Who is Europe's next SpaceX?
In our space economy deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
Isar Aerospace is Europe’s best current candidate to become its next SpaceX, but the title is still premature because no European startup has completed a successful orbital launch.
Europe’s immediate problem is no longer the complete absence of a heavy launcher. Ariane 6 has restored sovereign launch capacity, but Europe still lacks a private company that combines high flight cadence, reusable hardware, spacecraft operations and its own recurring demand.
The gap with SpaceX is operational rather than conceptual. European companies have factories, launch sites, customers and ambitious roadmaps, while SpaceX has already repeated the manufacture-launch-recovery-reflight cycle hundreds of times.
Isar leads because it has built the most complete launcher company around an unproven rocket. Spectrum has reached the pad, several later vehicles are already in production, and the company has raised enough capital to survive a difficult qualification campaign.
PLD Space is the closest challenger because it has actually flown a vehicle, secured major financing and outlined a wider transport system around MIURA 5, MIURA Next and the LINCE capsule. The catch is that its decisive orbital rocket has not flown yet.
MaiaSpace may have the best route to early launch cadence. Its Eutelsat OneWeb agreement gives it something the other startups badly need: repeated missions for the same constellation, starting soon after its planned debut.
The Exploration Company is not competing for the launcher crown, but it may be building the missing European equivalent of Dragon. A successful Nyx mission would give Europe cargo return and orbital-logistics capability that makes any domestic launcher more valuable.
Government demand will decide how quickly the field narrows. ESA is moving toward milestone-based launch and cargo-service contracts, but spreading support across many companies may preserve competition without creating a clear winner.
Reusability is not the first test. A dependable expendable rocket flying often would be more useful than a reusable prototype that launches once, because recovery only pays when there is enough demand to reflight the hardware regularly.
Europe may never reproduce SpaceX inside one company. A more plausible outcome is an Airbus-style network linking a private launcher, Nyx cargo vehicles, Eutelsat OneWeb or IRIS² demand, and large government anchor contracts.
The ranking can change quickly. Two successful orbital launches within a few months would matter more than another large funding round, factory announcement or reusable-roadmap presentation.
For now, Isar Aerospace is the frontrunner, PLD Space is the closest challenger, MaiaSpace is the fast-rising sleeper, and The Exploration Company is the strongest spacecraft contender. Europe has serious pieces of a future SpaceX-like system, but nobody has assembled or proved the whole thing.
This market map, featured in our space economy deck, highlights top companies and startups in the space economy
Why does Europe want its own SpaceX now?
Europe wants its own SpaceX because depending on American rockets has started to feel like a strategic risk rather than a short-lived inconvenience.
For several years, Europe had an awkward gap in independent launch capacity. Ariane 5 retired, Ariane 6 arrived late, Vega C was grounded for part of that period, and Russian Soyuz launches became unavailable after the invasion of Ukraine. Europe then placed major missions on Falcon 9, including Galileo navigation satellites, the Euclid telescope and the EarthCARE climate mission.
Ariane 6 has since restored reliable European heavy launch. It carried Galileo satellites in 2025 and completed three Amazon Leo missions in the first half of 2026. Yet Europe still has no company matching SpaceX in speed, launch volume, reusable hardware, spacecraft operations and internally generated demand.
The political mood has shifted too. ESA’s latest Space Economy Report says European public space budgets rose 12% to €13.5 billion in 2025, the first double-digit increase in five years. Government customers now account for about 80% of the global market for rockets and spacecraft, with defence leading that spending. Launch capacity is increasingly treated as infrastructure Europe may need during a crisis.
What would count as Europe’s next SpaceX?
A genuine European SpaceX would need to launch reliably, manufacture at scale and create enough recurring demand to keep flying.
The rocket alone is only one part of SpaceX’s advantage. Falcon 9 provides launch. Dragon carries cargo and crews. Starlink fills the manifest with thousands of company-owned satellites. NASA and defence contracts add demanding, well-funded missions. Reusing boosters then becomes economically valuable because the company has enough flights to use them again and again.
A European contender can follow a different product path, provided that its products reinforce one another. A launcher flying a handful of small satellites each year could become useful and profitable, yet remain far from SpaceX’s position.
We use four practical tests. Can the company reach orbit repeatedly? Can it build vehicles faster than traditional European programmes? Does it control or secure a large stream of future missions? Can it expand beyond one small rocket into a wider transport business?
| Test | What convincing evidence would look like | Current European leader |
|---|---|---|
| Reliable orbital launch | Several successful customer missions in one year | Ariane 6 among incumbents; no startup yet |
| Scaled manufacturing | Multiple flight vehicles moving through one production line | Isar Aerospace |
| Recurring launch demand | A multi-year constellation or government manifest | MaiaSpace |
| Wider transport system | Launch, cargo, crew or in-orbit services under one strategy | PLD Space on roadmap; The Exploration Company in spacecraft |
| Reusable operations | Recovery followed by frequent, economical reflights | No European company yet |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
As this chart shows, and as featured in our space economy deck, search interest in the space economy has been rising steadily
Why doesn’t Ariane 6 already count as Europe’s SpaceX?
Ariane 6 gives Europe dependable heavy launch again, but it does not operate like SpaceX and was never designed to do so.
Arianespace has now used Ariane 6 for Galileo, military, Earth-observation and Amazon Leo missions. Europe clearly has a working heavy launcher again.
Its industrial model remains very different. Ariane 6 is expendable, production is divided across a large European supplier network, and institutional missions remain central to its economics. SpaceX owns much more of its production chain, makes decisions inside one company and can fill unused capacity with Starlink.
Ariane 6 may become a stronger global competitor than many critics expected. It remains Europe’s established sovereign launcher rather than a private platform expanding into satellites, cargo, crew and communications. For this article, it is the reliability benchmark the startups must beat.
How far behind SpaceX is Europe today?
Europe’s private launch companies remain years behind SpaceX in proven operations, and the gap is much larger than the number of startups suggests.
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 statistics recently showed 661 launches, 615 landings and 580 reflights. The company completed 165 orbital launches in 2025, according to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, up from 25 in 2020. That is a launch roughly every 2.2 days across the year.
Europe’s leading private rocket companies have zero successful orbital launches between them. Isar Aerospace flew Spectrum once, but the vehicle lost control about 30 seconds after liftoff. PLD Space completed a successful suborbital MIURA 1 mission. Rocket Factory Augsburg, MaiaSpace and Orbex have yet to fly an orbital vehicle, and Orbex entered administration before reaching that milestone.
Factory targets can make the race look closer than it is. Isar says its new facility could produce 40 Spectrum rockets annually. PLD aims for 32 MIURA 5 vehicles by 2030. MaiaSpace targets around 20 launches a year near the start of the next decade. Together, those plans exceed 90 annual vehicles or missions. For the moment, they remain production goals attached to unproven launch systems.
When we compare actual operations, the biggest gap is accumulated learning. SpaceX has repeated the same difficult sequence hundreds of times: manufacture, test, launch, recover, inspect and fly again. European startups are still working through valves, stage qualification, range procedures, engine integration and first-flight software.
| Measure | SpaceX | European private contenders combined |
|---|---|---|
| Successful orbital launches | Hundreds | 0 |
| Booster reflights | 580 | 0 |
| Orbital launches in 2025 | 165 | 0 |
| Operational cargo or crew missions | Regular Dragon flights | 0 |
| Owned constellation creating launch demand | Starlink | 0 |
| Announced future annual capacity | Already operating at high cadence | More than 90 across leading plans |
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, illustrates yearly venture capital funding for space economy startups
Is Isar Aerospace currently the frontrunner?
Isar Aerospace leads the European startup race because it has assembled the strongest mix of flight hardware, money, factories, launch sites and signed missions.
Spectrum is a two-stage rocket designed to carry up to 1,000 kilograms to low Earth orbit or 700 kilograms to sun-synchronous orbit. Isar develops almost the entire vehicle in-house, including its Aquila engines. That gives the company tighter control over changes than a programme spread across many prime contractors and national suppliers.
The company has moved beyond building a single test article. Before its second launch campaign, Isar said vehicles three through seven were already in production. Its new 40,000-square-metre factory near Munich is designed for as many as 40 Spectrum vehicles a year. No rival European startup has disclosed a production system at that scale with several numbered rockets already moving through it.
Money strengthens that lead. Isar raised a €270 million Series D in 2026, after previously securing more than €400 million in private funding and a €150 million convertible bond. Exact cumulative totals depend on how those instruments are counted, but the order of magnitude is clear: Isar has access to far more capital than most European launch startups.
Its recent commercial and government activity is just as important. Isar has agreements involving ESA, the European Commission, Astroscale and Planet. It signed a ten-year facilities deal for a Canadian launch complex, with first launches targeted for 2028. The company also says defence-related customers have grown from almost none to 60% of demand within a year.
The missing proof is still the flight itself. Even so, Isar ranks first because it has built the most complete company around an unproven European rocket.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
Has Isar Aerospace proved that Spectrum works?
Spectrum has proved that Isar can build and launch a full-size orbital rocket. It has not proved that the rocket can reach orbit or deliver a customer payload.
The first flight lasted around 30 seconds. Spectrum cleared the launch tower and began its planned ascent, then lost control and fell into the sea. Isar gathered flight data and kept the launch site usable, but commercial customers still need to see stable ascent, stage separation, upper-stage ignition and accurate payload deployment.
The second rocket has spent months close to launch without leaving the pad. Attempts were stopped by a pressurisation-valve issue, an unauthorised boat in the danger zone, excessive fuel temperature, a pressure-vessel leak, weather and range availability.
Those delays show that Spectrum remains in qualification. Isar can still attract early customers because Europe wants alternative launch capacity and because the company has enough money to survive failed attempts. The line is fairly simple: the first flight made Isar credible; a successful orbital flight would make it a real launch provider.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, shows why SpaceX is leading in the space economy
Could PLD Space overtake Isar Aerospace?
PLD Space can overtake Isar, but MIURA 5 must reach orbit before its broader roadmap deserves top billing.
PLD has one achievement its closest rivals lack: it successfully flew the MIURA 1 suborbital demonstrator in 2023. That mission proved the Spanish team could integrate a vehicle, run a launch campaign and execute a controlled flight, although an orbital rocket faces much tougher staging, guidance and speed requirements.
MIURA 5 is the decisive project. PLD has built qualification units, expanded its test centre in Teruel and increased planned investment in its French Guiana launch complex to €35 million. A recent test validated the pressurisation architecture, avionics and flight software across the first- and second-stage tanks.
Financing has improved sharply. PLD closed a €180 million Series C led by Mitsubishi Electric and added €30 million of European Investment Bank venture debt.
Its long-term plan includes the larger MIURA Next family, first-stage recovery and the LINCE cargo and crew capsule. That is a broader vision than Isar currently presents, but most of it remains on the roadmap. If MIURA 5 reaches orbit before Spectrum and flies again quickly, PLD could take the lead. Until then, it ranks second.
Is MaiaSpace the sleeper candidate in Europe’s rocket race?
MaiaSpace has become the strongest sleeper candidate because it already has the recurring customers that other European launch startups are still trying to find.
ArianeGroup created MaiaSpace, giving it access to European propulsion knowledge, experienced engineers and launch infrastructure in French Guiana. Its rocket uses Prometheus engines and will come in expendable and reusable versions, with an optional Colibri kick stage.
The more important advantage is demand. Eutelsat signed a multi-year agreement for OneWeb replacement launches starting in 2027. MaiaSpace says that deal could cover most of its manifest during the first three years. Loft Orbital later became its fourth commercial customer and booked multiple missions from 2028. More than half of MaiaSpace’s first three years of operations are now reportedly secured.
OneWeb already operates about 650 satellites and will need replacements as early spacecraft reach the end of their lives. Repeated missions for the same constellation could help MaiaSpace standardise integration, learn faster and make recovery more useful.
SpaceX shows how powerful that demand can become. Of its 165 orbital launches in 2025, 123 carried Starlink satellites. Roughly three quarters of its missions served its own network. MaiaSpace does not own Eutelsat, so its arrangement is less secure, but it still has a clearer route to cadence than its startup rivals.
Isar has advanced further in full-scale flight preparation. MaiaSpace has built the stronger early demand engine. A successful launch followed by several OneWeb missions could flip the ranking surprisingly fast.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, illustrates yearly funding for space economy startups
Where does The Exploration Company fit into the SpaceX race?
The Exploration Company is building Europe’s clearest answer to Dragon, which could make it as strategically important as the launcher startups.
Its Nyx vehicle is designed to carry cargo to space stations, dock, remain in orbit and bring material back to Earth. That return capability is scarce. Many companies can build satellites; far fewer can safely approach a crewed station and survive re-entry with valuable cargo.
The project has moved into serious qualification work. NASA and ESA gave Nyx Phase 1 approval in the International Space Station safety-review process, confirming that its preliminary design and hazard controls were mature enough to continue. ESA also selected The Exploration Company alongside Thales Alenia Space for a commercial cargo-return programme, awarding €25 million to each team in the first phase.
Recent testing adds useful evidence. The company completed a recovery-system drop test in California, releasing a representative test vehicle from a helicopter at 9,100 feet and validating the transition from drogue parachutes to the main parachutes. Its earlier Mission Possible demonstrator also gathered re-entry data, although the mission did not complete the full recovery originally planned.
Nyx has credible technical and institutional momentum. It still depends on other companies’ rockets, so it cannot create SpaceX’s integrated launch-and-spacecraft economics on its own. A deep partnership with Isar, PLD, MaiaSpace or Ariane 6 could nevertheless give Europe a much broader transport system.
Isar leads the launcher race. The Exploration Company leads the European race to build the spacecraft that makes a launcher more valuable.
Is Europe giving these companies enough government business?
Europe is finally buying more commercial launch and cargo services, although its support remains too divided to create a SpaceX-style winner quickly.
NASA helped SpaceX by paying for a concrete service. The agency awarded the company $278 million under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services programme in 2006, then a $1.6 billion contract for 12 cargo missions in 2008. Those agreements linked funding to technical milestones and promised operational revenue after success.
ESA is now moving in a similar direction. Its European Launcher Challenge preselected Isar Aerospace, MaiaSpace, Orbex, PLD Space and Rocket Factory Augsburg. The programme can buy launch services from 2026 to 2030 and requires the surviving companies to demonstrate an orbital launch by 2027.
The cargo-return competition follows the same logic. The Exploration Company and Thales Alenia Space each received €25 million to develop services that should demonstrate a mission by 2030 at the latest.
The weakness is concentration. Five launcher candidates share the available support, while cargo funding is split between two teams. Europe can preserve competition this way, but a dominant company will only emerge when governments place much larger orders with the providers that actually perform.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, compares the main business model options for Earth observation satellite operators
Can Europe finance a SpaceX-sized company?
Europe can finance one or two serious space scaleups at present, but its private market remains far too small to support several SpaceX-sized bets at once.
The European Space Policy Institute counted €1.4 billion of investment in European space ventures during 2025. The United States attracted nearly €8 billion, about 5.7 times more. Europe’s total also fell 8% from the previous year even as global space investment rose 60%.
The money is concentrated near the top. Europe’s five largest rounds represented €629 million, almost 45% of the regional total. One large financing can transform the yearly numbers while dozens of smaller companies still struggle to fund long development cycles.
That pattern appears in the launch race. Isar secured €270 million in one round. PLD secured €180 million and then €30 million from the European Investment Bank. Those are major European financings, yet rocket development can consume capital for years before regular revenue appears. One failure can destroy hardware, delay customers and force expensive redesigns.
Public budgets are much larger. ESA reports €13.5 billion in European government space spending during 2025, almost ten times the annual private venture total. The problem is the route that money takes. Traditional programmes support agencies, national priorities and large industrial consortia. Startups need milestone payments, service contracts and late-stage equity that arrive quickly enough to keep factories running.
Europe can probably keep Isar, PLD, MaiaSpace and The Exploration Company moving through their next major milestones. It probably cannot rescue all of them after several years of delays. The field will narrow through failure, consolidation or both.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
Does Europe need reusable rockets before anything else?
Europe needs reusable launchers for the long run, but reaching orbit reliably and flying often come first.
Recovery hardware costs performance. A launcher must carry landing equipment, reserve propellant and survive extra loads. The operator then needs landing zones, inspection procedures and refurbishment teams. Those costs only make sense when the same stage flies often.
SpaceX has already crossed that threshold. Its official Falcon 9 figures show 615 landings and 580 reflights, turning recovery into a routine operation.
Europe’s startups have no orbital flights yet. An expendable Spectrum flying 15 dependable missions a year would create more value than a reusable prototype flying once.
MaiaSpace and PLD are still right to prepare for recovery. Maia offers reusable and expendable configurations, while PLD has worked on MIURA 5 first-stage recovery and plans reusability for MIURA Next. Those efforts should be judged by turnaround time, refurbishment work and the cost of the next flight, not by the landing alone.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, shows revenue breakdown by customer segment in the space economy
Could Europe’s next SpaceX be several companies working together?
Europe’s most realistic answer may be a network of specialised companies, although that structure will struggle to match SpaceX’s speed and economics.
The pieces are becoming visible. Isar, PLD, MaiaSpace or Rocket Factory Augsburg could provide private launch. The Exploration Company could handle cargo return and later crew transport. Eutelsat brings a live low-Earth-orbit constellation. ESA, the European Union and national defence ministries can supply anchor missions.
Europe has built complex aerospace systems this way for decades. The model spreads technical risk, preserves competition and allows spacecraft such as Nyx to use several launchers.
The disadvantage appears at every commercial boundary. Each launcher, capsule company and satellite operator protects its own margins and schedule. SpaceX can launch Starlink cheaply because the same corporate group earns subscription revenue afterward and can coordinate changes internally.
A European network could still deliver sovereign access and strong commercial services. It would resemble an Airbus-style space ecosystem more than one dominant founder-led company.
| SpaceX capability | Likely European provider | Current main gap |
|---|---|---|
| Frequent private launch | Isar, PLD, MaiaSpace or RFA | No successful startup orbital flight |
| Reusable launch | MaiaSpace or future PLD systems | No recovery or reflight record |
| Cargo return | The Exploration Company | No operational Nyx mission |
| Low-orbit connectivity | Eutelsat OneWeb and future IRIS² partners | Separate ownership from launcher |
| Government anchor demand | ESA, EU and national governments | Orders divided across many providers |
| One integrated decision-maker | None | Contracts connect the system |
What would make one European company pull clearly ahead?
Two orbital launches within a few months would change the ranking far more than another funding round or factory announcement.
Isar has the clearest opportunity. Spectrum is already at the launch site with customer payloads integrated, and several later vehicles are in production. Reaching orbit would convert years of spending into a marketable service. Flying again soon afterward would show that the company can turn test data into a repeatable operation.
PLD could jump ahead through a cleaner sequence. MIURA 1 already demonstrated launch execution. If MIURA 5 completes full-stage tests, reaches orbit on its first attempt and returns for another customer mission quickly, the company’s wider MIURA Next and LINCE roadmap would gain much more credibility.
MaiaSpace has a different route. Its first launch matters, but the Eutelsat follow-through matters even more. Three or four constellation missions in a short period would give Maia the strongest early cadence in the group and provide real evidence for its reusable model.
Rocket Factory Augsburg remains a genuine outsider. It has delivered both main stages to SaxaVord, holds the required UK launch licence and plans its first orbital attempt after rebuilding from a destructive 2024 test incident. Success would place RFA immediately among the leading launchers, although its smaller funding base would still limit rapid expansion.
For The Exploration Company, the ranking changes through a complete Nyx demonstration: launch, orbital operations, controlled re-entry and cargo recovery. That would prove a capability Europe still buys from foreign partners.
The next winner will be decided on the launch pad and during the months after it. One mission creates attention. Repetition creates a company.
This chart, featured in our space economy deck, shows how satellite internet platform technology has evolved over time
So who is Europe’s next SpaceX?
Isar Aerospace is Europe’s best current candidate, but Europe still has no company close enough to SpaceX for the label to be fully deserved.
Isar leads for three concrete reasons. It has reached the pad with a commercial-scale orbital vehicle, put several later rockets into production and raised enough money to survive a difficult qualification campaign. Its ESA, defence, Planet, Astroscale and Canadian agreements show that customers and governments view it as more than an experiment.
PLD Space ranks second and may have the stronger long-term shape. MIURA 1 flew successfully, MIURA 5 is moving through qualification, and the company raised €210 million in 2026. Its plans for larger reusable rockets and the LINCE capsule could eventually produce a broader transport business. Most of that advantage still sits in the roadmap.
MaiaSpace ranks very close behind PLD. Its contracted launch book gives it the best visible path to repeated missions, while ArianeGroup provides industrial support few startups enjoy. A successful debut followed by OneWeb launches could move Maia ahead quickly.
The Exploration Company occupies a different lane. Its spacecraft could supply the orbital-logistics layer missing from Europe’s launch companies. Nyx could become Europe’s Dragon even if another company supplies the rocket.
The conclusion is clear enough for now. Isar Aerospace is the frontrunner to become Europe’s leading private launcher. The broader “next SpaceX” title remains premature because Isar has yet to reach orbit, owns no constellation, operates no spacecraft and has no reflight record. Europe may eventually assemble those capabilities across several companies rather than inside one.
| Company | Why it ranks here | Proof still missing | Current position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Isar Aerospace | Most complete launcher company, strongest factory build-out and deep funding | Orbit and repeat launches | Frontrunner |
| PLD Space | Successful demonstrator, major new financing and broad transport roadmap | MIURA 5 orbital flight | Closest challenger |
| MaiaSpace | Best recurring-demand story and strong industrial backing | First launch and reusable operations | Fast-rising sleeper |
| The Exploration Company | Most credible European cargo-return vehicle | Complete Nyx mission | Leading spacecraft contender |
| Rocket Factory Augsburg | Flight stages at SaxaVord and licensed launch path | First orbital attempt and more capital | Technical outsider |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest space economy report.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis tests which European company currently has the strongest chance of becoming a SpaceX-like space-transport business. We compare the leading contenders across reliable launch operations, manufacturing scale, recurring demand, access to capital, reusable hardware and the ability to expand beyond one rocket.
We gave the most weight to demonstrated flights, completed tests, vehicles already in production, signed customer agreements, launch-site access and institutional service contracts. Factory targets, future launch rates and long-term product roadmaps were included, but they counted less because they remain unproven.
Funding was treated as evidence that a company can survive qualification, replace failed hardware and build operational capacity. It was not treated as proof that a rocket works. The same rule applies to customer announcements: signed multi-year demand is meaningful, but it becomes much stronger once missions actually fly.
Ariane 6 is used as Europe’s current sovereign-launch benchmark rather than as a direct startup peer. SpaceX is used as the operational benchmark because its advantage comes from the combination of frequent launch, booster reflight, Dragon missions, government contracts and Starlink-generated demand.
The final ranking reflects the combined pattern across all dimensions. Isar Aerospace leads because it currently has the strongest mix of full-scale flight hardware, vehicles in production, factory capacity, financing, launch access and signed missions. PLD Space, MaiaSpace and The Exploration Company lead in different parts of the wider transport stack.
The ranking is deliberately sensitive to new operational evidence. A successful orbital launch, a rapid second mission, repeated constellation launches, a recovered and reflown stage, or a complete Nyx cargo-return mission would count far more than another funding announcement.
Key sources include ESA’s 2026 Space Economy Report, the European Launcher Challenge framework, ESA’s list of preselected launcher companies, SpaceX’s official launch and reflight record, and Arianespace’s reports on the February, April and June 2026 Amazon Leo missions.
Company-specific evidence comes from Isar Aerospace’s €270 million Series D announcement, the Financial Times on Spectrum’s first launch attempt, PLD Space’s €180 million Series C announcement, MaiaSpace’s Eutelsat agreement, Eutelsat’s confirmation of that agreement, MaiaSpace’s Loft Orbital contract, and The Exploration Company’s Nyx recovery-test report.
For the government-support comparison, we also used NASA’s account of SpaceX’s original $1.6 billion Commercial Resupply Services contract. We excluded unsourced launch-date claims, recycled funding totals without clear instrument definitions, promotional capacity targets presented as current output, and commentary that repeated the “next SpaceX” label without adding checkable evidence.
In our space economy deck, we identify pain points entrepreneurs should prioritize
Related blog posts
- Is The Exploration Company Europe’s best space startup?
- Is The Exploration Company a serious competitor for SpaceX?
