No Rocket Science Required: The Case for Space in Impact Portfolios

3 days ago

5 min read

Could you name a commercial space company you would back as an impact investor? For many, the question is uncomfortable. In our 2026 survey, 39% of respondents called space a vanity project that diverts capital from proven, Earth-based solutions.

This tension sits at the heart of a question we posed to our community: does commercial outer space belong in an impact portfolio? We asked 121 family office representatives and asset owners from across Asia Pacific and beyond, and their answers reveal a market that is sceptical, but far from closed.

The Survey: Sceptical but Persuadable

Whilst the largest single block (39%) remains firmly against space allocations, the rest of the market shows real nuance. Only 16% currently view satellite connectivity, climate monitoring, and Earth observation as core impact infrastructure, and just 4% have already allocated capital or are actively evaluating the opportunity.

The middle ground, however, tells a more compelling story. A combined 41% of respondents have not ruled space out: 21% would consider commercial space if given a credible theory of change linking space assets to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) outcomes, whilst 20% are undecided and waiting for better impact frameworks. These investors are not asking to be sold on space. They are asking what it changes on the ground, and for whom.

From From Data to Outcome

A satellite image is only data, it becomes impact when someone uses it to make a better decision. This dynamic is actively playing out across three areas that matter deeply to our community:

Agriculture and Food Security: Hyperspectral imaging providers say the technology can detect crop stress before it is visible to the naked eye. In principle, this allows lenders, input suppliers, and farmers to intervene before harvests suffer, making yield protected the key outcome to measure. For example, Bengaluru-based Pixxel^ says it operates a hyperspectral constellation capturing more than 150 spectral bands. Thermal imaging works in a similar way for water: Germany's constellr^ operates thermal-infrared satellites that can spot crop water stress up to two weeks before wilting begins, which it says can help farmers irrigate earlier and conserve water.
Climate Risk and Resilience: Radar satellites pierce through clouds and smoke to track floods and wildfires in near-real-time. Providers say this evidence helps insurers and lenders price climate risk more accurately and extend coverage to exposed communities. Here, the outcome to measure is the number of homes and businesses insured. Finland's ICEYE^, which describes itself as operating the world's largest synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) constellation, announced a EUR 450 million Series F in June 2026. The same logic is applied at the smallholder level: Mali-based OKO^ says it pairs satellite imagery with weather data to offer automated, mobile-based crop insurance, and reports that it has protected more than 33,000 farmers across five African countries. In OKO’s model, the satellite data helps determine whether a farmer is paid after a drought.
Nature and Blue Carbon: Proponents say regular satellite monitoring can help confirm whether mangroves and forests are actually growing. This ensures carbon credits rest on hard observation rather than soft estimates, measuring impact in verified hectares and tonnes of carbon.

This space-enabled data fits naturally into what our community already funds. This year's survey ranked Food & Agriculture as the top theme for family office capital, with WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) and Oceans close behind. Satellite data is increasingly how these exact sectors measure results at scale.

The Sceptics Have a Point

The 39% who object to space funding are right about a significant portion of this sector. ICEYE markets itself as a leader in "sovereign intelligence," drawing much of its demand from governments and defence buyers. Pixxel similarly notes that its current customer base is predominantly governmental, and its latest funding is tied to serving US civil and defence missions. However, OKO and Constellr have integrated impact into their mission and therefore demonstrate that space-based technology can be built around real-world outcomes, not just around the satellites themselves.

A massive funding round is not automatic proof of impact. For any space company, the qualifying question is simple: who is paying for the satellites, and what for? If the primary revenue comes from defence, it is a defence business, regardless of what else the data can do. If the revenue comes from farmers, insurers, fire agencies, or conservationists, the impact case becomes substantially stronger.

Understanding those outcomes means looking beyond the customer list:

Who benefits, and by how much? Does the data lead to measurable improvements for farmers, households or communities, rather than simply more information?
Are those improvements independently verified? Are the results supported by independent evidence, or only by the company’s own reporting?
Would the service continue if a major customer left? If a defence or government contract ended, could the food, climate or resilience application still operate?

The distinction is not simply between defence and civilian customers, but between a useful technology and a demonstrated benefit. That is the evidence needed to move the conversation beyond whether space belongs in an impact portfolio to where, and under what conditions, it might fit.

Which Route Fits?

Impact investors have two realistic pathways forward. They can back space companies where climate or resilience outcomes form the core business, as seen in the examples above. Alternatively, they can invest in the traditional food, nature, and climate deals they already know, using satellite data strictly to verify performance. For the 41% of respondents demanding firmer evidence, this second route serves as an easier first step that aligns with existing mandates.

The ultimate bottleneck in impact investing is not conviction, but curation. For the third consecutive year, identifying quality deal flow with viable exit options was our community’s top challenge, cited by 26% of respondents (up from 21% in 2025). This was followed closely by the difficulty of finding suitable, structured sustainable investment products at 19%.

Sourcing this specific tier of opportunities, and connecting them to asset owners primed to allocate, is precisely where SFi operates. By translating complex, satellite-enabled solutions into clear, theme-aligned investment cases, we help our community bridge the gap between intent and deployment.

The View From Here

Lunar real estate and asteroid mining are entirely tangential to impact, and sceptics are right to dismiss them. Earth observation is fundamentally different: it is vital infrastructure for the terrestrial food, climate, and resilience themes this community already champions.

No rocket science is required, just the right opportunity, presented to the right investor, at the right time.

^SFi is not an investment adviser. Companies named in this article are examples to illustrate the category. They are not endorsed or recommended by SFi, and nothing here should be read as investment advice. Readers should do their own research and seek independent advice.