Reach for the stars to boost Britain's space industry
We can’t afford to neglect Britain's space industry. Unfortunately, the government is taking completely the wrong approach, says Matthew Lynn
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
Twice daily
MoneyWeek
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Four times a week
Look After My Bills
Sign up to our free money-saving newsletter, filled with the latest news and expert advice to help you find the best tips and deals for managing your bills. Start saving today!
Orbex was certainly ambitious. It was one of two companies backed by the British government with plans to develop a domestic space industry.
At its peak in 2022, the business was valued at $220 million. It planned to create a commercial rocket that would be launched from its base in Scotland.
If it could have made it work, and brought it to completion on budget, it could potentially have been one of the leaders of the European space industry.
MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
But last week the government decided not to take part in the latest funding round, despite putting in £26 million in two earlier rounds, and the company had no choice but to call in the administrators.
It is not the first space project backed by the British government to fail. An earlier investment in OneWeb, a satellite start-up to rival Starlink, was made under Boris Johnson’s government.
But that also came to nothing and it had to be merged into France’s Eutelsat. It is not an inspiring record. The government keeps pumping money into research and development, only to watch its investments fail.
The space industry is throwing up some serous opportunities
Yet space is turning into one of the most important industries of the 21st century. The global space industry is already worth an estimated £500 billion a year and it is growing all the time. Elon Musk’s SpaceX is expected to list its shares later this year with a value of $1 trillion or more.
Rivals such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin are growing just as quickly.
From internet connections, to orbital data centres, to mining for raw materials, lots of commercial applications are opening up. It has become clear that space is a serious commercial opportunity, and one where lots of money will be made.
Britain should want to be a part of that. The UK economy is hardly in great shape, but if it is to start growing again then it needs to find a way of building new, high-tech industries that generate plenty of wealth and well-paid, high-skill jobs.
Space is a perfect candidate, especially considering we have a deep heritage in aerospace and engineering, and that we also have the venture-capital firms to back them once they become established. There should be plenty of British entrepreneurs building new companies in the sector.
Yet we have taken completely the wrong approach. We are relying on the traditional policy of state-led investment, even though it has failed countless times in the past.
The government tries to identify a company with a promising technology and gives it a little bit of money, then everyone crosses their fingers and hopes it turns into a success, or at least manages to find a buyer with deeper pockets. More often than not, it doesn’t work. The “winner” turns out not to be very good after all, the technology doesn’t quite work as planned, the schedule slips and the government loses interest. The start-up closes or is sold off. Rinse and repeat.
Britain should do something different. We should radically deregulate to allow innovation. Of course, the industry needs proper safety standards. Nobody wants to see rockets blowing up on the launch pad, especially if it risks lives.
But there is still plenty we could be doing to make the UK the most competitive country in the world to start and build a space company.
Put a rocket under Britain's space industry
To start with, we could make space profits free of corporation tax. If Britain had a zero rate for operations off-planet, that would be very attractive for firms around the world. Next, offer a 10% capital gains tax rate if a space business is listed or sold.
Again, that would make the UK the world’s best place to invest in new space businesses.
Finally, relax the technical regulations. The industry is inherently risky. SpaceX has suffered an explosion, but that has not stopped it from growing. If there are no humans on board, it does not really matter if a spacecraft does not work quite as planned.
We should recognise that we can’t apply the same standards we would to a car or a toaster, and relax the rules accordingly.
It is the one sector where it will pay to be a little less cautious. Let entrepreneurs experiment with what works and what doesn’t. That’s the way the UK could become a world leader in the space industry.
This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

Matthew Lynn is a columnist for Bloomberg and writes weekly commentary syndicated in papers such as the Daily Telegraph, Die Welt, the Sydney Morning Herald, the South China Morning Post and the Miami Herald. He is also an associate editor of Spectator Business, and a regular contributor to The Spectator. Before that, he worked for the business section of the Sunday Times for ten years.
-
Properties for sale with beautiful kitchensThe best properties for sale with beautiful kitchens – from a Modernist house moments from the River Thames in Chiswick, to a 19th-century Italian house in Florence
-
Can US small caps survive the software selloff?US stocks have made their worst start to a year since 1995 relative to a global benchmark. But experts think some sectors of the market are still worth buying.
-
"Botched" Brexit: should Britain rejoin the EU?Brexit did not go perfectly nor disastrously. It’s not worth continuing the fight over the issue, says Julian Jessop
-
'AI is the real deal – it will change our world in more ways than we can imagine'Interview Rob Arnott of Research Affiliates talks to Andrew Van Sickle about the AI bubble, the impact of tariffs on inflation and the outlook for gold and China
-
Tony Blair's terrible legacy sees Britain still sufferingOpinion Max King highlights ten ways in which Tony Blair's government sowed the seeds of Britain’s subsequent poor performance and many of its current problems
-
How a dovish Federal Reserve could affect youTrump’s pick for the US Federal Reserve is not so much of a yes-man as his rival, but interest rates will still come down quickly, says Cris Sholto Heaton
-
New Federal Reserve chair Kevin Warsh has his work cut outOpinion Kevin Warsh must make it clear that he, not Trump, is in charge at the Fed. If he doesn't, the US dollar and Treasury bills sell-off will start all over again
-
How Canada's Mark Carney is taking on Donald TrumpCanada has been in Donald Trump’s crosshairs ever since he took power and, under PM Mark Carney, is seeking strategies to cope and thrive. How’s he doing?
-
Rachel Reeves is rediscovering the Laffer curveOpinion If you keep raising taxes, at some point, you start to bring in less revenue. Rachel Reeves has shown the way, says Matthew Lynn
-
The enshittification of the internet and what it means for usWhy do transformative digital technologies start out as useful tools but then gradually get worse and worse? There is a reason for it – but is there a way out?