Building Satellites Backward: Why We Started with the Problem, Not the Tech
Founder Discussion on satellite development challenges
I get asked all the time why I chose to start a business to solve a space problem. The truth is, I didn't really choose it. The problem chose me. When starting NUVIEW, we didn’t follow the usual path of Earth observation companies. For 15 years, my customers had been telling me exactly what they wanted but couldn’t get: Accuracy and high-quality digital elevation models (DEMs). Every satellite image collected depends on a DEM for processing. Instead of starting with an idea for a cool sensor, we started with what the customer was asking for and worked backwards from there. That approach led us straight into the challenges of building an entirely new kind of satellite.
Building a satellite is hard. Building an entirely new kind of satellite, one that challenges the status quo, breaks industry assumptions, and pushes the limits of what’s possible? That’s something else entirely, but the payoff is tremendous, much bigger market opportunity than Earth observation plays with SAR or optical.
Anyone who has been deep in satellite development knows the challenges aren’t just technical. The real battle happens at the intersection of engineering, economics, and execution.
Physics doesn’t care about your timeline. Space is unforgiving. Every ounce/gram matters. Every watt counts. Engineering trade-offs aren’t just about optimization, they are about survival.
The economics of space are relentless. The satellite itself is just one piece of the puzzle. The real cost equation includes launch, ground infrastructure, data processing, and long-term sustainability. It’s not just about what you can build, it’s about the entire production line from space to customer.
The data bottleneck is real. Getting a satellite into orbit is one thing. Getting meaningful, usable, and scalable data back to Earth is another. Downlink capacity, data latency, and cloud processing aren’t afterthoughts, they define the business model.
Finding the right people is harder than it sounds. The best engineers, scientists, and operators aren’t just talented, they have to be relentlessly curious and willing to challenge legacy thinking. Traditional aerospace experience is valuable, but so is the ability to move fast and adapt.
Bridging the gap between vision and reality is the hardest part. Investors want certainty. Engineers want perfection. The market demands speed. As a founder, you live in the middle of all three, balancing the practicality of what’s possible today with the vision of what’s coming next.
There’s no playbook for this.?
Every satellite program faces these challenges. Some overcome them, some don’t. The ones that succeed do so because they don’t just solve problems, they redefine the constraints themselves.
As founders, operators, and engineers, we don’t just launch hardware. We launch entire ecosystems. I'm excited for what's next.