Problem Definition
OrbitCargo is a Los Angeles-based aerospace startup that has developed a partially reusable medium-lift launch vehicle capable of delivering cargo to low Earth orbit (LEO) at a cost of $1,200 per kilogram — roughly 55% below the industry average of $2,700/kg. The company completed its third successful orbital test flight six months ago and recently closed a $400M Series C round led by a sovereign wealth fund. The board is pressing for commercial operations to begin within 12 months.
The global orbital launch market is currently valued at $12B and growing at 15% annually, driven by satellite constellation deployments, expanding space station operations, and early-stage in-orbit servicing demand. However, SpaceX dominates with approximately 65% of commercial launch revenue through aggressive pricing and rapid launch cadence. Two alternative segments — government-funded space station resupply and an emerging "in-space logistics" category — present entry points with fundamentally different competitive dynamics.
OrbitCargo's CEO has engaged your team to recommend a go-to-market strategy. The company must decide: (a) compete head-to-head with SpaceX and Rocket Lab for commercial satellite launch contracts, (b) pursue space station resupply missions where government agencies actively seek new qualified suppliers, or (c) pioneer a scheduled "space logistics" platform for the nascent in-orbit economy. Which market segment should OrbitCargo prioritize for its initial commercial operations, and what is the financial case for that choice?
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
Provide only when the candidate asks relevant questions:
- OrbitCargo's vehicle can carry 5,000 kg to LEO per launch; turnaround time between flights is 6 weeks with current infrastructure
- The company's $400M must fund operations through to positive cash flow; no additional fundraise is planned before an IPO
- NASA and ESA have publicly stated they want at least three qualified resupply providers to reduce dependency on any single operator
- SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch price has dropped 18% over the past two years; further cuts are expected
- The "in-space logistics" concept has generated significant media coverage but fewer than $200M in binding customer commitments industry-wide
- OrbitCargo holds provisional launch licenses for both Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg
Question 1Structuring
Prompt: "How would you structure your analysis to determine which market segment OrbitCargo should enter first?"
Hint · Structuring
Build 3–4 branches that are specific to this client and question, not a generic framework. Check they don't overlap and together cover the problem.
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
A structured approach with three layers:
-
Segment Economics
- Revenue potential (addressable market, realistic share)
- Margin profile (contribution per launch, fixed cost absorption)
- Revenue visibility (contract length, backlog predictability)
-
Competitive Positioning
- Number and strength of incumbents
- OrbitCargo's differentiated advantage in each segment
- Switching costs and customer procurement behavior
-
Strategic Fit with Constraints
- Cash runway: which segment reaches positive cash flow within $400M?
- Beachhead value: which segment builds credibility for adjacent expansion?
- Risk profile: contract certainty vs. speculative demand
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Identifies the three segments and proposes evaluating each on market size, competition, and OrbitCargo's capabilities. Uses a standard market entry framework (market attractiveness vs. competitive position). Covers the fundamentals but treats segments as independent choices without considering sequencing or how the initial segment enables future expansion.
Strong Candidate: Builds a two-stage framework: (1) segment attractiveness (size, growth, margins, competitive intensity, barriers to entry) and (2) OrbitCargo's right to win (cost advantage, technical fit, time to revenue, capital requirements). Recognizes that the $400M funding constraint creates a cash runway filter — segments with long sales cycles or heavy upfront investment may be unaffordable regardless of attractiveness. Asks about contract structures and revenue visibility.
Excellent Candidate: Adds a third dimension: strategic sequencing. Argues that the first segment is not just about immediate returns but about building the launch track record, customer references, and operational cadence needed to enter adjacent segments later. Distinguishes between a "beachhead" strategy (win a defensible niche first) and a "frontal assault" (compete directly with the incumbent). Identifies that government contracts may serve as a credibility platform for later commercial expansion. Probes the tension between SpaceX's pricing power and OrbitCargo's cost advantage — questioning whether a 55% cost edge translates to a price advantage or merely margin protection in a market where SpaceX sets floor prices.
Question 2Numeracy
Prompt: "Using Exhibits 1 and 2, calculate OrbitCargo's expected Year 3 annual operating profit for the Satellite Launch segment and the Space Station Resupply segment. Which is more attractive on a pure financial basis?"
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Additional Information for Question 2Ask for more dataHide data
Provide this data when the candidate is ready to calculate:
| Input | Satellite Launch | Space Station Resupply |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue per mission ($M) | 28 | 45 |
| Variable cost per mission ($M) | 6 | 8 |
| Estimated missions won (Year 3) | 6 | 5 |
| Segment-specific annual fixed costs ($M) | 45 | 30 |
Exhibit 1Orbital Launch Market Segments (2025)
| Segment | Market Size ($B) | 5-Year CAGR | Active Competitors | Avg. Operating Margin | Largest Player Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial Satellite Launch | 8.0 | 12% | 14 | 8% | 65% (SpaceX) |
| Space Station Resupply | 1.8 | 22% | 2 | 35% | 55% (SpaceX) |
| In-Space Logistics | 1.4 | 45% (proj.) | 1 | -15% (pre-revenue) | N/A |
| Rideshare / SmallSat | 0.8 | 18% | 6 | 12% | 40% (SpaceX) |
| Total | 12.0 | 15% | — | — | — |
Source: OrbitCargo case file
Exhibit 2OrbitCargo Projected Unit Economics by Segment (Year 3)
| Metric | Satellite Launch | Space Station Resupply | In-Space Logistics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue per mission ($M) | 28 | 45 | 18 |
| Variable cost per mission ($M) | 6 | 8 | 6 |
| Contribution margin ($M) | 22 | 37 | 12 |
| Estimated missions won (Year 3) | 6 | 5 | 8 |
| Segment-specific fixed costs ($M/yr) | 45 | 30 | 60 |
| Contract duration (avg. years) | 1 | 5 | 1 |
| Customer concentration | Low | High | Medium |
Source: OrbitCargo case file
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Step-by-Step Solution
Satellite Launch — Year 3:
| Step | Calculation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Contribution per mission | $28M - $6M | $22M |
| Total contribution (6 missions) | $22M x 6 | $132M |
| Less: fixed costs | $132M - $45M | — |
| Annual operating profit | $87M | |
| Operating margin | $87M / $168M revenue | 51.8% |
Space Station Resupply — Year 3:
| Step | Calculation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Contribution per mission | $45M - $8M | $37M |
| Total contribution (5 missions) | $37M x 5 | $185M |
| Less: fixed costs | $185M - $30M | — |
| Annual operating profit | $155M | |
| Operating margin | $155M / $225M revenue | 68.9% |
Key comparisons:
| Metric | Satellite Launch | Resupply |
|---|---|---|
| Annual profit ($M) | 87 | 155 |
| Profit per mission ($M) | 14.5 | 31.0 |
| Break-even missions | 2.05 | 0.81 |
| Margin of safety (missions above BE) | 3.95 | 4.19 |
Resupply generates $155M vs. $87M — 78% higher profit on 17% fewer missions.
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Correctly calculates contribution margin per mission and total profit for each segment. Arrives at the right numbers but treats the result as the final answer without further interpretation.
Strong Candidate: Calculates correctly and then unpacks what the numbers imply — notes that Resupply generates nearly twice the profit on fewer missions, meaning higher profit per mission and better capital efficiency. Connects to the funding constraint by observing that fewer missions also means less operational strain on a startup with limited launch infrastructure.
Excellent Candidate: Goes beyond the raw profit calculation to compute profit margin as a percentage of revenue, capital efficiency (profit per dollar of fixed cost invested), and the break-even number of missions for each segment. Identifies that Satellite Launch requires over 2 missions just to cover fixed costs (low margin of safety with only 6 wins), while Resupply breaks even before completing a single full mission. May also flag that the $400M runway question depends not just on Year 3 profit but on cumulative cash burn in Years 1-2 during the ramp period.
Question 3Judgement & Insights
Prompt: "Review Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3. What are the key insights, and how do they affect your recommendation?"
Hint · Judgement & Insights
Read the exhibit title, axes and units first. Lead with the ‘so what’, then back it with one or two numbers.
Exhibit 3Historical Contract Win Rates for New Market Entrants
| Metric | Satellite Launch | Space Station Resupply | In-Space Logistics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 win rate | 3% | 15% | No data |
| Year 2 win rate | 7% | 25% | No data |
| Year 3 win rate | 12% | 40% | No data |
| Avg. months to first contract | 18 | 9 | N/A |
| Typical proposals submitted per year | 40+ | 10-12 | N/A |
Source: OrbitCargo case file
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Three key insights:
-
Win rates invert the TAM story. Satellite Launch is 4.4x larger than Resupply ($8.0B vs. $1.8B), but Year 1 win rates are 5x lower (3% vs. 15%). A new entrant realistically wins fewer Satellite Launch contracts than Resupply contracts despite the larger market — the addressable market is not the winnable market.
-
Time-to-revenue is a survival variable. Exhibit 3 shows 18 months to first Satellite Launch contract vs. 9 months for Resupply. With $400M in funding and no planned follow-on raise, every month of zero revenue burns approximately $12-15M in fixed costs. The 9-month head start in Resupply could preserve over $100M in capital.
-
In-Space Logistics is a narrative, not a market. The 45% projected CAGR in Exhibit 1 appears compelling, but Exhibit 3 shows no historical win-rate data because no established procurement cycle exists. Binding commitments are under $200M industry-wide. Allocating $400M of finite capital to an unproven category is a bet on timing, not fundamentals.
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Reads the exhibits accurately. Notes that Satellite Launch is the largest market but has the most competitors and lowest margins. Identifies Space Station Resupply as having higher margins and fewer competitors. Draws a basic conclusion that less competition means a better opportunity.
Strong Candidate: Extracts the non-obvious insight from Exhibit 3: new entrants in Satellite Launch win only 3% of contracts in Year 1 vs. 15% in Resupply. Calculates that even with more total opportunities in Satellite Launch, OrbitCargo would win fewer contracts in absolute terms during the critical early years. Connects the 18-month average time to first Satellite Launch contract to the cash runway concern — half the ramp period is spent earning zero revenue.
Excellent Candidate: Synthesizes across both exhibits to identify the structural advantage: government space agencies are mandated to maintain supplier diversity (per Additional Information), which creates a policy-driven demand floor that does not exist in commercial Satellite Launch. Challenges the In-Space Logistics segment by noting the contrast between its projected 45% CAGR and the fact that industry-wide binding commitments are below $200M — meaning the growth rate is extrapolated from a near-zero base. Flags the trap: candidates who rank segments by TAM size or growth rate alone will choose the wrong market. The correct lens is risk-adjusted profit per dollar of capital deployed.
Question 4Synthesis
Prompt: "The CEO has 5 minutes before a board call. What is your recommendation?"
Hint · Synthesis
Answer first: the recommendation, two or three reasons with numbers, then risks and next steps.
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
"OrbitCargo should lead with Space Station Resupply as its beachhead market. Three reasons:
First, the economics are superior. Resupply delivers $155M in Year 3 profit versus $87M for Satellite Launch — 78% higher on fewer missions. The break-even point is below one mission per year, providing a wide margin of safety for a startup still proving its operations.
Second, the market access is faster. Government agencies actively seek new suppliers to reduce single-provider dependency. OrbitCargo can win its first contract in 9 months versus 18 in Satellite Launch, preserving over $100M in capital during the ramp period.
Third, Resupply builds the launch track record that unlocks Satellite Launch later. Five successful government missions per year is the strongest possible reference for commercial customers evaluating an unproven launch provider.
The main risk is customer concentration. Mitigation: pursue contracts across NASA, ESA, JAXA, and commercial station operators to diversify within 24 months.
Satellite Launch becomes the Phase 2 play once OrbitCargo has demonstrated reliable cadence — targeting the 27% of the market not controlled by SpaceX. In-Space Logistics should remain on the monitoring list until binding market demand exceeds $500M."
Contributed by CaseDrill practice community
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Recommends Space Station Resupply based on higher margins and less competition. Provides a clear rationale but does not address sequencing or risk mitigation.
Strong Candidate: Recommends Resupply as the beachhead, with a clear financial case ($155M Year 3 profit, faster time to revenue, lower break-even). Outlines a phased approach: establish reliability and launch cadence in Resupply, then leverage the track record to compete selectively in Satellite Launch. Acknowledges the customer concentration risk and proposes mitigants (multi-agency contracts across NASA, ESA, and commercial station operators).
Excellent Candidate: Delivers a structured 60-second recommendation with three elements: (1) Lead with Resupply — it is the only segment where OrbitCargo can reach positive cash flow within its $400M runway while generating $155M in annual profit by Year 3. (2) Sequence into selective Satellite Launch by Year 3-4 once operational credibility is proven — target the 27% of Satellite Launch not controlled by SpaceX, specifically small-to-medium satellite operators underserved by batch scheduling. (3) Monitor In-Space Logistics but do not commit capital until binding customer demand exceeds $500M. States the key risk explicitly: customer concentration in Resupply means losing a single contract could eliminate 20%+ of revenue — mitigate by pursuing contracts with NASA, ESA, JAXA, and at least two commercial station operators within the first 24 months.