” rather than a successful company, and pointed to one innovative
42

start-up to which “NASA gave all sorts of awards” and then spent substantial
resources to create a fairly direct competitor. Several others said that government
generally is just a bad fit for venture-funded firms, because the government as a
customer is “opaque.” One said, “Once you are in business, the government can be
a big revenue source, but you can’t count on it.” Another summed up the venture
capital preference to avoid government as a customer, saying, “Delivering the goods
to the government is one model. The other is going directly to consumers. If the
government is the customer, it makes it hard to do a venture capital play. Going to
consumers is more exciting for venture. Government is a single point of failure that
is not growing.”
As a slight counterpoint, the view of an extremely successful VC was that the Silicon
Valley investment community avoids government as a customer out of a lack of
familiarity, rather than because there is an unbridgeable mismatch between VC-
funded ventures and government.
An interesting summary from an active satellite investor was that NASA may have
been important in getting the industry to its current state, but that the important
questions for investors are what NASA can do and what it will do in the future.
Finally, a few investors were cautious, uninterested, or actively negative toward
NASA. Generally these concerns were addressed at engagement with government
broadly, reflecting the potential barriers or delays that could result. Representative
comments were, “Stay far away from NASA and government,” “NASA staying out
of the way is the best thing,” and “Government involvement is not necessarily a
blessing.”
Implications for NASA
The inputs from many of these interviews identify
potential opportunities for NASA to engage emerging
space ventures that are contributing to U.S. space
capability and economic growth. Generally, NASA’s
roles in space science, big space missions, exploration,
and high risk technology development were valued
(where they were known) and viewed as appropriate
for the agency. Similarly, NASA’s role as a consumer of
commercial capability was viewed as appropriate and
beneficial for the agency as well as for businesses, and
interviewees generally expressed the hope that NASA
would continue to work with businesses that could
provide important products and services.
Generally, interviewees expected and wanted NASA
to continue as a valued source of facilities, resources,
and technology. Many noted that working with NASA
is challenging. Finding the door to open, establishing
a relationship (whether a simple as access to test
facilities on a paid basis, or as complex as an on-going research partnership on a
complex technology), and, in particular, dealing with contractual mechanisms were all
highlighted as difficult for start-up ventures (even well-funded ventures on a path of
“The business of
venture is very
forward-looking.
The past is the past.
The Planet Labs
guys came out of
NASA, but in terms
of growing the
business, what role
does NASA play?”
–VC partner (satellite
venture)
43

growth and institutional maturity). Some interviewees were familiar with the NASA
Ames Emerging Space Office (ESO), and viewed it as a business-friendly, useful
point of access. Few others knew of a contact point or organizational point of entry
at NASA.
NASA has many objectives that require or benefit from engagement with industry,
from technology transfer objectives, to positive economic returns, to reducing costs
and enhancing capability to meet mission goals. An enhancement as simple as a more
publicized contact point for the investment community could directly benefit these
objectives.
New Role for NASA
Study findings also suggest one potentially powerful new role for NASA to consider:
Participate in In-Q-Tel or recreate the In-Q-Tel model. Investors viewed In-Q-Tel
favorably. They noted that it provides firms with insight into government markets
and enables them rapid access to real government demand. In-Q-
Tel represents government interests in the investment community
by making venture capital investments in firms whose products or
services address a specific government need. In-Q-Tel represents
multiple federal agencies. NASA could establish a similar model,
to enable it to meet unique requirements by fostering rapid-
development commercial capabilities. Alternatively, NASA could
explore becoming one of the agencies represented by In-Q-Tel.
Several interviewees pointed out the benefits of this approach,
which would enable NASA to immediately benefit from the strong
working relationship In-Q-Tel has developed with Silicon Valley investors, based on
In-Q-Tel’s long-standing relationships and cultural adaptation to the VC culture in
terms of processes and response time.
Potential Benefits of NASA Interaction with Start-Ups
NASA’s enhanced interaction with start-up space ventures would contribute directly
to national goals of economic growth. It could also foster the development of space
products and services available for NASA and other government space organizations
to use. The opportunities identified are potentially low-cost, budget-neutral, or even
ways to reduce costs through new products and services. The core challenges for
NASA are administrative—establishing easy and clear ways to work with start-ups
so that they benefit from NASA’s unique capabilities and expertise. Finally, NASA’s
effective collaboration with space start-ups can help preserve U.S. global leadership
in start-up space.
44
Participate
in In-Q-Tel
or recreate
the In-Q-Tel
model.

45
Acknowledgments
This report was written and produced by The Tauri Group, which conducted the
study on which it is based.
The study was supported in part by NASA under award Number NNX15AC02G,
through the grant program of the NASA Ames Emerging Space Office.
Points of Contact
Carissa Christensen, Managing Partner, Carissa.Christensen@taurigroup.com
Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Investigator, Kirsten.Armstrong@taurigroup.com
The Tauri Group gratefully acknowledges the support of the NASA Ames Emerging
Space Office, led by Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Emerging Space Program Executive
at NASA Headquarters Office of the Chief Technologist, and Dr. Daniel Rasky,
Lynn Harper, and Bruce Pittman at the Space Portal Office at NASA Ames Research
Center. We wish to thank the many investors that provided their expertise and shared
their experience of space investment. We also wish to thank Raphael Perrino and
Mark Hill for their key contributions to the project. We kindly thank our reviewers.
PHOTO CREDITS
Cover art and background template by Phil Smith, The Tauri Group. [Images used are credited to: NASA/
SpaceX/Planet Labs/Orbital ATK (spacecraft), Phil Smith (PM-2; SpaceShipTwo), and taxrebate.org.uk
(currency).]

The Tauri Group
Alexandria, VA
space.taurigroup.com

Start-up Space Tauri Group 2016 -

More Related Content

Similar to Start-up Space Tauri Group 2016 - (20)

More from Dmitry Tseitlin (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Start-up Space Tauri Group 2016 -