NASA Holds the Levers to Build a Real Commercial Space Economy

Governments spent roughly $141 billion on space last year, yet the industry still can't convert that demand into committed orders and upfront capital. That disconnect sits at the heart of an argument made by the CEO of Nebex, who says NASA can fix it — without a bigger budget.

The context is stark. In July, SpaceX stopped accepting new rideshare bookings beyond late 2028. In October, NASA released its request for proposals for commercial space stations to succeed the International Space Station, which is set to be de-orbited. Together, the ISS retirement and the launch squeeze threaten the "new space" startups that built their business plans on cheap, frequent rides to orbit.

What's left of the launch market?

Alternatives to SpaceX exist, but they're thin. Rocket Lab's Electron flies dedicated small-satellite missions. ULA's Vulcan and Blue Origin's New Glenn handle larger payloads — but Vulcan has been grounded since February and New Glenn since April. Newcomers are moving: Isar Aerospace won a launch contract with Planet, Stoke Space raised $1 billion and targets a first launch in 2027, Rocket Lab's Neutron is now expected to debut in 2027, and India's Skyroot succeeded on its first orbital attempt. Most of these options remain unproven.

SpaceX's Starship completed its first orbital flight in September, which may eventually ease the bottleneck. But it's not certain that the added capacity will reach the third parties depending on it.

Why the 'commercial' label isn't enough

The Nebex CEO, writing in a Fortune commentary, argues the real problem is pretending a self-sustaining commercial market exists while space companies rely on the U.S. government as anchor tenant — effectively asking the American taxpayer to subsidize venture-backed businesses.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman drew a hard line in September. Pushing back on a former NASA official who called for more agency-funded crew vehicles, Isaacman wrote: "You cannot simply slap the word 'commercial' on every problem or opportunity."

The CEO agrees — and says demand isn't the issue. The author, who joined the space sector in 2021 from the tech and startup world, closed deals over four years to send sovereign astronauts from Italy, Sweden, Türkiye, India, Poland, Hungary, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to the ISS. Deals with Fortune 100 companies sent orbital compute, pharmaceutical research and in-space manufacturing payloads to orbit. The result: $1 billion in net new sovereign and commercial business, none of it tied to a U.S. government contract.

That track record, the CEO writes, shows a true commercial space economy is possible — but it needs far more market infrastructure and business-model innovation from both the private sector and government.

What should NASA change?

The ISS-replacement RFP already penalizes bidders that depend on substantial taxpayer funds or prolonged negative cash flow, and rewards outside commercial and sovereign revenue. But tight bid timelines and strict flight-heritage requirements for human spaceflight push primes toward legacy suppliers. They pay steep upfront markups and hope international tenants materialize years later.

The CEO's three-part fix:

• Widen the supplier base. Streamline vetting to include suppliers from allied and partner nations from the start, cutting hardware and service costs immediately. These companies and their governments are the future commercial and sovereign tenants stations will rely on for revenue.
• Demand reciprocal commitments. NASA should place a premium on binding commitments from those partners to use the stations once on orbit.
• Underwrite day-one costs. Because NASA's milestone payouts are heavily back-loaded toward major technical events, the agency should partner with market infrastructure providers who can underwrite early supplier costs against committed customer revenues — sparing builders from draining cash or diluting shareholders.

Connecting global supply discovery, reciprocal demand and access to credit in one framework benefits everyone, the CEO argues: primes submit cheaper bids, international partners gain a stake in the orbital economy, and U.S. taxpayers avoid bankrolling the transition alone. If the U.S. and its allies want a viable rival to spacefaring competitors in the East, the CEO concludes, they'll have to leverage the full force of the global market — involving commercial and international stakeholders from day one.