As the trajectory of global geopolitical competition extends beyond physical borders to gain orbital depth, the concept of “strategic autonomy” has become an existential necessity rather than a choice for the European Union (EU) and the European Space Agency (ESA). Europe tended to view space as a “pure” domain of scientific exploration and civil cooperation for many years. However, this romantic approach has now yielded to a harsh paradigm shift, where space is redefined as a fundamental element of sovereignty, economic independence, and technological superiority.
The greatest obstacle in this transformation process is the rigid structural framework known as “path dependency,” in which past institutional decisions constrain today’s scope for action. The European space architecture, designed over decades to be public-oriented, slower-paced, and research-focused, is in a structural conflict with today’s dynamic and commercially-driven “New Space” economy. While the hierarchical structures and cumbersome planning cycles of the past may strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy objectives at the theoretical level, operational reality presents a formidable barrier to this ambition. This situation creates a deep contradiction between technological capacity in the field and political rhetoric, putting Europe’s freedom of movement on the global stage at risk.
The most tangible turning point in Europe’s space strategy is manifested in chronic bottlenecks in launch capacity. While traditional flagship programs such as the Ariane 6 and Vega projects remain central to Europe’s efforts to maintain its sovereign launch capability, delays have pushed the sector into a dangerous cycle of dependency. The operational rupture with Russia has made the gaps in Europe’s family of launchers more visible and exposed the continent to the disruptive influence of US-based actors such as SpaceX.
SpaceX’s mainstreaming of its “launch-as-a-service” model has largely invalidated Europe’s traditional business models. Europe has not yet been able to establish a large-scale presence in new markets such as in-orbit services beyond valuable startups like D-Orbit and ClearSpace. In overcoming this technological crisis, the role of artisans is critical, alongside the promises of automation and additive manufacturing. Manual dexterity is still indispensable in the production of initial prototypes and precision components. The “Megafactory” vision and vertical integration strategy emphasized by Aerospacelab CEO Benoît Deper symbolize the industrial speed required for Europe to overcome these structural bottlenecks. However, this transformation requires the coordination of speed, capital, and talent, beyond mere engineering success.
The financial ecosystem in the European space sector faces significant structural barriers to scaling innovative ventures. The risk-averse attitude of European investors creates financial fragility in capital-intensive areas such as space technologies. Investors evaluate this area, which has long payback periods, with an even more conservative eye than the biotech sector due to a lack of historical data and benchmarks.
Although the stagnation following the $2.5 billion investment peak in 2021 is concerning, 2023 being the most active year in terms of transaction volume for European upstream space technologies points to a long-term confidence.[i] The 2024 data of the ESA Business Incubation Centres (ESA BIC) network demonstrates the economic potential of this ecosystem, with revenues exceeding €321 million and a workforce of more than 6,300 full-time employees.[ii] The success of scaled-up ventures such as Isar Aerospace is vital in reducing private capital’s dependence on corporate demand. In this regard, the European Investment Bank and the NATO Innovation Fund are positioning dual-use technologies as an investment gateway, stretching the boundaries between defense and civilian markets and creating new capital flows.
Europe’s administrative architecture in space exhibits fragmented governance, caught between the EU institutions, ESA, and the national interests of member states. In particular, the principle of geographical return, which aims to protect national industrial shares rather than industrial efficiency, has become a mechanism that slows down decision-making processes and paralyses innovation cycles. ESA’s efforts to evolve from a commanding authority to a facilitator supporting the ecosystem are being hampered by unwieldy bureaucratic structures that contradict the need for speed in the global market.
This managerial paralysis is not only a structural problem but also a talent crisis. Executive training initiatives such as “Space for Business” seek to address the engineering-focused sector’s need for leaders who can do profit-and-loss calculations and read the market. The lack of fast-track tendering processes and flexible contract management is hindering Europe’s “Space Team Europe” vision from becoming an operational success. The reflex of national agencies to protect their own agendas conflicts with the ambition to create a collective force, while the gap between political rhetoric and capabilities in the field is widening.
The disparity between Europe’s political rhetoric and technical reality fully embodies the concept of the capability-expectation gap. The external dependency experienced in critical technologies, particularly in sovereignty elements such as PNT (positioning, navigation, and timing) infrastructure and secure communication, makes Europe vulnerable towards the technology policies of the US and China. The critical PNT infrastructure, which centers like Phi-Lab Netherlands focus on, is at the heart of the technical depth required for Europe to overcome the risk of strategic isolation.
The failure to integrate dual-use strategies rapidly enough in the defense dimension is limiting maneuverability in the modern geopolitical arena. In a world where US-based private actors can operate on a state-like scale, Europe’s fragmented structure is turning into a strategic disadvantage. A Europe that cannot fully manage its own launch systems and critical data networks faces the risk of remaining merely an end-user of technology at the table where global standards are determined.
For Europe to maintain its position as a space power, a radical paradigm shift is essential across all these dimensions. By transcending the boundaries of the traditional space sector, the integration of disciplines such as biotechnology, energy, and material science into the space ecosystem is not an optional choice but an operational necessity. The “Space Team Europe” vision must evolve beyond diplomatic rhetoric into a common operational mechanism, a more flexible financing model, and a speed-focused decision-making structure.
A nimble industrial architecture that combines Europe’s rich heritage of artisanship with high-tech mass production lines is the sole key to strategic autonomy. Consequently, Europe’s options are narrowing. Either it will break its structural dependencies through bold reforms and become a leader setting the pace of the global space race, or it will surrender to the technological and financial status quo and be condemned to a strategic isolation in this new geopolitical era. Space is no longer a field of exploration in the sky, but the absolute determinant of sovereignty and economic prosperity on Earth.
[i] “ESA ScaleUp Book”, European Space Agency (ESA), https://commercialisation.esa.int/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/ESA-ScaleUp-Book-Nov2025.pdf, (Access Date: 22.11.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
