Who Controls the Space Controls the Economy: Mapping the Space Economy Bottlenecks

Happy May 4th.

Recently, I was interested in finding out the bottlenecks that are lagging behind main sectors.

I picked Space Sector this week paying homage to Star Wars.

Most investors are watching rockets, launch companies, and the flashy space narrative.

But the real opportunity may be in the less obvious layers that make the whole space economy work.

I divided the Space Sector into 6 different sub sectors.

Sub-theme	Tickers

Space Infrastructure	RDW, SIDU, MNTS, VOYG

Aerospace and Defense	LMT, NOC, RTX, BA, LHX

Space Manufacturers	ATRO, TDY, DCO, APH, PH, HEI

Orbital Launch	RKLB, FLY

Satellite Communications	ASTS, SATS, VSAT, TSAT

Earth Observation	PL, BKSY, SPIR, SATL

Then I used two scoring models.

The first is Relative Strength Gap. This compares each space sub-sector against QQQ across multiple timeframes (1M, YTD, and 1YR). If the number is negative, that basket has lagged QQQ. If it is positive, it has outperformed.

That alone does not mean that market missed it. Plenty of sectors lag for good reasons.

The second model is my own Bottleneck Score, which I call B(i).

I score each theme based on dependency, substitutability, supplier concentration, qualification difficulty, and time required for new entrants to scale.

Higher score means the node is harder to replace.

The most interesting setups are where both signals overlap: a theme has lagged the market, but still sits in a critical, hard-to-replace position in the space supply chain.

These are the results.

Relative Strength Gap vs QQQ

Sub-theme	RS Gap vs QQQ	Signal
Space Infrastructure	-15.0%	Lagging
Aerospace and Defense	-12.6%	Lagging
Space Manufacturers	+6.8%	Mild outperform
Orbital Launch	+34.9%	Running
Satellite Communications	+139.9%	Already ran
Earth Observation	+180.4%	Already ran

Bottleneck scores B(i)

Sub-theme	B(i) Score	Why it matters

Space Manufacturers	88	Qualified space hardware is hard to replace. Components need reliability, testing, and customer trust.

Space Infrastructure	82	This is the support layer after launch: ground segment, mission operations, data movement, orbital logistics, in-space servicing, and commercial space platforms.

Aerospace and Defense	78	Defense procurement, clearances, qualification standards, and customer relationships create very high barriers.

Satellite Communications	76	Spectrum, orbital coordination, telecom partnerships, and regulatory approvals are real chokepoints.

Earth Observation	71	The moat is less about cameras and more about data history, analytics, AI pipelines, and customer integration.

Orbital Launch	58	Launch is important, but it is becoming more competitive.

The result that stood out to me because the Orbital Launch scored low. That was a sector I was following and RKLB had a generational run. Rockets get the attention, but once more assets are in orbit, the constraint shifts.

Space Infrastructure is the most interesting. It has underperformed QQQ in my model but scores high as a bottleneck. That combination is what I like to look for. If the space economy keeps scaling, the support layer matters more, not less.

Space Manufacturers may be the cleanest bottleneck.

Orbital Launch is where I am excited and at the same time looking at it cautiously. RKLB is a real company doing real business, but that space is getting dominated by SpaceX, and other private companies. It just means that Orbital Launch may not be the deepest bottleneck anymore.

This is my framework and the broader thesis feels right to me

I’m still refining the model, so I’d appreciate feedback on the scoring system.

Does the combination of Relative Strength Gap + Bottleneck Score make sense as a way to find underpriced supply-chain nodes?

And if you disagree with the rankings, where do you think the model is wrong: the relative-strength side, the bottleneck inputs, or the theme definitions?

More importantly, would you rank any of these space themes differently?