‘It’s very pro-commercial space right now’: An industry insider’s off-Earth status report
The Commercial Space Federation is at the forefront of dealing with the diverse nature and rapid growth of the commercial space industry.
The organization’s mission is to push for growth and innovation, make sure there’s continued U.S. leadership in this arena, and drive investment into the U.S. commercial space industry.
The Commercial Space Federation (CSF) is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association. Late last year, CSF established industry councils to focus on a set of sectors that includes launch and reentry; commercial low Earth orbit (LEO); space exploration; spaceports and infrastructure; remote sensing and analytics; stratospheric airships; and satellite and space situational awareness and space solar power.
Dave Cavossa is the CSF’s president, taking the helm in June 2024. He’s keenly aware of the overall health and direction of commercial space endeavors.
The CSF has also backed President Trump’s nominee for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, whose confirmation is “critical to maintaining American leadership in space,” the CSF has stated.
This month, Cavossa and other experts testified before the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission at a hearing on China’s space ambitions.
Space.com caught up with the CSF president in an exclusive interview to detail his “rebranding” of the group that was formerly tagged as the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. He is a long-time space and satellite industry executive working at the intersection of commercial space, government affairs and government services.
Related: Space tourism: What are the pros and cons?
Space.com: Your early action plan included rebranding the group. Why so?
Dave Cavossa: The Commercial Spaceflight Federation was the name years ago, to help launch commercial astronauts into space and space tourism. I looked around the CSF membership base of about 80 companies. There were launch and reentry providers, and a majority of commercial space companies that weren’t necessarily spaceflight providers in the traditional sense. It was quite a broad swathe, including university and research organizations.
What I saw was an organization that is now very much focused on all of the things that launch enables. That is really the transition: Look at this huge commercial space industry that is now blossoming and flourishing…and has become an even bigger target for growth.
Space.com: Have you set your sights on new objectives for the near term?
Cavossa: We are advocating loudly for the Office of Space Commerce within the Department of Commerce to be elevated up to the Secretary’s office and not be under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. Similarly, we are advocating for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration to be elevated out of FAA into the Secretary’s office as well. These are two big pushes we’ll be making going forward on Capitol Hill and the new administration.
Space.com: Throughout the federal government, is there overall advocacy for commercial space?
Cavossa: For commercial space, this is as strong a lineup of leaders and well-positioned executives in the federal government and Capitol Hill as we have ever seen. It’s very pro-commercial space right now. It’s a good time to be in the commercial space industry.
Space.com: How do you see NASA at the moment?
Cavossa: NASA is going to be looked at with the same level of interest as every other federal agency. I don’t think they will be exempted from DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] activity. I think it would be hard to find anyone in the space industry that doesn’t think that there’s need for a little bit of “refresh” at NASA. That is sort of universal. But where does the refresh need to happen?
There’s a lot of attention being paid to the biggest programs of record right now, and is that the right way to go going forward? NASA’s 2026 budget is the first big reveal. Major changes, major moves going into the end of this year, the start of next year — that’s my prediction.
Space.com: Given all the groups you represent, it must be like herding cats to reach common ground.
Cavossa: All trade associations have to wrestle with consensus. We’ve laid out guiding principles. The government should rely to the maximum practical extent on commercial solutions before building their own government programs of record. More transparency and a reduction in red tape surrounding launch and reentry licensing and activity. There’s need for a light touch on regulating commercial space. Government needs to think about how they buy commercial space solutions, whether that is launch to low Earth orbit, the Artemis program or even Mars sample return.
These are foundational elements, big-picture things that we all agree on. If some of our membership is having issues with, say, a certain piece of legislation or provision, we’ll also provide advice about those company concerns and their reasons, too.
Related: Trump administration could slash NASA science budget by 50%, reports suggest
Space.com: It’s likely that, since we started talking, scads of space startups have been formed. Any advice to a newly formed commercial space group?
Cavossa: There’s a healthy entrepreneurial startup culture in space now. There’s been money pumping into lots of small and medium-sized companies. And that’s good. And they are not all going to survive. I don’t think any one of us can pick which ones are going to be the winners and the losers.
To me, that’s a healthy commercial space ecosystem. It’s the entry point. It’s the grassroots. It is lots of executives and engineers leaving big companies and saying, “We have a better way to do this.” Then they raise a little bit of capital or bootstrap it, and maybe they become an acquisition target from one of the small to mid-size companies that are already a growing concern. Some of them will just go away, but the ideas won’t, and they’ll be picked up by other companies, taking that idea to the next level.
Again, that’s just a healthy commercial ecosystem. When I look around, there are hundreds and potentially thousands of companies that call themselves commercial space companies and startups. They are all not going to survive. But it doesn’t matter, because they are feeding the industry with ideas and talent.
Space.com: How about advice for venture capitalists in picking startups to financially back?
Cavossa: In some cases, the warning sign in a startup is that only the federal government is going to be a customer. That’s a warning sign that there is no commercial market for their idea.
Yet, at the same time, if the federal government is an early customer, that helps give a startup early requirements, early money, early wins to help keep the company going while waiting for a commercial market to develop.
I struggle with what’s the sign right now of a startup that’s going to be successful versus what is a warning sign. That’s because you see examples of companies that come out of nowhere and surprise you. Then there are others you think should be successful, that there’s a solid market. But then other competitors enter that space, and there’s not enough room for everyone in that marketplace.
Space.com: Are there any other priority focuses for the CSF?
Cavossa: For one, licensing and regulatory issues around launch and reentry. That’s been very difficult and slow for four to five years. Things need to be improved, streamlined and more predictable. We want to unleash growth and make sure the U.S. launch industry maintains its leadership role and not be overtaken by the Chinese.
If we drag the U.S. industry down with regulation, then the Chinese will very quickly overtake us in commercial space within the next five years. They are only held back by physics and math when it comes to commercial space activity. We are held back by lots of regulation, lots of red tape and physics and math.
If we cede that industry to China, we’re not going to like the results in the near future. A future where the Chinese are on the moon, they are running cislunar space or low Earth orbit microgravity, and we have to catch up with them. That’s not a good look for a U.S. president or Congress — to say we fell behind on your watch.
Source link
