Recent news that Orbex, the Scottish space launch company headquartered in Forres, has gone into administration is a blow to the hopes of communities in the north of Scotland and to aspirations for the nation's technology sector. More than 150 highly skilled jobs are at risk, and a promising chapter in Moray’s economic development has come to an abrupt halt. This follows the disappointment resulting from Orbex's December 2024 decision to suspend work on construction of a spaceport in Sutherland. Beyond the immediate human cost, though, the collapse of Orbex should force us to ask some pressing questions about Scotland’s future with the space industry.
Over recent years government and economic development agencies have seen space as a kind of magic bullet for remote communities. Scotland has the expertise and the favourable geography to become a European launch nation. The narrative is seductive: well-paid STEM jobs will keep young people in rural areas, anchored by brand new spaceports and cutting-edge rocket and satellite technology. It is an attractive tale, and easy to be persuaded by it.
However, the Orbex collapse is not an isolated failure. At a meeting of the UK Parliament's Scottish Affairs Committee Jorn Spurmann of rocket company RFA explained that the US went through a similar phase a few years ago: “There were lots of small launch companies. There were huge failures... almost none of these companies exist anymore.” Europe now faces the same brutal reality.
The Orbex failure reveals that there are downsides to relying on space to boost the economy. We have learnt the hard way that building space rockets is a capital-intensive, highly advanced process with a long and punishing development cycle. It is not a viable industry unless there is sustained support and investment from very deep pockets: basically governments or billionaires. Although details of grant funding for Orbex are murky, the company reportedly secured £76.7 million in public funding from the UK Government and the Scottish National Investment Bank, with total funding reaching £138.5m. Yet it still collapsed because it was unable to bring in enough money to pay the bills.
The Orbex failure reveals that there are downsides to relying on space to boost the economy. We have learnt the hard way that building space rockets is a capital-intensive, highly advanced process with a long and punishing development cycle. It is not a viable industry unless there is sustained support and investment from very deep pockets: basically governments or billionaires. Although details of grant funding for Orbex are murky, the company reportedly secured £76.7 million in public funding from the UK Government and the Scottish National Investment Bank, with total funding reaching £138.5m. Yet it still collapsed because it was unable to bring in enough money to pay the bills.
This raises an uncomfortable question about value for money. How many jobs in education, health, or climate resilience could have been created with that level of public investment? And how transparent has the process been? Although funding agencies acted in good faith on the basis of the information available to them at the time, the first lesson we can learn from the Orbex saga is that if we are going to sink public funds into risky technological ventures, we need much greater clarity and accountability.
The economic risks of investment in space are compounded by a deeper, more troublesome reality: the space sector’s intimate relationship with the military. Space technologies were originally developed not for the collective benefit of humankind but for military purposes during World War 2 and its immediate aftermath as the Cold War commenced. Bleddyn Bowen, Associate Professor of Astrophysics at Durham University has written that: “Space technology was developed to enhance the killing power of the state. The Moon landings and the launch of the Space Shuttle were mere sideshows, drawing public attention away from the real goal: military and economic control of space as a source of power on Earth.”
The UK government is currently refocusing its space funding priorities to align with “national security” priorities at the same time that spending on space scientific research is falling. In 2023 the amount of military space funding worldwide exceeded civil space expenditure for the first time in decades. Military uses of space tie closely in with all other uses. Almost all space technology is dual-use, meaning it can serve both civil and military purposes. A satellite carrying communications traffic for a broadcasting company can just as easily guide a missile or enable surveillance.
The UK Government’s space goals are already closely aligned with Ministry of Defence (MoD) interests. The MoD is keen to support spaceports like SaxaVord in Shetland, seeing them as strategic assets. Once a spaceport is operational, the pressure to take lucrative military contracts – easy money for spaceport owners - becomes intense. In the United States we have already seen launch companies like ABL cease operations in commercial space sector and pivot entirely to military work. A second lesson we can learn is that the same pressures will apply here in Scotland.
None of this is to deny the skill and dedication of the workers at Orbex, nor the genuine potential of Scotland’s space expertise. But we must stop treating the space sector as a magical economic cure-all. It is a high-risk, high-cost industry, inextricably linked to military agendas, and it will not succeed without permanent, uncritical government subsidy.
The third lesson we can learn is to avoid fetishising investment into science and technology – which is promoted by states to help them meet their military aspirations – and instead value everyday jobs and enterprises that care for and invest in people. Instead of chasing the romantic narrative of rockets and launch pads, Scotland should invest in more human skills and sustainable, accountable, and peaceful economic development.
An edited version of this article appeared in the National newspaper on 4 April 2026.
