Silicon Valley enters the space race

Summary

POLITICO Tech Podcast Summary: "Silicon Valley Enters the Space Race"

Release Date: July 31, 2025
Host: Stephen Overle
Guest: Rob Jeckel, Chairman and CEO of Airbus US Space and Defense

---

1. Introduction to the New Space Race

In the latest episode of POLITICO Tech, host Stephen Overle welcomes Rob Jeckel, Chairman and CEO of Airbus US Space and Defense. The discussion delves into the burgeoning competition in space, highlighting the increasing involvement of Silicon Valley companies alongside traditional aerospace giants like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

2. Space as a Contested and War-Fighting Domain

[02:21] Rob Jeckel emphasizes, “Space is a contested domain and it's a warfighting domain.” He explains that the United States has long relied on sophisticated space assets for national security, but recent developments have underscored the vulnerability of these systems. This recognition has spurred a shift towards proliferated low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations, which offer a more resilient and cost-effective communication backbone for military operations.

Notable Quote:
“General Hyten called these geosynchronous satellites big, fat, juicy targets.” — Rob Jeckel [03:24]

3. The Rise of Commercial Launch Providers

The landscape of space launches has transformed dramatically with the entry of several commercial players. Jeckel notes the transition from a monopoly held by the United Launch Alliance to a diverse array of launch companies like SpaceX, Firefly, and Rocket Lab. This diversification has significantly reduced the cost of accessing space and expanded the market for satellite deployments.

Notable Quote:
“We’ve gone from what was essentially a monopoly, United Launch Alliance, to five, six, seven different launch companies that are making it cheaper to get to space.” — Rob Jeckel [04:02]

4. Dual-Use Business Models: Commercial and National Security

Airbus US Space and Defense leverages a dual-use business case, balancing commercial revenue streams with national security imperatives. Jeckel highlights initiatives such as supporting the OneWeb constellation and integrating commercial solutions like Starlink into defense applications. This approach allows the company to innovate commercially while addressing military needs.

Notable Quote:
“There’s a lot of money and many of these companies are self-investing, you know, by the billions. And so that’s a challenge for industry that we cannot in all cases assume we’re going to get a federally funded cost-plus research and development program.” — Rob Jeckel [10:21]

5. Defending Space Assets and Technological Advancements

The conversation shifts to the national security imperative, where Jeckel discusses the importance of both offensive capabilities in space and defensive measures to protect U.S. assets. He references activities by China, such as simulated dogfights with satellites, which aim to undermine U.S. space superiority.

Notable Quote:
“There are the capabilities that we’re putting into space to enable the warfighter... And the other side of the coin is how do you defend these assets in space.” — Rob Jeckel [05:06]

6. The Golden Dome Missile Defense System

Addressing national missile defense, Overle brings up the Golden Dome initiative. Jeckel compares it to Israel’s Iron Dome, outlining the complexities of scaling such a system across the vast geography of the United States. He underscores the necessity of integrating ground-based, airborne, and potentially space-based interceptors to achieve effective defense.

Notable Quote:
“The aspiration is that you will have not only ground-based or airborne-based defenses, but also space-based intercepts.” — Rob Jeckel [06:52]

7. China: The Pacing Threat in Space

Jeckel identifies China as the primary pacing threat in the space domain, surpassing even Russia in terms of satellite launches and strategic advancements. He highlights China’s extensive satellite program and its implications for U.S. national security.

Notable Quote:
“China is the pacing threat. And that goes back to the first Trump administration, the Biden administration, the current Trump administration. Our national defense strategy views China as the peer pacing challenge.” — Rob Jeckel [07:16]

8. Leadership and Innovation in U.S. Space Strategy

Discussing U.S. leadership, Jeckel expresses concern over the current void in the National Space Council’s leadership and the interim status of the NASA administration. Despite these challenges, he remains optimistic about the U.S.’s commercial innovation as an asymmetric advantage over adversaries.

Notable Quote:
“These companies... are doing commercial innovation for a commercial market, but also in the dual-use business case, also national security. And that to me is our asymmetric advantage, is the commercial innovation that we have with our capitalist structure.” — Rob Jeckel [09:47]

9. Silicon Valley's Integration into the Defense Sector

Overle and Jeckel discuss the increasing participation of Silicon Valley firms in the defense industry. Once hesitant, these companies are now actively pursuing defense contracts, bringing innovative technologies like AI and autonomy to the forefront of defense solutions.

Notable Quote:
“Competition makes us all better. You have a lot of these companies that are very eager to support national security and there is a lot of money and many of these companies are self-investing.” — Rob Jeckel [10:21]

10. Overcoming Government Contracting Challenges

Jeckel acknowledges the complexities of government contracting but advocates for making the process easier to attract more commercial firms into the defense sphere. He emphasizes the importance of partnerships between traditional manufacturers and new tech entrants to create comprehensive solutions for military needs.

Notable Quote:
“Companies that do both, and we’re doing both, will be able to have a business case that justifies those investments. Because it’s not all about getting a program of record of Department of Defense. It’s about getting exposure to commercial customers as well.” — Rob Jeckel [13:03]

11. The Shift Towards Software and Open Architectures

Highlighting the evolving nature of defense technology, Jeckel discusses the critical role of software and open system architectures. He underscores the necessity for platforms to be adaptable and upgradable to remain effective in dynamic operational environments.

Notable Quote:
“You can’t assume that the hardware solution and the sensors that you have will be useful five years from now.” — Rob Jeckel [16:28]

12. Impact of Federal Budget Cuts on Aerospace and Defense

The conversation turns to federal budget constraints, with Jeckel expressing concerns over proposed cuts to agencies like NASA and potential scaling back of DoD projects. He advocates for maintaining or increasing defense spending to ensure national security and keep pace with adversaries.

Notable Quote:
“If it’s just cuts for the sake of cuts, and we’re flatlining this thing, I don’t think that fits with the National Security Strategy.” — Rob Jeckel [18:43]

---

Conclusion

Rob Jeckel provides a comprehensive overview of the current state and future trajectory of the space and defense sectors. Emphasizing the importance of commercial innovation, strategic partnerships, and adequate federal funding, he outlines the challenges and opportunities as Silicon Valley firms increasingly participate in shaping the United States' space and defense capabilities.

---

For more insights on technology’s impact on politics and policy, subscribe to POLITICO Tech and stay updated with the latest episodes every Thursday.

Transcript

[Meditation Guide]

Close your eyes. Exhale. Feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-contacts. Oh, my gosh, they're so fast. And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste.

[Rob Jeckel]

Visit 1-800-contacts.com today to save on your first order. 1-800-contacts.

[Stephen Overle]

Hey, welcome back to Politico Tech. I'm your host, Stephen Overle. And on this show I break down tech, politics and policy with the people shaping our digital future. Today, we're talking about space and the gold rush that companies see beyond the stars. Of course, Elon Musk and SpaceX get lots of attention. So does Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin. But there are a bunch of companies now chasing commercial and military business opportunities in space. And they're ratcheting up the competition for longtime defense contractors. Rob Jeckel is the chairman and CEO of Airbus US Space, Space and Defense, a company that builds satellites, drones, helicopters. It's basically technology that you launch into the sky. On the show today, Rob and I discuss the space race with China, Silicon Valley breaking into the defense business and his concerns with looming federal budget cuts. Here's our conversation. Rob, welcome to Politico Tech.

[Rob Jeckel]

Great to be here, Steve, and thanks for hosting.

[Stephen Overle]

You know, we haven't talked a lot about space exploration, space technology on this podcast. Obviously that's a big part of what you do. It is such a hot area right now, both commercially and for the military. Why do you think space is having such a moment?

[Rob Jeckel]

Yeah, Stephen, it is a hot topic right now and it's a meaty issue. I think there's a couple of things that are going on in the space segment in the US the first is a recognition over the last five, ten years that space is a contested domain and it's a war fighting domain. The United States has a lot of exquisite assets in space. We rely heavily on them. And I think we've gone from taking for granted that those will be available to us to understanding that our adversaries are looking to contend in those environments and making those more, those systems more vulnerable. I think General Hyten called these geosynchronous satellites big, fat, juicy targets. Right. It takes about 10 years to design, produce and launch. They cost billions of dollars and we will continue to need those. But there has been a recognition that we also need resiliency. And that's where you've seen a big driver which is proliferated low Earth orbit constellations.

[Stephen Overle]

Okay, what does that mean exactly?

[Rob Jeckel]

If you have hundreds, thousands of satellites and low earth orbit constellations, it provides communications backbone for the war fighter along with your GEO and MEO constellations. And they're a lot cheaper and I don't want to say expendable or attritable, but you can afford to lose a certain portion of that constellation and still have your communication sensors. So that's one thing and that's why a lot of companies are stepping to that. The other element are the commercial players. There's been a big influx of non traditional commercial companies both on the launch side. SpaceX, Firefly Rocket Lab.

[Stephen Overle]

Yeah.

[Rob Jeckel]

And we've gone from what was essentially a monopoly, United Launch alliance and. And now you have five, six, seven different launch companies that are making it cheaper to get to space. And you're also seeing commercial companies coming into the Constellation business. Starlink with SpaceX, you have Kuiper, we have supported the OneWeb constellation with our satellite buses. A lot of players are coming in with this dual use business case that there's gonna be a commercial revenue stream and there'll be a national security revenue stream. And that's sort of where Airbus has been playing.

[Stephen Overle]

I want to talk about different pieces of that answer there and I want to start though really putting kind of a fine point on the national security imperative in space. Because I think a lot of folks, myself included, might sort of densely think when you talk about it being contested domain or you know, new war frontier.

[Rob Jeckel]

Right.

[Stephen Overle]

It's, we're not talking like spaceship Galactica, right, Whatever laser beams are we talking about like communication systems, we're talking about satellite imagery. What exactly are we talking about as like the national security imperative?

[Rob Jeckel]

Yeah, I say there's sides of that coin. One are the capabilities that we're putting into space to enable the warfighter. And you mentioned communications. Yes, there's that, there's the imagery, there's the missile tracking. The other side of the coin is how do you defend these assets in space? You know, recently I read a report that there's analysis of China doing their own essentially simulated dog fighting with satellites. Right. Maneuvering satellites with the idea of ultimately contesting our own capabilities and assets. And that can mean everything from how do you harden your satellites to deal with lasing attacks, it would take out the communications and how do you make your satellites more maneuverable so that they can engage and defend themselves in Those types of environments. Golden Dome is a good example of.

[Stephen Overle]

Let'S talk Golden Dome because that's something Trump has, has obviously talked a lot about. He wants to build this sort of nationwide missile defense system, right?

[Rob Jeckel]

Yeah. And it is an ambitious objective. We're all familiar with Iron Dome in Israel, which has been highly effective. It is a much smaller environment in terms of geography. If you look to scale that across something as large as the United States. My suspicion, and I think many analysts will agree, that this will require a mesh of a variety of capabilities. SDA being one where there's already missile tracking capabilities, Missile Defense Agency airborne capabilities. I think the one of the challenges with Star Wars Space Defense Initiative was space based interceptors. And that remains a large challenge, not an area where I am playing.

[Stephen Overle]

Right.

[Rob Jeckel]

But the aspiration is that you will have not only ground based or airborne based defenses, but also space based intercept. So it does sort of start sounding, you know, pretty futuristic when you look, look at those aspirations.

[Stephen Overle]

It does, it does for sure. I mean, is, you mentioned China, is China like the big threat, the big risk? You know, that seems to be in every other sector of national security. Is that the case in space too?

[Rob Jeckel]

Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. You know what, what? And you don't you just need to read publicly available analyses of the number of satellites China is launching in the thousands. I mentioned the analysis of their war gaming with satellites.

[Stephen Overle]

Yeah.

[Rob Jeckel]

The activities that they're doing in the CIS lunar space on the moon is got everybody's attention. And you know, Russia is the acute threat, but China is the pacing threat. You know, and that goes back to the first Trump administration, the Biden administration, the current Trump administration, Our national defense strategy views China as the peer pacing challenge. And that is the bogey that my customers have in mind. If I'm not able to demonstrate relevancy for peer deterrence, and that is Asia Pacific, then you're not really relevant to the customer base.

[Stephen Overle]

I want to talk about how the US Then stays competitive in this space. One thing my Politico colleagues have reported on recently is the fact that right now the National Space Council doesn't have a leader. And we have Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy acting as an interim NASA administrator, but we're awaiting an appointment of a full time administrator. When you look at US leadership right now in space, I mean, is there a void there from where you sit?

[Rob Jeckel]

You know, it's a challenge. And when your adversaries have such a strong commercial, military, governmental fusion, there are certain asymmetric advantages, particularly when you're talking about Scaling and providing mass. However, I would say somewhat optimistically that what we have that some of our adversaries do not is the commercial innovation piece. And I believe that the government, in addition to investing in exquisite intelligence satellites and geosynchromes and MEO synchros, is to leverage that commercial innovation. So these companies I described earlier, many of them are doing this on a self funded basis. They've gone out and raised money, they've used the capital markets, they're doing commercial innovation for a commercial market, but also in the dual use business case, also national security. And that to me is our asymmetric advantage, is the commercial innovation that we have with our capitalist structure.

[Stephen Overle]

Well, it's interesting. I mean, I know Airbus us, you have commercial and government focus lines of business. There is a lot of talk and has been for a while now out of the Pentagon, for instance, about bringing in more commercial technology into the military. Right. And you know, we've seen and talked about on the podcast Silicon Valley responding to that. You know, for a long time big tech companies were sort of averse to working with the military, working in national security, and they've recently embraced it. Do you feel more competition in this space with these commercial sector partners getting into it?

[Rob Jeckel]

Yeah, absolutely. I think it's a good thing. Silicon Valley has had a real renaissance in its vision of the defense market and its appetite to pursue that. And that's great. As a taxpayer, as a patriot, I think that's phenomenal. And we've been talking a long time about making it easier for commercial companies to do business with the Department of Defense. A lot of ink has been spilled on this, the Valley of Death, all that. I don't know that we've solved it, but I do believe that this administration is earnest in trying to attract that investment. Now, to your question of whether it's a threat, it's a challenge. It's competition. Competition makes us all better. You have a lot of these companies that are very eager to support national security and there is a lot of money and many of these companies are self investing, you know, by the billions. And so that's a challenge for industry that we cannot in all cases assume we're going to get a federally funded cost plus research and development program and that that's what we're going to spend our time developing technology and that it will turn into a program of record. We are going to have to self invest ourselves on some of these innovative technologies. And we're doing that, we're doing that in unmanned technology, doing that on Unmanned systems and Autonomy. Ultimately, this will be good. Competition is good. There'll be winners, there'll be losers. But to answer your question, yes, there is a market disruption with these new players, particularly in AI and Autonomy. And as those companies look to move into manufacturing, then, you know, I think you have to react to that and up your game.

[Meditation Guide]

Summer's here and Nordstrom has everything you need for your best dressed season ever. From beach days and weddings to weekend getaways. In your everyday wardrobe, discover stylish options under $100 from tons of your favorite brands like Mango Skims, Princess Polly and madewell. It's easy too, with free shipping and free returns in store order pickup and more. Shop today in stores [e-mail] or download the Nordstrom app.

[Stephen Overle]

I wonder if you think that Silicon Valley companies, those that haven't been doing government work, can kind of show up late, so to speak, and break into the contracting game. Because I mean, as you well know, and I'm sure many of our listeners know, I mean, the government is a very unique and a very complex customer to try to sell to.

[Rob Jeckel]

It sure is. And I think we have to make it easier. In fact, for many years commercial companies would look at this, say, why do I want to do that? I can go pursue commercial capabilities and have much bigger margin and it will go a lot faster. I think the companies that do both, and we're doing both will be able to have a business case that justifies those investments. Because it's not all about getting a program of record of Department of Defense. It's about getting exposure to commercial customers as well. These companies, whether they will be successful. I believe they will. You know, particularly when I see AI and autonomy, I think some of the software solutions are going to be discriminating advantages for some of the new entrants. In terms of manufacturing, it's hard to cut metal, right? You know, and I think that our strength, Airbus US Strength has been manufacturing. And I'm looking to team with those companies. I'm teamed with S.H.I.E.L.D. aI and Perry Labs. We're taking our manned helicopter and we're converting it to an uncrewed helicopter so that it can support the Marine Corps in Asia Pacific for logistics in a contested environment where the mission is too dangerous for manned pilots. And I look at these, at these new entrants as really good teammates because on the software side, on the AI side, they're bringing discriminating capabilities. I'm bringing the industrial know how, how to scale manufacturing and in some cases you can really create Some dream teams, modular open systems architecture that allow you to onboard innovations as they come. So that's sort of where we've been stepping to, to leverage that and see if we can provide a combined offering to the warfighter that is discriminating.

[Stephen Overle]

Got it. It's interesting because when you hear the Pentagon talk about this, for instance, they talk a lot about, you know, technology that is going to be, you know, smaller, cheaper, faster. Right. Easier to buy, easier to deploy. And I guess I hear that notion and I understand that conceptually. I wonder sometimes how realistic it is. You know, the example you often hear right is you know, sending in small commercial drones where you used to maybe need to send in large aircraft. I mean, is that a reality?

[Rob Jeckel]

It depends on the operational environment. Now I'm not a war fighter, that's my customer. So, you know, in terms of the mission requirements, clearly in some environments it's been very useful. Right. You just saw Israel's attack on Iran recently where it was a combination of exquisite F35s, but also tactical drones. In Ukraine, we've learned a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of tactical drones. There is an open question as to whether the tactical drones that are useful in Ukraine will be useful in longer range environments. The other thing that we've learned from Ukraine is the importance of electronic warfare jamming, being able to operate in comms denied environments. And that's where the software element, and this has been a little humbling for me because I'm a platform person, I love platforms. I'm really proud of our helicopters and our fixed wing aircraft and I consider we make some of the best in the world and those continue to be really important. But their utility will be directly proportionate to the ability to tie into this network centric data, centric warfare.

[Stephen Overle]

Right.

[Rob Jeckel]

And the ability to maintain comms, whether it's GPs or alternative GPS or frequency hopping. And that's where AI and software comes into play, is the software. The iterative development of software and being able to adapt in different environments is pretty clear. In Ukraine, where, you know, a tactical autonomous drone, it'll work for a couple of weeks and then it doesn't work anymore. And then you have to come up with a, you know, a new software solution. And that's an area where I think as a, as an exquisite manufacturer, we have to have a certain degree of humility and make sure that where we're teamed with the right folks and that we have an open system architecture that allows you to update and upgrade the hardware. Right. You know, you can't Assume that the hardware solution and the sensors that you have will be useful five years from now.

[Stephen Overle]

Reminds me of conversations with like the automotive sector. Right. Where now in cars, for instance, the big differentiator oftentimes is the software running on, on the vehicle. Same thing with like farming equipment and agriculture equipment. It's so software. Obviously you still have the big manufacturers, the equipment itself still matters, but the software that runs on it is huge.

[Rob Jeckel]

Yes, absolutely. I've learned a lot about software and software engineers and how expensive it is to hire software engineers and how many engineers my peers are hiring in that space. And so I've had to move away from learning about metal and aerostructures and airworthiness issues and understand more about the C2 elements, communications, command, control. And it's a dynamic marketplace. But I think it's super exciting time to be in the aerospace and defense segment.

[Stephen Overle]

I have to ask about something that I'm sure is on your mind or at least in the back of your mind these days, and that's kind of federal spending, the federal budget, you know, particularly in the last few months, we've seen a lot of cuts across government from Department of Government efficiency, obviously with the budget proposals from the White House, for instance, we saw proposed cuts to NASA. And the DoD is also looking to scale back in certain areas. I mean, are you looking at shrinking resources and from the government? And what impact do you think that will have on your market on aerospace, defense?

[Rob Jeckel]

It's an open question for me. It's, it's nice to see the headline trillion dollar budget. Right. And you add in reconciliation. I think the question will be, is that a one off? And with fiscal year 26, 27, 28, will those be flattish or when you factor in inflation, actually a reduced resources and that would be a concern. I'm sort of with Senator Wicker on this. We build our helicopters in Mississippi and from a historic perspective, we are really low in terms of our defense spending. We were spending more during the Carter administration as a percentage of GDP. Yeah. And I think we need to be between 5 and 7%, given that it's so much cheaper to deter than it is to have a confrontation. And I think we're like now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend it better. There are elements of doge. You know, the spirit of DOGE is to be more efficient, to move more quickly, to fail fast, to try and onboard technology quickly. I'm all for it. If it's about flattening out the budget long term, I think that will be a challenge for the country. And you mentioned space exploration and NASA. You know, I know that there's a, there's a back and forth now between the administration's proposed cuts and Congress looking to potentially restore that funding.

[Stephen Overle]

Yeah.

[Rob Jeckel]

You know, I think that those are the NASA missions of space exploration, whether it's the future International Space Station, which, which will be privatized, ideally, or the cislunar lunar missions. Those are important missions for us and allies and partners. And they also have national elements to them that you can, you can use those, those projects for. And I do see those as potential threats. But I, you know, I'm hopeful that Congress is able to restore funding for some of those programs. So I would like to see the top line go up and I would like to see greater efficiency. You know, the Doge government efficiency, all for it. If it's just cuts for the sake of cuts, and we're flatlining this thing, I don't think that fits with the National Security Strategy, and I don't think it fits with the pacing of threats and challenges that I see from our adversaries.

[Stephen Overle]

Got it. Listen, Rob, appreciate you being here on Politico Tech.

[Rob Jeckel]

Really enjoy the conversation. And thanks for hosting.

[Stephen Overle]

That's all for this week's Politico Tech. If you enjoy Politico Tech, please subscribe and recommend the show to a friend or colleague. And for more tech news, subscribe to our newsletters, Digital Future Daily and Morning Tech. Our producer is Normal Malaikal. I'm Stephen Overleigh. See you back here next week.