Abstract
The European New Space sector is often portrayed as open and dynamic, yet this thesis shows that entering this market still means navigating a dense thicket of rules, expectations, and financial demands that quietly decide who gets to participate. Drawing on literature and expert perspectives, it argues that Europe’s ambition to be a leading space power will depend not only on more rockets and satellites, but on how it reshapes the conditions under which newcomers can actually gain a foothold. At the centre of the analysis is a set of five market entry barriers: regulation, reputation, capital and R&D intensity, knowledge, and cultural distance. Three of these – regulatory complexity, high capital and development costs, and the need to build credibility in a risk-averse ecosystem – emerge as the dominant obstacles, with knowledge gaps and cultural factors amplifying or easing their impact rather than blocking entry on their own. The thesis shows how these barriers reinforce each other: regulatory requirements shape who can access funding and public contracts; capital intensity makes early failures costly; and a lack of heritage or trust can keep even strong technical solutions at the margins. Europe’s institutional architecture is both a strength and a source of friction. The role of ESA, EU bodies and national agencies creates a dense governance landscape in which industrial policy, strategic autonomy, and commercial innovation all intersect. Mechanisms such as geo-return are designed to distribute opportunities, yet they also contribute to fragmentation and can lock actors into national or programmatic silos 2 that are difficult to escape. Added to this are cross-cutting EU rules – for example on chemicals, sustainability or dual-use exports – which raise compliance thresholds, especially for smaller firms, and can turn otherwise promising business cases into marginal ones. Despite this, the thesis does not conclude that New Space in Europe is closed. Instead, it suggests that the sector is opening in uneven ways, with downstream and data-driven activities often easier to enter than hardware-intensive upstream segments. It also highlights that barriers are not static: strong networks, transparent communication, and an agile approach to changing programs and funding lines can mitigate some of the disadvantages of being new or small. Yet these firm-level strategies cannot fully compensate for structural issues, which is why the study argues that policy support should focus on making regulatory pathways clearer, funding more accessible and predictable, and public buyers more willing to work with new actors. Ultimately, the thesis frames market entry barriers as a test of Europe’s broader space vision. If the continent wants a competitive, resilient and inclusive New Space ecosystem, it cannot rely solely on technology and inspirational rhetoric. It will also need to confront the less visible frictions – from licensing regimes to unwritten reputational norms – that determine whose ideas make it into orbit, and whose remain grounded.
