Q1. Could you start by giving us a brief overview of your professional background, particularly focusing on your expertise in the industry?

I started my career in 2006 in the air defence operations branch of the Indian Air Force. I have been handling varied operations in air defence, sub-conventional threat mitigation, and the digital transformation of the communication and reporting networks for air defence systems. This included an extensive understanding and application of space-based communication & navigation technologies. Before completing my initial term at IAF in 2002, I was the Senior Manager – Operations Strategy at the elite strategy directorate at Air Headquarters and also led the end-to-end space-based threat warning and communication segment during 2 major national contingencies.

Post my armed forces service, I completed my post-graduation from the Indian School of Business, and subsequently joined Dhruva Space as the Associate Director, where I led the project portfolio of ~$ 100 Mn. This portfolio encompasses the development of satellite platforms (EOS & Comms), payloads, ground stations, space-grade solar panels, imagery & launch aggregation. The projects include hardware design & development, transfer of technology and R&D. This role necessitates a deep understanding of the entire ecosystem for interaction with suitable vendors, partners, as well as customers, both existing and potential.

Q2. As commercial demand for LEO connectivity accelerates, how can operators manage CAPEX-heavy constellation builds while still achieving sustainable unit economics? Which technical or operational innovations will have the greatest impact on cost reduction?

I will provide my answer in 3 parts:

Current drivers for high CAPEX

Launch Costs: The primary cost driver for any LEO project is launch costs. Due to limited availability of launch service providers, prices are very high and wait times are significant. This also delays the projects, adding to the overhead.

Tariffs: The vendors for space-grade sub-systems and components with a reliable heritage are mostly concentrated in the EU or the US markets. This entails high tariffs and duties for imports.

Engineering cost: As specified in the previous point, the engineering cost of components & systems remains high due to high labour costs in these markets.

R&D: Repeated R&D for every mission to accommodate changes in mass, power, data budget, and processing requirements is also a major driver of CAPEX.

Testing Facilities: Space qualification and testing facilities (Optical, RFCT, Anechoic, TVAC, Vibration, EMI/EMC, TID, SE) are fragmented, expensive and have long wait times. This results in high prices, transportation costs and delays. Building an end-to-end testing facility would require significant CAPEX.

Mitigation Strategies

• Boosting investment (high risk-high reward) in the launch vehicle segment will significantly help diversify service providers, bringing down costs and wait times. Long-term agreements and aggregation will usher in economies of scale for nascent players in this segment
• Lobbying with the administration for reducing tariffs on space products can be a major boost to the entire ecosystem. It will not only help the industry but also bring newer technologies and healthier competition to the market
• Transfer of Technology, technology partnerships and Licensed production can leverage on the arbitrage of labour costs to significantly bring down engineering costs of space-grade components. This is beneficial for both parties with increased margins, brand market expansion, diversification of sub-vendors and reduction of costs to the scale of 50%
• Targeting at least 60% standardization of platform design into a payload agnostic plug & play bus architecture can address the high R&D cost
• Collaboration & partnership among major players in a certain geographic segment would be required for setting up end-to-end testing facilities

Way Forward

• The governments of the global south have realized the importance of the space industry for the economy, and we can see significant budgetary allocation for boosting this industry
• Significant achievements in technology in the recent past by newer players in the launch vehicle segment have democratized the launch segment significantly
• Major players in the EU & US are ready to collaborate with low labour cost markets for manufacturing to leverage the arbitrage
• National space agencies have opened up their testing facilities for utilization by the private industry at subsidised prices till the time the industry can set up end-to-end facilities on its own

Q3. How are trends in launch cadence, satellite refresh cycles, and factory automation reshaping the cost curve for LEO constellation deployment and replenishment?

The launch costs and replacement costs for constellations have surely come down due to faster refresh cycles and automation in recent years. But to achieve higher cost optimization of constellations, the following would be required:

• Smaller, cost-effective launch vehicles (without compromising quality) for increased availability
• In-orbit data processing capabilities (on-board / on-request) to reduce the TAT and cost of communication infrastructure
• Development of technology to ensure the longer mission life of each satellite. This can be achieved by leveraging economies of scale in the materials and components used for GEO missions

Q4. With small-satellite production scaling globally, where do you expect the biggest supply-chain bottlenecks between 2026–2030 — particularly in payload components, testing capacity, and cross-border vendor dependencies?

Payload Components: Limited sources of procuring payload components, especially imagery payload, result in high lead times and cost. Diversification of sources and easier cross-platform integration feasibility will be highly advantageous in this aspect.

Testing Capacity: The industry follows fragmented testing and quality standards (ESA, NASA, ISRO), which can be a major bottleneck. Global standardization will ease the testing capacity supply chain.

Cross-border vendor dependencies: A Volatile geopolitical scenario is already having a strong adversarial effect on the supply chain. This can be mitigated only through diversification of sourcing and manufacturing facilities.

Q5. To what extent will tightening export controls and national-security–driven procurement rules influence global vendor selection and technology collaboration in the LEO ecosystem?

Stricter export controls and national security-driven procurement rules are a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is extremely necessary to ensure control over the use of dual-use technology in weapon development and the weaponisation of space. However, on the other hand, it also inhibits the supply chain for the sharing of tech for space technologies being used for peaceful purposes. The process of applying for and approving the export licenses needs to be transparent, which would require efforts from both the supplier and buyer. This can reduce the export clearance TAT and, in turn, reduce the overall lead time of critical components.

Q6. Which regions are most likely to emerge as competitive, high-reliability, low-cost hubs for small-satellite manufacturing and system integration over the next decade — and why?

The regions that show promise and are likely to emerge as competitive, high-reliability, low-cost hubs will be:

• India
• UAE
• Malaysia / Singapore / Vietnam

The reasons for

• Major boost from the government
• Expression of interest for investment in this sunrise sector
• Peacefull geopolitical scenario & stable economy for the availability of funds in the market
• Low engineering costs

Q7. If you were an investor looking at companies within the space, what critical question would you pose to their senior management?

• What is the percentage of the budget allocated for R&D?
• What is the geographical region as the primary source of components and the diversification level of specialised vendors?
• How many projects are expected to be delivered in the next year, and what is the revenue recognition and margins on these projects?
• What is the redundancy of skills in the technical team that can mitigate the risk of failure/delay of projects due to attrition of specialized skilled tech resources?