NEW SPACE vs OLD SPACE
MANAGING TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS MODELS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SATELLITE INDUSTRY
​
26th November 2025
​
Photo credit Eutelsat
The Speaker
As a Senior Systems Engineer, Rachel graduated from Imperial College London in 2019 and has been instrumental in planning and deploying One-Web’s 648 satellites, achieving the first global satellite constellation for internet service. She led engineering sessions and developed groundbreaking software for launch sequences, rapidly creating alternative launch plans following despite facing two black swan events, the bankruptcy of the original company and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which halted One-Web’s launch programme through Soyuz vehicles from Kazakhstan.
Introductory Presentation
It is a tremendous honour to stand before you tonight as the recipient of the Smeaton Medal. I am especially grateful to Her Royal Highness for honouring us with her presence and presenting me with this medal. To the judging panel, my nominators, and the Smeatonian Society — thank you. I am deeply humbled by this recognition and truly grateful to join the company of remarkable engineers who came before me.
​
John Smeaton built systems that protected lives and connected Britain’s industrial world. Standing here today — as the first recipient of this third-series medal working in the space sector — I am reminded that engineering continues to evolve, but our purpose remains constant: to serve society, to open access, and to build the foundations on which others can thrive.
​
My engineering journey began in the most rigorous research lab imaginable: my bedroom floor, surrounded by LEGO. I learned early that if you build something incorrectly, gravity provides immediate feedback. And if you step on a brick — well, that’s instant, unforgettable feedback too, often accompanied by a distinctive limp. You try again. And again. And when it all finally holds together — moving parts move, fixed parts stay fixed — that magical feeling keeps bringing you back for more. Little did I know, that was my first introduction to the famous engineering flow chart: try, fail, retry… and eventually, duct tape and WD-40.
​
Curiosity carried me through school projects across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics — long before I even knew the acronym STEM. It took me to museums, aircraft hangars, and eventually to the A380 assembly line in Toulouse and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Standing in front of these engineering marvels, I realized that these were not just textbook concepts, but humanity’s capability made real.
​
By the time I arrived at Imperial College for the Aeronautical Engineering degree, I didn’t just want to study engineering — I wanted to contribute to it. My thesis at Dyson and subsequent research role taught me how models, experiments, and real-world constraints combine to turn ideas into cutting-edge products. I learned to bridge disciplines — from aerosol physics to electrical systems — which gave me an appreciation for the integration challenges of complex systems. I also learned that systems engineering is not just about physics — it’s about people, process, persuasion, and pragmatism.
​
Then came OneWeb. Connecting the unconnected is a mission that resonated deeply with me, and I knew it was a unique opportunity to help deliver the first-ever Low Earth Orbit constellation providing global satellite communications. I knew I had signed up for a complex systems engineering challenge — one with no instruction manual, because it had never been done before.
​
Nothing prepared me for what came next. I optimised the constellation deployment plan to recover time lost during the company’s bankruptcy — and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine halted our launch campaign in Baikonur overnight. Suddenly, we had five launches and hundreds of satellites that needed a new plan — fast. It wasn’t a perfect textbook example, but it proved that engineers are at our best when reality tests us. We built software tools and operational concepts that didn’t exist, engineered new orbital techniques, and delivered global service despite events no textbook could have prepared us for.
​
It turns out “agile delivery” takes on a whole new meaning when every project milestone is literally travelling at 7 km per second, like the speed of our LEO satellites. I am grateful to mentors who trusted me early, even when I was the youngest voice at the table — and to those who challenged me to defend ideas not with volume, but with clarity, evidence, and purpose. This journey taught me that engineering is a team sport — none of this would have been possible without brilliant colleagues supporting and challenging each other because we care deeply about what we build.
​
Today, as a Senior Systems Architecture Engineer, I help define and orchestrate new system features, translate mission needs across our space and ground segments, and enable cloud-based operations that compress decision cycles from days to minutes. I’m excited about multi-orbit systems and even more excited to support the next generation of engineers who will push further than we can imagine today.
​
And that brings us to the discussion we’re about to have.
​
The space industry is changing faster than ever. We often talk about “Old Space” and “New Space” — not as opposing camps, but as two engineering cultures learning how to work together. One brings heritage, rigour, and decades of hard-earned reliability. The other brings speed, iteration, commercial agility, and a willingness to challenge assumptions.
​
But customers don’t experience those as separate worlds. They expect the best of both: innovation that moves quickly, and services that work reliably, every time.
​
Tonight’s conversation is about that intersection — how we balance agility with assured performance, how we encourage experimentation while still managing risk responsibly, and how we collectively shape norms and good practice in an era where technology moves far faster than regulation. These are questions that will define the next decade of satellite communications: how we build constellations, manage orbits, enable services, and ensure that growth in space remains sustainable and responsible.
Discussion
The questions were addressed by discussion groups who through rapporteurs’ summary presentations, made the following points:
Question 1:​ "New Space encourages faster innovation and greater risk-taking, but customers still expect the same reliability and service quality they’ve always had. How do we manage the balance between agility and assured performance?"
​
The discussion highlighted that balancing rapid innovation with assured performance is not a new challenge, but one intensified in the space sector. Participants noted that other engineering disciplines, particularly civil engineering, have long experience managing high-consequence risks while delivering reliable outcomes, offering valuable lessons for space engineering. A recurring theme was the need to mature the industry’s understanding of risk and failure, recognising that failure varies by context and should sometimes be treated as a learning step rather than a terminal event. Innovation in data use, environmental sustainability, and operational processes was seen as equally important as hardware advances. Contributors emphasised that risk also arises from inaction and excessive conservatism. Financial structures, insurance, and potential government underwriting play a role in enabling innovation. Overall, the group agreed that agility and assurance are compatible if supported by rigorous testing, informed clients, transparent decision-making, and a cultural shift that values managed experimentation while protecting customer trust.
Question 2: “Access to space is becoming more affordable, which means we can test and iterate more quickly. But failures are still costly, and opportunities to correct them also consume time and money. How should our industry approach innovation and risk when we can move faster than ever, but success is never guaranteed?”
​
Participants agreed that while access to space is becoming more affordable and iterative development more feasible, failure still carries high financial, reputational, and environmental costs. Strong emphasis was placed on designing for end-of-life from the outset, particularly to address space debris and sustainability, with lessons applicable to terrestrial engineering. Several groups argued that agility itself reduces risk, as organisations that fail to adapt quickly may be displaced by more flexible competitors. The importance of “informed” or “intelligent” clients was stressed. Clients who understand risk, avoid excessive risk aversion, and support innovation through funding and policy. Engaging with partners who are interested in latest technology provides more opportunity to collaborate and put new technology in the field. Sandboxes, simulations, and testing within controlled or low-risk environments were widely supported as mechanisms to enable learning without full-scale exposure. Competition was also seen as a key driver of innovation. Ultimately, the discussion framed that failure should be seen as a manageable outcome, advocating for structured experimentation, resilience planning, and learning-oriented cultures to sustain progress.
​
Question 3: “Innovation in satellites, launchers, and payloads is accelerating far more rapidly than regulation. How do we, as an industry, collaborate to establish norms and ensure responsible growth before the rules inevitably catch up?”
​
The discussion recognised a growing gap between rapid technological innovation in space and slower-moving regulatory frameworks. Participants emphasised that engineers must act responsibly beyond mere rule compliance, drawing lessons from past failures where strict adherence to regulations proved insufficient. There was strong support for industry-led norms, professional ethics, and codes of conduct, particularly given the international nature of space activities. Comparisons were drawn with maritime law and the Antarctic Treaty, suggesting that global cooperation is essential, especially in managing shared orbital environments and space debris. Regulation was viewed as necessary but ideally light-touch, non-prescriptive, and supportive of innovation. However, participants acknowledged that regulation often follows failures and that litigation pressures can distort good rulemaking. Industry collaboration, standard-setting, and trusted professional forums were proposed as proactive alternatives. Learning from other industries, building a strong culture of industry reporting near-misses will help improve transparency. Overall, the group discussions concluded that responsible growth depends on leadership, shared values, international coordination, and engineers taking ownership of ethical and systemic risks before formal regulation intervenes.
​
Concluding Remark:
​
The biggest takeaway from the various discussions was that the future success of the space industry will depend less on any single technology and more on how well it integrates agility, responsibility, and professional judgement. Whilst innovation must move quickly, reliability must be assured, but not at the cost of stagnation. That is the balance to be struck. Engineers, clients, and institutions must therefore lead collectively embracing experimentation, learning openly from failure so that rapid progress in space delivers lasting value.
​