The last year in space has garnered unprecedented new interest from the who’s who of international finance, smashing funding records for individual companies and marketwide as Silicon Valley has learned the lingo of Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). It has also been a year of the Euro-sphere falling in line behind the American vision of space as never before, seizing upon its vast dual-use potential for national security and the utility of nurturing a vivid startup scene.
This isn’t to say Europe has been asleep to these opportunities prior to this new era in space. Finland-based Iceye’s recent raise at a valuation north of 10 billion euros ($11.4 billion) besides Germany-based Isar Aerospace’s 270 million euros ($307 million) Series D, both in June, demonstrate that European space investment has reached new heights.
Explore the October/November 2026 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
Both cheerleaders from the Continent and its American and British peers are keen to emphasize that the financial situation was not as sensational as the heralds of geopolitics have warned beneath the rising shadows of great powers to East and West.
“Scale-up funding is increasing and becoming more concentrated,” João Falcão Serra, industry & finance lead at the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI) tells Via Satellite. “Europe’s five largest ventures raised 629 million euros ($716 million) — half of all 2025 funding — and, for the first time, all five were scale-ups. Scale-up investment rose 28 percent year-over-year.”
The diversity of these investment flows is becoming more sophisticated too.
“We’re increasingly seeing major U.S. investors, or European Tier 1s, investing in space,” Maureen Haverty, investment principal of London-based spacetech investment firm Seraphim Space says. “That’s a fantastic thing — they see that these European companies can win globally and they’re able to fund much more ambitious plans.”
Concerns have not been based on whether Europe has the kinds of strong ideas, robust companies, and fertile opportunities investors were looking for, but rather that the method and culture of its financial infrastructure, forged in more precedented times, may be showing its age.
“70 percent of European rounds in 2025 still involved at least one public or mixed-ownership institution, which shows that the private market is not yet independently supporting the sector at every stage,” observes Trisha Saxena, senior associate at the NATO Innovation Fund (NIF). She also recognizes, “this capital is concentrating around a limited number of recognized winners; it does not mean that the broader scale-up gap has disappeared.”
The distinctly European culture behind how all this works is also a point of contention.
“Is the process of bringing in private players going to be a rational, market-driven, and ‘capitalist’ process, where meritocratic logic takes precedence, or will it be politicians and obscure committees picking winners on unclear, circumstantial bases?” asks Raphael Roettgen, founding partner at Arlington, Virginia-based space VC firm E2MC.
Biting Bottlenecks, Dedicated Defense
The conditions giving rise to this sea change have been well publicized; the war in Ukraine, the post-Liberation Day boom in sovereignty needs, and the space launch bottleneck have all struck European policymakers with a mandate to accelerate their homegrown space capability, a tremendous technological and industrial challenge that demands private capital.
Arianespace has been soundly surpassed in launch cadence by American and Chinese rocketeers, exposing Europe to a dire upstream bottleneck made acute by the prioritization of demand from satellite giants Amazon Leo and OneWeb.
“Several smaller European launchers may enter service in the coming years, but most will serve payloads below 2,000 kg to Low-Earth Orbit, and scaling production will take time,” ESPI’s Serra says. “This creates a wider strategic risk. Many space startups depend on timely and affordable access to launch, often while operating with limited financial runway. If Falcon 9 is retired, Starship remains focused on SpaceX’s own needs, and Rocket Lab also shifts its attention to launching its own (Iridium) satellites, it can slow down startups’ iteration processes and increase launch prices.”
After years of ambivalence over its dependency on American rockets, Europe is mandating its own capacity by at least the 2030s and is willing to pay for it. Defense, resilience, communications and infrastructure trends are all similar priorities in space for which money has been set aside and big funding wins have been achieved.
“Europe woke up to the fact that true autonomy requires a thriving, agile commercial ecosystem, not just massive government-backed legacy programs,” Tejpaul Bhatia, CEO of New York-based Nebex, and formerly CEO of Axiom Space, tells Via Satellite. “That said, space sovereignty and international collaboration seem at odds. When it comes to space, no single country, company, or individual can do it alone.”
Sovereign Success?
In 2025, European public space budgets increased by 12 percent to 13.5 billion euros ($15 billion), much of it driven by defense priorities. 30 percent of sector investment in 2024 and 2025 was in explicitly security-focused European space companies. The stats on investment by its country of origin are also revealing.
Serra notes that from 2024 to 2025, 84 percent of investors participating in European space rounds were European. France is particularly domestically oriented with 75 percent of investor participation in French ventures coming from within France and 89 percent from Europe overall. Germany is more internationally connected, with 15 percent U.S. participation and substantial investment from elsewhere in Europe.
“But when looking at who is leading these rounds, the picture changes quite drastically: only 69 percent of the VC investment raised over those two years was in rounds led by European investors, and the privately led scale-up rounds in 2025 were all anchored by American investors. American capital is attractive not only because of check size, but because it may facilitate access to the U.S. government and commercial market,” Serra says.
With a mandate to procure a diversity of technologies, the Pentagon is an eager buyer, so long as a NATO-aligned company speaks into the right ear with the right answers. The U.S. government’s legendary performance as an anchor customer has made it a kingmaker to all manner of industry winners in days past, writing the book on how the state de-risks powerful new capability from innovative entrepreneurs.
“Institutional demand should be a means to an end, and not the end in itself,” Serra reminds us. “Only 16 percent of the European space budget is dedicated to defense, compared with the average global of 53 percent, so I think there is still a lot of potential demand on this end, spelling potential opportunities. However, we should also think beyond that. While institutional markets remain by far the largest source of revenue for the space industry, industrial competitiveness is key to sustainable and long-lasting sovereignty. So even if you are focusing on sovereignty as an investment thesis, competitiveness is still part of the equation.”
These conversations don’t go far without invoking the ironclad and much touted adage that grants are all well and good for research, but industry goes farther with contracts – an explicit product or service by a certain deadline which inexorably hones a competitive edge; not cost-plus blank cheques handed over by distracted politicians to the firm of the day, incentivizing nothing but its status-quo.
“Europe is often good at supporting R&D but terrible at becoming the first meaningful customer,” Haverty explains. “Procurement matters more than another grant program. … grants are not helpful to startups looking to scale. We need to break out of reliance on them.”
Nebex’s Bhatia agrees that there’s a weak spot in finance.
“The risk profile today is that suppliers are financially handcuffed, waiting on slow, multi-year procurement cycles from legacy primes to get paid. The bottleneck isn’t the tech; it’s the financial friction and inability to parallel process demand from all over the world,” he says.
Financial Friction
It’s this old-world financial dimension that seemed to seize the attention of commentators. Serra also highlights that Europe has relatively weak public-market exits, with IPOs and special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) mergers accounting for only 9 percent of European exit value, compared with 27 percent in the U.S.
“Acquisition is therefore often the only realistic exit, but that pathway can limit upside for investors, which in turn can limit access to large funding rounds in the first place and can create complications when the target owns sensitive technology,” he says.
VC veteran Roettgen says going big in Europe means you tend to dual-list in America or get acquired. “When you’re investing in the U.S., that extra complexity doesn’t come into it; you just exit,” he remarks.
This acquisition trajectory has its own implications for sovereignty. Early in the year, Eutelsat cancelled the sale of passive ground segment infrastructure to EQT Infrastructure following an intervention from the French government, something that would seem ludicrous pre-Liberation Day.
Since 2014, 35 percent of tracked European space acquisitions involved foreign buyers, predominantly based in the U.S., Serra notes.
“While not all foreign acquisitions are necessarily a threat to Europe’s economic security, giving away control of companies producing critical and emerging technologies can challenge the objective of strategic autonomy,” he says. “Since more than half of all investment in European space ventures since 2014 saw public sector involvement, foreign takeovers can also result in indirect subsidies of innovation commercialized abroad.”
This notion of losing strategic autonomy ought to be more concerning for sovereignty hawks than favoring stakeholders, especially when those stakeholders are European states themselves.
“Credible IPOs or large industrial exits in Europe will also provide much-needed confidence in the continental exit markets,” NIF’s Saxena contends. “That would demonstrate that Europe has created a full capital cycle rather than a pipeline that ultimately depends on foreign lead investors and acquirers.”
But business confidence on paper might not be enough – many investors are waiting for the magic word the anglosphere has often associated with green flags for buying big: deregulation.
“The markets want to invest in space – we must stop sabotaging it further,” Bhatia suggests. “If you want to supercharge the startup world, build the financial rails that allow a European sovereign to bypass the legacy bureaucratic monopolies and transact directly with their own local, agile ecosystem and give your space startups the ability to serve the rest of the world too.”
You’d be hard-pressed to find a Eurocrat that opposes a more dynamic, efficient state, though political will for wholesale deregulation to the whims of capital, foreign or otherwise, isn’t as robust. With tech industries drawing political unpopularity and inviting suspicions of presiding over a bubble, the slow-and-steady culture of Europe that makes way for skepticism may yet be vindicated.
Financial evolution within these crucial markets is something of an inevitability, though many conditions suggest broad Americanization is unlikely.
A Great Power in Aggregate?
With Europe all but committing to a pre-war re-industrialization, the goals of its constituent middle powers could invite existential change. Many of its grander aims rely on doing what its old bureaucracy has always struggled at – pulling together like a single economic bloc. A set of states united as one great power.
“Europe could build advantage through a collection of interoperable sovereign systems and dual-use services procured across multiple countries,” NIF’s Saxena suggests. “Put differently, it means Europe can turn its perceived fragmentation on its head — rather than multiple states competing, they collaborate.
One recent example of collaboration is the Hybrid Alliance Layered Operations in Space (HALO) initiative launched by eight NATO allies to link their sovereign military satellites into a shared megaconstellation. “More examples like this will help Europe overcome its at times unfair label of being a highly fragmented and slow-moving geography,” Saxena adds.
She’s not the only one who sees such a vision for European finance, with the recognition that contemporary pressures may make closer bedfellows of the European Union’s member states than technocratic bluster ever has.
“The next massive European space win won’t just be building hardware; it will be fundamentally integrated with the digital and financial infrastructure that finally connects and standardizes the continent’s fragmented space economy,” Bhatia says. “It will be space finally entering the modern financial era – that ironically was created by Europe 500 years ago and continued to evolve thanks to Europe into this century.” VS
