Corporate report

UK Space Agency Accelerator Impact Report

Published 28 May 2025

About us

know. /nəʊ/v.
to understand clearly
and with certainty

know.space ^{[footnote 1]}: is a specialist space economics and strategy consultancy, based in London and Edinburgh. It is motivated by a single mission: to be the source of authoritative economic knowledge for the space sector.

www.know.space

hello@know.space

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the wider Accelerator delivery team, particularly Entrepreneurial Spark, for their engagement with and support for this study through discussions and collaborative working to collect necessary data and evidence. Responsibility for report content remains with know.space.

Executive Summary

Since 2023, the UK Space Agency’s Accelerator (‘The Accelerator’) has supported 160 businesses across the UK, helping them enter the space market and take advantage of its wide-ranging opportunities.

This impact report builds on initial findings published in March 2024, providing a more comprehensive analysis of the programme’s impact over the past two years. While the primary focus remains on early outcomes given the relatively short duration of each of the Accelerator programmes (around 3-8 months), follow-up data from approximately 50 businesses one year after their initial participation provides valuable insights into longer-term outcomes, and data will continue to be collected in follow-up surveys until March 2026.

There is compelling evidence that the Accelerator is delivering positive outcomes for participating businesses across multiple dimensions: accelerating company growth and job creation, enabling first-time space sector revenue generation, facilitating access to finance, enhancing business strategy development, strengthening market knowledge, improving knowledge and skills and creating new collaborations and partnerships. While these benefits will take time to fully develop into measurable results like increased revenue and wider economic gains, the early signs are encouraging.

Although some business improvements (such as new revenue, R&D activities, job creation, and investment) cannot always be directly linked to Accelerator participation alone, as they might simply reflect normal company growth, qualitative evidence and specific examples clearly show this connection in many cases.

Company growth and jobs

• While companies often face hurdles, taking longer than other sectors to commercialise fully, evidence shows the Accelerator drives real company growth impacts.
• Overall, over 2 in 3 (71%) of respondents reported that participation has led to faster growth for their company. Of the other 1 in 3, most were still positive on expectations of future growth.
• Nearly two thirds (63%) reported increased actual or anticipated customers from participation.
• Average company employment increased by 0.9 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) employees during the programme and grew to approximately 2 FTEs within a year after completion.
• 88% reported increased confidence in growing their team and attracting/retaining talent.
• Of 35 companies who provided data on monthly revenue change, 18 reported a revenue uplift following Accelerator participation.
• Quotes show cases of direct attribution, e.g. that monthly turnover “increased by £50k” as a result of participation, and that “[The Accelerator] contributed to building a pipeline for next year that should increase revenue by £40,000.”
• 15 companies generated their first revenue in the space sector during the Accelerator, and several others report being close to revenue generation.
• Participants’ average revenue increased by £2.3k during the programme.
• £11.7m has been spent by participants to date on R&D.
• 35% of respondents made their first R&D investment during the Accelerator.
• 76% agreed that participation had a positive impact on their R&D activities.

Access to finance

• Since joining the Accelerator, £15m has been raised: £6.2m during the programme and £8.8m afterward, with additional identified funding of ~£480k not disclosed by respondents and more pending.
• 85% of respondents found participation led to increased knowledge of how to access finance.
• By the end of their participation, 79% of participants were aware of potential investors for their business, up from 46% at the start (a 33% increase).
• The proportion of firms having considered Venture Capital, Angel Investors, or Crowd Funding sources increased by at least 20% on average from start to finish.

Time to market

• Expected time to market often increased rather than decreased, as Accelerator participation led companies to re-evaluate their business plans.
• The average estimated time to market increased by 3 months when accounting for the duration of the Accelerator programme.
• A common theme from qualitative evidence was that the Accelerator encouraged participants to rethink business plans to be more realistic, and robust.

Knowledge and skills

• A significant impact of the Accelerator so far has been in improving participants’ market knowledge. At the end of their participation, almost all companies reported:
  • Having identified their target customers (96%, up from 75% at the start)
  • Understanding their key competitors (98%, up from 78%)
  • Knowing the size of their market opportunity (82%, up from 55%)
• 94% of companies (81/86) reported improved entrepreneurial mindset from the Accelerator.

Business strategy

• Almost all participants (95%) had a business model by programme end, up from 77% initially.
• 9 in 10 (92%) have articulated the key long-term goals for their business (up from 63%).
• Over 4 in 5 (85%) have identified the key risks to their business (up from 56%).
• There were also significant improvements in perceptions of impact on companies’ technical capacity, with improvements in the proportion of companies reporting having the right people and skills, IP and know-how, and awareness of required infrastructure.

Partnerships and Collaboration

• Almost all respondents (96%) agreed that the Accelerator has improved their network.
• Most (60%) report that participation in the Accelerator has led to new partnerships.
• Of the other 40%, many note (for example) that the Accelerator has helped them “begin these conversations” or “taught [them] how to make new connections.”

Equality, Diversity & Inclusion (ED&I) and qualifications

• Targets for ethnic minority participation (40%, currently at 52%) are on course to be met, though the same is not true for female participation ambitions (40%, with 14% of successful applications from female applicants).
• 35% of participating companies judge that the Accelerator has improved their ED&I representation, while 85% (up from 64%) have plans for ED&I.
• The target of having 20% of participants without an undergraduate degree is currently not on course to be met, at 6% (i.e. 94% of participants hold a bachelor’s degree or above).

Regional growth

• Broadly speaking, the distribution of participating companies followed that of the space sector in the UK, with most participating companies (55%) outside London/SE.
• The North West of England (9%) and Scotland (11%) stand out as particular clusters of involvement, with the Accelerator supporting companies from every UK region and Devolved Administration.

1. Introduction

The UK Space Agency’s Accelerator (‘The Accelerator’) has supported 160 businesses across the UK since 2023, helping them enter the space market and take advantage of its wide-ranging opportunities. know.space has been commissioned to assess the Accelerator’s impact on participants and the wider UK space sector. This is the second of two reports, building on the initial findings published in March 2024 and providing a more comprehensive analysis of the programme’s impact over the past two years.

1.1 Scope

1.1.1 About the Accelerator

The Accelerator was set up to support companies in developing their idea, products or services into sustainable space businesses. It is split into three programmes (Explore, Leo and Geo). Leo and Geo were designed to assist established businesses, while Explore has focused on early-stage start-ups. The programme has supported both space-sector businesses and non-space sector businesses with potential space-related applications or business models. Table 1 provides an overview of programme participants and course content.

Table 1 Details of each programme on the Accelerator

Prog/cohort overview	Profile	Course content
Explore: 89 Participants - 12 weeks	Early-stage cohort for space innovators, either with a space industry background (an innovative idea with little start-up experience) or those transitioning from an adjacent industry (may have relevant start-up experience but are new to space). Focusing on mindset development, taking risks, pain point and customer validation. TRL: 1-3[footnote 2]:	- Weekly webinars - 1:1 sessions with Growth and Industry Enablers - Daily micro-learning - Monthly networking session - Pitching sessions
Leo: 53 participants - 6 months	Mid-stage cohort targeting entities with a validated market need and proof of concept, emphasising leadership growth, technical scalability, business model development, and seed fundraising. TRL: 3-5	- Online and in-person boot camps - Fortnightly webinars - Fortnightly pitch practice sessions - Fortnightly 1-hour 1:1 Growth Enablement - 1:1 drop-in sessions for Industry Enablement - Monthly Networking session - Partner pitch sessions - Mentor access - Industry Tours (e.g. Airbus) - Acceler8 mid-programme in-person meetup
Geo: 18 participants - 6 months	Late-stage cohort for those with market traction (£500k annual sales or funding raised), focusing on leadership development, strategic supply chain establishment, access to networks, and preparation for Series A fundraising. TRL: 5-9	- Face-to-face boot camp - Bespoke workshops - Fortnightly 1-hour 1:1 Growth Enablement - 1:1 drop-in sessions for Industry Enablement - Partner pitch sessions - Mentor access - Industry Tours (e.g. Airbus) - Acceler8

Underpinning the course content were The Orbit Series and Trajectory events. The Orbit Series were online workshops open to all cohorts and alumni which run alongside the core activities. Covering ‘core’ elements of space entrepreneurship, they targeted topic areas which are not specific to any one programme. The Trajectory events combined networking with promoting regional-specific opportunities in a series of face-to-face one-day roadshow-style events, taking place in key regions and Devolved Administrations across the UK.

The ‘core’ course content alongside The Orbit Series and Trajectory events covered a vast range of content, including but not limited to:

• Developing a growth mindset
• Entrepreneurial leadership
• Innovative business models
• Customer discovery
• Vision and values
• Funding opportunities
• Skills and hiring
• Space sustainability

1.1.2 About this Impact report

This Impact Report builds on the findings of the Interim Impact Report by extracting (further) evidence from survey, administrative and monitoring data, which were collected before and after the Explore, Leo and Geo programmes ran. As such, the primary focus of this report remains on exploring early outcomes rather than fully realised long-term impacts, given the relatively short duration of the Accelerator programmes (ranging from 3 to 6 months). However, around 50 businesses – sampled to be representative of the entire programme – were recontacted about a year after completing their programme, providing valuable insights into longer-term outcomes. With close to double the number of participating businesses compared to the interim report, we are able to comment on the Accelerator’s impact with greater assurance, confidence, and accuracy. Additionally, improvements to data collection activities – recommended in the interim report – were implemented, strengthening the robustness of findings.

The full impact story will emerge over time, to assess the extent to which early-stage ideas progress to new (or faster/cheaper/better/more reliable) products and services, to greater investment, and commercial readiness. It will be important to capture these impacts in future Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) activities.

This impact report describes the benefits of the programme. It is not an evaluation of programme success, effectiveness, nor efficiency.

1.2 Methodology

Below we describe the data sources, sample sizes, and a discussion of the resulting caveats for interpreting the analysis.

1.2.1 Data collection

Participants were required to complete an application form. These forms help to identify the baseline, pre-intervention state of play. By comparing outcomes to initial conditions, this allows for the identification of net rather than gross effects (e.g. net increase in jobs). This baseline pre-Accelerator data includes, for example, the number of employees (Full Time Equivalent, FTE), monthly revenue, companies’ total investment secured to date and the anticipated time to market.

Data on company details, such as geographic location and Equality, Diversity & Inclusion (ED&I) indicators, were also collected at the application stage.

A main source of evidence used to identify changes and the findings presented in this report is the exit survey. Data was collected and used in two ways:

1. To measure changes across the Accelerator by comparing metrics collected in the exit survey with the baseline in the Application survey; and
2. To directly track Accelerator impact, by considering factors such as the percentage of respondents reporting that ‘participation in the Accelerator led to increased business growth’.

To gain deeper insights into longer-term impacts, approximately 50 businesses were recontacted about a year after their initial survey responses. These follow-up (or ongoing survey) responses either complemented or superseded exit survey responses, depending on the indicator. Although this represents under half of the 76 businesses initially accepted onto the Accelerator in 2023, it offers valuable insights into long-term effects.

Qualitative evidence complements the quantitative indicators by helping to explain how and why outcomes occurred. The qualitative evidence is based on free text responses in the surveys, a series of interviews conducted by Entrepreneurial Spark at the end of participants’ involvement, and from businesses that agreed to describe in more detail their experience to contribute to case studies.

Participants were also asked to complete an Accelerator Canvas ^{[footnote 3]}: (also carried out at the start and end of each Accelerator cohort), which asked a series of yes-or-no questions related to 5 key areas: mindset, business model, capabilities, finance and sustainability. Canvas questions included in this report were chosen based on relevance to the impact themes and indicators as well as on data quality.

Table 2 Number of responses and attrition across each survey

	Explore	Leo	Geo	Total
Application	89	53	18	160
Exit	75	46	12	133
Attrition	14	7	6	27
Retention	84%	87%	67%	79%
Canvas (START)	117	53	12	182
Canvas (END)	62	37	8	107
Attrition	55	16	4	75
Retention	53%	70%	67%	63%
Ongoing	33	13	3	49
Interviews	7	7	0	14

Source: know.space

1.2.2 Caveats

Attribution and Counterfactual Analysis: Promising start-ups naturally grow independent of accelerator support. While some impacts can be directly attributed to the Accelerator (through specific participant feedback), many outcomes cannot be definitively linked to participation versus natural business development. Without a control group of similar non-participating companies, we observe and comment on outcomes rather than drawing causal conclusions about the Accelerator’s effectiveness. A more rigorous comparative evaluation could form part of future M&E activity.

Data quality: On a few occasions, the survey questions fielded differed at the start and end of organisations’ involvement in the Accelerator, making it challenging to compare results directly. On top of this, some questions were asked for cohorts that were not for others, or the questions varied significantly enough that they were not comparable across the Accelerator Explore, Leo and Geo programmes. The Canvas questionnaire also had inconsistencies in data quality, with some questions being dropped for later cohorts within the same programme.

Small sample sizes and outliers impacting results: Particularly when breaking down by Explore, Leo and Geo, small sample sizes and missing responses can limit statistical robustness and increase risk of skew from outliers. Geo was run with a cohort of 17 companies, meaning that results are highly influenced by individual company outcomes.

Self-reporting and Response Bias: Participants self-reported economic data, introducing potential inaccuracies through misinterpretation or exaggeration. There’s also risk of optimism bias, as participants may present the Accelerator’s impact positively when providing feedback directly to programme administrators – especially given they received support at no cost.

Attrition bias: Companies surveyed at the start of their involvement in the Accelerator are not the same as the sample surveyed at the end, as shown in the table below. Attrition may arise from (for example) companies ceasing trading, or from simply not responding to the survey at the end of their involvement in the Accelerator ^{[footnote 4]}:. 27 companies (21%) at application stage were no longer in the sample at exit survey stage, and 75 (37%) were no longer in the sample after the first set of Accelerator Canvas questions were asked. Attrition introduces survivorship bias, meaning outcomes may seem more positive when only focusing on those who reached the end, or that were willing to respond to the second round of surveys. For most results we therefore concentrate on the application and exit surveys, which have higher retention (82%).

Lack of information on survival rates, and potential bias: There is a time lag in publicly available information on business dissolutions, as Companies House does not provide real-time updates on a company’s status. As a result, we cannot accurately count the number of businesses that are still active, as this could lead to an overly optimistic estimate.

2. Routes to impact & indicators

2.1 Logic model

A logic model for the Accelerator is set out below, focusing on the overarching aims across the Explore, Leo, and Geo strands of activity. This model was developed early in the project to help identify the key routes to impact, ensuring that we could then pinpoint the right indicators and collect the necessary data from participants. Understanding these pathways allows for a clearer assessment of the Accelerator’s impact and enables the collection of relevant, targeted information.

Logic stage
Inputs & Activities	UKSA funding & support for programme delivery	Targeted support to businesses (e.g. pitching, 1:1 advice)	Inputs & support from partners (e.g. SA Catapult, LEPs, Devolved Administrations)	Networking Events and Showcase Sessions
Outputs	Strengthened skills, experience and capabilities	Increased understanding of technical / business requirements	New partnerships, collaborations and networks, inc. access to finance	Improved engagement with non-space businesses
Outcomes	Faster company growth and skilled job creation across the UK (follow-on grants and investment)	Accelerated commercialisation / time to market for new products and services	Improved UK competitiveness (new opportunities, exports, etc.)	New entrants to the sector and knowledge exchange (spillover benefits)
Impacts	North Star Metric outcomes: new jobs, revenue and investment	Capability development: strengthened UK capabilities and resilience, including levelling up impacts	Wider benefits: benefits unlocked from new & improved products and services, and knowledge, market and network spillovers	Improved space sector Equality, Diversity & Inclusion

Source: know.space

From the logic model, we identified 4 primary impact themes, which we explore more fully in the following sections:

• Business performance – commercial business development, including new investment, grants, jobs, revenue, business survival, and the introduction of (often cheaper, better, faster, and/or more reliable) products and services.
• Knowledge and skills – the boost to capabilities and knowledge that participation can help unlock, through direct Accelerator learnings, as well as more indirect learning from others and understanding of how to navigate challenges.
• Partnerships and collaboration – the impacts delivered by the networking element of the Accelerator, including new ideas, activities, partnerships, and improved access to finance.
• Wider impacts – the impacts on wider HMG objectives, such as regional growth, ease of market entry, and promoting equality, diversity and inclusion.

2.2 Indicators

Against these themes, we developed a series of indicators against which impact could be assessed. These covered:

• Core economic indicators – such as current (and in selected cases, forecast) employment, revenue, investment, expected time to market, and R&D spending;
• Company details – such as their location, sector, whether they have previously worked in the space sector, and details relevant for equality, diversity and inclusion analysis;
• Output indicators – such as the impact of participation in the Accelerator on their knowledge and skills, partnerships and collaborations, and access to finance; and
• Outcome and impact indicators – typically informed by questions in exit surveys on impacts on time to market, company growth and broader impacts.

A separate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan was produced in December 2022, which set out the indicators in more detail, which in turn was used to inform the design of data collection activities such as Exit Surveys and Accelerator Canvas.

We split results by Explore, Leo and Geo programmes, reflecting that each has different aims and data strengths and weaknesses.

3. Findings

3.1 Business performance

---

Quotes from participants

“We have a better path to £5M annual turnover in 2026 now than we did before Geo”

“Helped us plan which B2B customers to prioritise and how to arrange our revenue share agreements”

“We signed the first contract with ESA during the UKSA Accelerator”

“[I] decided to build a prototype earlier than planned”

“[We are] working with the University of Sheffield AMRC [due to participation]”

“We have been able [to] identify risks and flaws with our ongoing strategy and have been able to rectify them. Since then, we have also signed MoUs and are anticipating a deal […] soon”

“We have more scalable propositions and are developing the data […] to better automate. This has allowed us to acquire new customers in both the UK and the US during the GEO programme”

“Our monthly turnover increased by £50k [as a result of the programme]”

“We are starting to do more with existing customers and [are] also acquiring new clients”

---

3.1.1 Growth

Overall, over 2 in 3 (71%) of respondents reported that participation has led to faster growth for their company. Companies expanded on how participation helped them refine their strategy, with one highlighting the Accelerator’s role in enhancing their understanding of growth strategies, while another explained that participation accelerated their go-to-market approach. A different respondent credited the programme with strengthening their business model, stating it is now “much more mature than it would have been.”

Respondents for whom participation did not lead to faster growth were often still positive regarding their expectations of future growth. For example, one respondent answering “No” explained that the Accelerator still “led to a greater understanding [of their markets],” while another noted that it provided “assurance in what I am wanting to create.”

Participants found the value of networking opportunities fostered by the Accelerator particularly impactful for growth opportunities, with one noting, “Networking with the vibrant accelerator cohort opened doors to collaborations I couldn’t have gained access to otherwise,” also going on to specify an example, mentioning that “the connections facilitated our proof-of-concept payload project with Airbus and generated interest from UKSA.”

Other respondents linked their company’s growth to the increased clarity and focus they gained through the Programme. One participant noted, “I have a clearer direction, allowing me to progress faster,” While another made the connection even more explicit, stating, “We have gained more focus on growth,” demonstrating how, for some business owners, the Accelerator helped shape a mindset that encourages success.

A different respondent appreciated the interactive and detailed nature of the Accelerator, stating that “the deep dive Orbit sessions gave you an incredibly interactive and detailed approach on specific topics crucial to business growth.”

3.1.2 Customers

Survey evidence on customer growth indicates that the impacts varied across different programmes. Explore participants reported an average increase of 0.8 customers, while Geo participants saw a rise of 2. However, Leo companies experienced a decline, losing an average of -1.2 customers over the programme. Reasons for this are not clear but may reflect the transition phase for companies scaling space-focused businesses, which often requires navigating multiple technological advancement stages and regulatory compliance processes before securing stable, recurring customers. Anecdotal evidence suggests companies at this stage often pivot from short-term consultancy work to developing scalable products. Across all three programmes, this resulted in there being no change in customers on average. Despite this, data from the ‘ongoing’ surveys suggests a positive longer-term trend, with the average participant gaining 1.9 customers by the second survey.

Figure 1 Average current customers and change over programme

Programme	Average customers (and change over programme)	Average customer increase
Explore	3.9	(+0.8)
Leo	3.4	(-1.2)
Geo	8.9	(+2.0)

Source: know.space

Average customers includes 107 respondents (of which 55 Explore, 44 Leo & 8 Geo). Change in customers includes 103 respondents (of which 53 Explore, 43 Leo & 7 Geo)

While the Accelerator is unlikely to have directly caused companies to lose customers, there is evidence that it supported customer acquisition. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) reported that they have increased their actual or anticipated number of customers since joining the Accelerator. One participant expanded on the reasons for this, explaining that they had increased their leads from potential customers after engaging with stakeholders from the United States, Africa, and Australia, while a different participants shared how – through participation – they “found startups in the programme who could use [their] services.” Another highlighted the benefits of being associated with the UK Space Agency, stating, “The credibility of UKSA has helped open doors for conversation – which would have been closed otherwise.” These examples align with the data from the ‘ongoing’ surveys, which suggest a positive longer-term trend of real customer acquisition.

Although some participants did not see immediate customer growth, there is evidence that the Accelerator equipped them with skills and a new network to engage anticipated customers successfully. Despite answering “No” to experiencing customer growth, one respondent noted that the Accelerator had helped with “anticipating customers within enough time,” improving their ability to identify and engage potential customers. Others shared similar experiences, with one stating, “The Accelerator has allowed us to improve how we speak with customers.”

3.1.3 Employment

---

Quotes from participants

“I didn’t appreciate before how beneficial it might be to hire in the skills I needed (rather than subcontract)”

“[Participation] has given me a better understanding of who I need and how to prioritise this recruitment”

“[The Accelerator led to] insights into who to look for, where to look for talent, and how to retain talent, especially in the UK”

“It has made me realise […] the impact and efficiency that could be brought in by delegating tasks to team members”

---

A key objective of the Accelerator was to increase employee headcount (+ 2 employees per participant on average, doubling the creation of the +1 job per participant achieved in the Accelerator Pilot). Although this has not yet been achieved, the Accelerator has successfully maintained the positive outcome from the Pilot: close to +1 job (0.9 FTE) per participant is estimated to have been created whilst on the Accelerator (or 112 FTE in total)^{[footnote 5]}:.

As businesses mature, their average employee headcount tends to increase. However, the average growth in employee numbers during the programme is consistent across all programmes. Explore companies grew by an average of 0.8 FTE (1.7 FTE average), Leo companies by 0.9 FTE (2.8 FTE average), and Geo companies by 0.8 FTE (11.1 FTE average). Among the surveyed ‘Ongoing’ participants, the average increase in employees aligns with the target of +2 FTE. While future, post-Accelerator growth cannot be wholly attributed to Accelerator participation, qualitative evidence suggests a link.

Figure 2 Average current employees and change over programme

Programme	Average employees (and change over programme)	Average employee increase
Explore	1.7	(+0.9)
Leo	2.8	(+0.8)
Geo	11.1	(+0.9)

Source: know.space

Average employees includes 163 respondents (of which 97 Explore, 52 Leo & 14 Geo). Change in employees includes 98 respondents (of which 45 Explore, 43 Leo & 10 Geo)

88% of respondents answered that participation [positively] affected their confidence in growing their team, and/or confidence in attracting and retaining talent, highlighting that the programme has gone a long way in its aim to support employee growth during the Accelerator and beyond. One respondent stated, “I have a clear plan for hiring and how I will onboard new team members.” Another participant shared practical knowledge the Accelerator equipped them with, explaining that participation made them “more aware of the policies that should be in place before hiring.”

One respondent also noted the link between growing their team and sourcing finance, stating that “the accelerator has highlighted the importance of having a strong team to attract finance.”

3.1.4 Revenue

Most companies (73%) accepted into the Accelerator were still in a pre-revenue phase by the end of their involvement. However, participation in the programme is, in several cases, correlated with revenue increases, with direct causation observed in some instances. Respondents reported a wide range of revenues, with a few notable successes (over £100k per month) driving positive revenue outcomes.

As expected, for revenue-generating companies, mean monthly revenues are correlated with business maturity, increasing substantially from Explore (£3k) to Leo (£9k) and Geo (£45k), though these averages are sensitive to outliers. Companies developing technology for space deployment typically demonstrate extended revenue generation timelines, with progression through research and development, testing phases, launch procurement, and often in-orbit demonstration before establishing commercial revenue streams. This can lengthen time to market, compared to other sectors. Of the 35 companies providing data on monthly revenue change, 18 reported a revenue uplift following their participation in the Accelerator, with an average increase of £20k.

Over the programme, participants’ average monthly revenue increased by £2.3k (+£1k for Explore, -£766 for Leo, and +£21k for Geo). Longer-term impacts also appear positive, with ongoing participants reporting an average monthly revenue increase of £1.9k (-£304 for Explore, +£5k for Leo, and +£18k for Geo). However, attribution to the Accelerator becomes less certain over time. While individual companies significantly influence these figures^{[footnote 6]}:, the data suggests the Accelerator may be supporting revenue growth for maturing businesses in Leo and Geo.

Figure 3 Mean monthly revenues and change over programme

Programme	Mean monthly revenues (and change over programme)	Average monthly revenue increase
Explore	£3k	(+£1k)
Leo	£9k	(-£766)
Geo	£45k	(+£21k)

Source: know.space

Mean monthly revenue includes 132 respondents (of which 75 Explore, 46 Leo & 11 Geo). Change mean monthly revenue includes 99 respondents (of which 44 Explore, 45 Leo & 10 Geo)

Many factors may have played a role in driving this positive change, though there is evidence to suggest that for at least some respondents, this revenue increase was directly caused by their participation in the Accelerator. For example, two businesses attributed increases in earnings directly to the Accelerator, with one on the Leo programme explaining their monthly turnover “increased by £50k” as a result of participation, and the other having ”seen a significant increase in traction” due to the programme.

Other pre-revenue companies still highlighted the positive impact of the Accelerator, with one on the Leo programme stating the Accelerator has given them “all the necessary tools” to generate revenue in the future. Another respondent went further, stating that “[The Accelerator] contributed to building a pipeline for next year that should increase revenue by £40,000.”

During the Accelerator, 15 companies generated their first revenue in the space sector (totalling £599k) and several others stated they were close to revenue generation, having agreed preliminary terms with prospective commercial partners. Similarly, 1 in 6 respondents (16%) said participation has led directly to increased revenues (with 12% answering ‘not yet’).

3.1.5 Investment

There is strong evidence that the Accelerator increased financial literacy by expanding participants’ awareness of future funding options. A key longer-term objective is for participants to raise £50m, or 35 times the UK Space Agency’s upfront investment. So far, companies have raised £15m, or over a quarter of this target (26%). We expect the objective to be met in the coming years, with £77m currently being applied for by participants, as well as participants reporting a further £483m in expected future funding. This is likely to carry some optimism bias, but even if 5% of this is achieved, this would see the objective more than met. It is likely that we underreport total funding raised during and after the Accelerator, as further funding events have occurred since data collection, and some participants may have overlooked or missed reporting secured funding. For example, around £480k in potentially relevant grants from four companies identified on Beauhurst were not included in their responses or occurred after the programme ended.

Value of funding

The exit surveys asked participants to share details of their funding across three time periods:

1. Funding secured to date (previous);
2. Funding which companies are applying for (applied), and;
3. Funding that is expected within 1-3 years (anticipated).

Participants’ longer-term ambitions for raising funding significantly outstripped their prior secured investment. Participants had previously secured relatively modest funding amounts compared to their longer-term ambitions.

Over the next 1–3 years, the Explore cohort anticipates an average funding requirement of £2.4m (among companies that provided valid, non-zero responses), increasing to £7.3m for the Leo cohort and £13m for the Geo cohort. This progression reflects the increasing TRLs and the maturation of business concepts, which typically necessitate greater capital investment to progress.

While 60% of companies entered the Accelerator with prior funding secured, a lower proportion (48%) are currently in the process of applying for additional funding, and more than 4 in 5 (86%) anticipate successfully securing funding within the next 1–3 years^{[footnote 7]}:.

Table 3 Previous/Applied/Anticipated funding per programme type (average)

Programme	Previous	Applied	Anticipated
Explore	£119k	£1.2m	£2.4m
Leo	£413k	£1.4m	£7.3m
Geo	£2.3m	£268k	£13.0m

Source: know.space

Respondents: 79 (previous), 63 (applied) & 113 (anticipated)

By the end of the programme, companies had collectively raised £27.8m. Participants were asked how much of their funding was secured during or immediately after the Accelerator, with around 22% (£6.2m) raised in this period^{[footnote 8]}:. Given the short timeframe, this suggests the programme had a measurable impact on participants’ ability to secure funding.

This effect is particularly evident for the Explore and Leo programmes. For companies on the Explore programme, around 33% (£839k) of their total funding (£2.6m) was secured whilst on the Accelerator. While this may reflect that these companies are younger (i.e. their time on the Accelerator represents a larger proportion of their lifetime), it could also suggest that the programme’s resources related to funding and financial literacy are particularly beneficial for early-stage businesses. Similarly, for the Leo programme, 48% (£3.5m) of the total funding (£7.2m) was raised during the Accelerator, reinforcing the programme’s role in supporting earlier-stage start-ups. In contrast, for the Geo programme, only 11% (£2m) of total funding (£18m) was secured during the Accelerator, which may reflect the fact that more mature companies often have established funding sources prior to joining.

Recontacted companies answering the ongoing survey were asked for the value of funding acquired since completing the Accelerator. In total, £8.8m has been raised in the year following the end of the programme (£2.2m from Explore, £6.1m from Leo and £0.5m from companies on the Geo programme).

Figure 4 Funding whilst on Accelerator and since programme completion

Programme	Whilst on programme	After programme completion	Total
Explore	£1m	£2m	£3m
Leo	£3m	£6m	£9m
Geo	£2m	0.5m	£2.5m

Source: know.space

Whilst on programme includes 132 respondents (of which 75 Explore, 46 Leo & 11 Geo). After programme completion includes 48 respondents (of which 33 Explore, 13 Leo & 2 Geo)

While many factors influence a company’s ability to secure funding, there is evidence to suggest that participation on the Accelerator directly led to new funding, with notable additionality reported in some cases for follow-on benefits (e.g. product and services development and commercialisation). For example, one participant highlighted the Accelerator’s role in securing funding from a leading Venture Capital (VC) firm – Seraphim Space - stressing that the Accelerator was the sole enabler for this investment. The participant explained that without this funding, they would not have been able to develop a product and bring it to market.

Access to Funding

---

Quotes from participants

“[The Accelerator] has helped me find alternatives to UK Space Agency & European Space Agency grant funding”

“[The Accelerator provided a] firmer understanding of funding sources beyond R&D grants”

“[As a result of participation] we developed and advanced our financial and funding processes”

“[The Accelerator was] very helpful in understanding the financing ecosystem in the space sector, which I found extremely useful and insightful”

---

The Accelerator has had a positive impact on financial literacy, with over 4 in 5 respondents (85%) reporting that participation led to improvements in their knowledge on how to access finance. Their knowledge improved as the Accelerator introduced them to other sources of funding (largely from private investors), as shown below. These charts tally funding sources mentioned by respondents in each time period.

For the Explore cohort, participants view grants as a core funding option. Current applications and anticipated future funding also indicate a growing emphasis on private investment, particularly venture capital (VC) and angel investing, as demonstrated by their increased mentions from ‘previous’ to ‘applied’/’anticipated’. Early-stage start-ups typically rely on funding strategies such as personal savings, bootstrapping, and investment from family and friends (classified as ‘Other’). However, these sources appear to decline in anticipated future funding. This likely reflects increasing business maturity – personal savings can only take a company so far – as well as growing financial literacy.

Table 4 Sources of funding – Explore programme^{[footnote 9]}:

Funding source	Number of mentions (previous)	Number of mentions (applied)	Number of mentions (anticipated)
Other	7	5	3
University competitions	5	2	0
Seed	1	7	4
Equity investment	2	2	2
Sponsorship	2	0	0
Award	3	0	0
Personal savings	11	1	2
Angel	2	19	7
Grants	18	18	20
VC	2	25	21

Source: know.space

For the Leo cohort, the distribution of funding sources closely resembles that of the Explore cohort. Grants remain the most commonly cited funding source. Private investment, including VC and angel investors, is mentioned more frequently as a source of previous funding compared to the Explore cohort. Similar to the Explore programme, some businesses also rely on personal savings, bootstrapping, and family investment as early-stage funding sources. Notably, five companies identified commercial revenue as a previous funding source, likely indicating greater commercial sustainability compared to the Explore cohort, where no such mentions were made and businesses are generally less mature.

Table 5 Sources of funding – Leo programme

Funding source	Number of mentions (previous)	Number of mentions (applied)	Number of mentions (anticipated)
Other	9	0	0
University competitions	3	0	0
Seed	0	2	2
Equity investment	1	1	1
Sponsorship	0	0	1
Award	3	0	0
Personal savings	7	0	0
Angel	7	9	4
Grants	18	12	10
VC	6	13	16

Source: know.space

For the Geo cohort, mentions of funding sources were primarily concentrated on previous investments, with angel investors cited most frequently, followed by grants and VC. Compared to earlier stages, Geo companies appear more focused on attracting VC investment, reflecting the need for larger capital injections, strategic support, and access to industry networks as they scale.

Table 6 Sources of funding – Geo programme

Funding source	Number of mentions (previous)	Number of mentions (applied)	Number of mentions (anticipated)
Other	1	0	0
University competitions	0	0	0
Seed	0	0	1
Equity investment	0	0	0
Sponsorship	0	0	0
Award	0	0	0
Personal savings	0	0	0
Angel	6	0	0
Grants	5	1	0
VC	4	1	4

Source: know.space

Increased awareness of different funding options can also be seen by changes in responses to Accelerator Canvas questions asked at the start and end of each of the Explore, Leo and Geo cohorts. The proportion of companies reporting that they are aware of potential investors for their business rose from 46% to 79% (a 33% increase). Awareness of VC sources of funding rose by 23%, Angel investors by 20%, and crowdfunding by 23%.

Figure 5 Financial literacy at the Start and End of the Accelerator^{[footnote 10]}:

Canvas question	Yes	No	Respondents
I am aware of potential investors for my business at present (Start)	46%	54%	134 respondents
I am aware of potential investors for my business at present (End)	79%	21%	75 respondents
I have considered Venture Capital as a source of pre-seed investment (Start)	66%	34%	129 respondents
I have considered Venture Capital as a source of pre-seed investment (End)	89%	11%	70 respondents
I have considered Angel Investors as a source of pre-seed investment (Start)	60%	40%	129 respondents
I have considered Angel Investors as a source of pre-seed investment (End)	80%	20%	70 respondents
I have considered Crowd Funding as a source of pre-seed investment (Start)	38%	62%	117 respondents
I have considered Crowd Funding as a source of pre-seed investment (End)	61%	39%	62 respondents
I have considered finance from Friends & Family as a source of pre-seed investment (Start)	40%	60%	117 respondents
I have considered finance from Friends & Family as a source of pre-seed investment (End)	63%	37%	62 respondents

Source: know.space

Respondents also commented on how the Accelerator increased their knowledge: one respondent noted they “have better insight and more knowledge of how to become investor ready” since participating, and another commented that they “can now approach agreements with investors from a more informed perspective”, highlighting the Accelerator’s ability to prepare participants for interactions with investors.

A different participant highlighted the positive impact that pitching in front of real investors had on their skillset, explaining how they “got the opportunity to present [their] business ideas in front of real investors, receive feedback from them, and network with other cohorts and enablers”, concluding that the experience had “helped [me] improve my networking and pitching skills.”

Participants also credited the Accelerator with strengthening their knowledge and skills in securing funding, with one noting that “The Accelerator experience is giving us the confidence to leverage UK public sector funding,” while another linked improved financial literacy to hiring, saying “I’m more confident we can find enough funding to grow the team.” A different respondent highlighted its impact on investor pitches, saying, “I now have a much clearer business case when speaking to potential partners or investors.”

3.1.6 Research & Development (R&D)

R&D investment can be crucial for establishing and scaling a business in the space sector^{[footnote 11]}:, as reflected in the average annual spend of £11.7m among participants. As expected, R&D investment varies across Accelerator programmes, increasing as businesses mature. On average, Explore companies invested £35k annually (£1.5m in total), while those in the Leo programme spent £117k per year (£4.4m in total). Geo companies led with the highest investment, averaging £584k annually (£5.8m in total). Similarly, changes in R&D spending – compared to the start of the programme, including more recently surveyed ‘ongoing’ participants – also increase with business maturity. R&D investment in the Explore cohort grew by £162k, while the Leo cohort saw an increase of £2.1m, and the Geo cohort had the largest rise at £3.7m.

Table 7 Average annual R&D spend per programme: total, mean and change over Accelerator

Programme	Total	Mean	Change over Accelerator
Explore	£1.5m	£35k	+£162k
Leo	£4.4m	£117K	+£2.1m
Geo	£5.8m	£584k	+£3.7m

Source: know.space

Total & mean R&D includes 90 respondents (of which 42 Explore, 38 Leo & 10 Geo). Change in R&D includes 62 respondents (of which 14 Explore, 38 Leo & 10 Geo)

The Accelerator has had a clear impact on R&D outcomes: 76% of participants reported a positive effect on their R&D activity, and 35% made their first R&D investment while on the programme. These figures suggest that the Accelerator has played a significant role in supporting companies’ R&D investment efforts. As one participant explained, “[The Accelerator] provided the platform to scope company expansion to support R&D.” Others highlighted the Accelerator’s role in refining their approach to R&D, commenting on its role in “reshaping strategy” and guiding them on “what to focus on”, while one respondent explained it helped them understand “how to better redirect R&D to meet [their] market need.”

3.1.7 Access to market

To get a better understanding of commercial timelines, companies were asked how far their product or service was from market entry. As expected, time to market shortens with business maturity. On average, Explore participants anticipated a 16 month timeline, compared to 12.7 months for Leo and 7 months for the Geo programme. Surprisingly, expected time to market often increased rather than decreased (i.e. businesses delayed their plans for product/service launch), as Accelerator participation led companies to re-evaluate their business plans. After accounting for the 7-month gap between the start and finish of their involvement in the Accelerator for the Leo and Geo programmes and the 2.5-month gap in the Explore programme, the average time to market increased by 3 months (0.1 for Explore and 7.6 for Leo).

Figure 6 Expected time to market and change after Accelerator participation (months)

Programme	Average employees (and change over programme)	Average employee increase
Explore	16.0	(+0.1)
Leo	12.7	(+7.6)
Geo	7.0	No data

Source: know.space

Average time to market includes 103 respondents (of which 62 Explore, 34 Leo & 7 Geo). Change in time to market includes 46 respondents (of which 22 Explore, 24 Leo & 0 Geo)

Only 13 out of the 46 companies who provided data accelerated their time to market (i.e. made plans to enter the market sooner). Some of those delaying gave explanations as to why, highlighting the positive impact that the Accelerator had: one respondent from Explore noted that their original core idea was “flaky” and that the Accelerator forced them to “go back to the drawing board” to refine their idea and concept, spending time on their business plan before committing to entering the market. Another respondent stressed that a “potential area of expansion within the industry has been eliminated as an option owing to new information on its lack of commercialisation potential.”

3.2 Knowledge and Skills

---

Quotes from participants

“I’ve become a more polished and prepared CEO ready to secure partners and financing thanks to this intensive growth experience”

“[The Accelerator allowed us to] develop a business case and a product that has a real need, is uniquely situated in the market and has many potential customers”

“I’ve learned a lot about how to adopt an entrepreneurial mentality, and how to be focused on business growth and resilience”

“We now have a clear roadmap and are ready to engage further with our clients”

“The programme […] has rapidly reinforced and improved our business model”

“[Participation on the Accelerator] improved leadership, awareness of leadership style and accountability”

“I have been able to better identify and target the critical developmental areas”

“I have understood the key elements and factors needed to run a business successfully as well as a deeper understanding of how these change over the period as your company grows”

“The events which are a part of the programme have been really great for meeting our ideal customer”

“The accelerator taught me valuable skills and a more appropriate mindset that I feel will enable me to attract and retain talent”

---

Accelerator participation boosted capabilities and knowledge through programme learnings, and informally through exposure to others on the Accelerator. For example, 81 out of 86 companies (94%) believed their entrepreneurial mindset improved as a result of the Accelerator. One participant noted a better understanding of “how to be an entrepreneur,” while another described becoming “much more adventurous in their ideas.” Other positive impacts on knowledge and skills relate to increased market, strategic and technical capabilities. One respondent captured the sense of broad skills improvement, saying “I have felt a huge technical, social, and mindset improvement.”

The Accelerator has enhanced participants’ understanding of their respective markets, as reflected in the improved responses below. The proportion of companies with a clear grasp of their market opportunity increased by 33%, reaching 88%. One Explore participant credited the programme for their “increased assertiveness in knowing [their]… business opportunity.” Additionally, respondents highlighted how the Accelerator helped refine their market entry strategies – restructuring their road to market and, in one case, accelerating it. Others reported greater confidence as new entrants to the space sector, reinforcing the programme’s role in strengthening commercial awareness and establishing a market position.

One participant appreciated the structured approach the Accelerator provided, explaining that impact-related activities “offered practical insights that helped me refine my business strategy and address the unique challenges of the space sector,” showcasing the programme’s efforts to customise an approach for early-stage companies, concluding that “the programme has definitely enhanced my understanding of what it takes to launch a start-up in this field.”

Additionally, almost all respondents across the Accelerator (95%) were able to identify their target customers at the end of their involvement (an 18% increase), and 96% understood who their competitors are, a 19% increase compared to the start of their participation. One participant highlighted the Accelerator’s focus on increasing their knowledge of customer personas (i.e. hypothetical profiles of potential buyers), allowing them to target the right segments of the relevant market(s), while another claimed they “have been able to better understand and identify who [their] customers will be.”

Figure 7 Market knowledge at the Start and End of the Accelerator^{[footnote 12]}:

Canvas question	Yes	No	Respondents
I have identified my target customers (Start)	77%	23%	173 respondents
I have identified my target customers (End)	95%	5%	102 respondents
I understand who my key competitors are (Start)	77%	23%	173 respondents
I understand who my key competitors are (End)	96%	4%	102 respondents
I know the size of my market opportunity (Start)	55%	45%	170 respondents
I know the size of my market opportunity (End)	88%	12%	99 respondents

Source: know.space

Many participants developed critical skills and knowledge related to business strategy while on the Accelerator. By the end of their involvement, almost all (95%) had established a business model—an increase of 29%. The programme also helped 92% of participants articulate their long-term goals (a 29% rise), while the proportion able to identify key risks grew to 85% (a 29% increase).

Respondents saw the Accelerator’s focus on improving strategy as particularly beneficial. One respondent noted, “The programme allowed me to closely examine my business and identify areas for improvement,” adding that it had “significantly shaped [my] business and [me] as an entrepreneur.”

There is further evidence of a positive impact on reworking business models and plans. One participant stated, “The programme has also allowed us to gain industry expert insight and has rapidly reinforced and improved our business model.” Another participant reflected on the programme’s role in shaping a viable market proposition, explaining that it “allowed me to reflect on our development and where we need to improve to achieve a viable proposition for the market.”

The structured learning journey enabled by the Accelerator was particularly valuable. One participant described starting with “a very raw approach” but, as a result of the programme, now having “a proper and precise business plan.” Another highlighted the Accelerator’s unique role, stating, “The Accelerator really does fill a gap in helping any business to explore and pivot ideas toward the space ecosystem.”

Figure 8 Improved strategy at the Start and End of the Accelerator

Canvas question	Yes	No	Respondents
I have a business model (Start)	66%	34%	97 respondents
I have a business model (End)	95%	5%	57 respondents
I have articulated the key long-term goals for my business (Start)	63%	37%	170 respondents
I have articulated the key long-term goals for my business (End)	92%	8%	100 respondents
I have identified the key risks to my business (Start)	56%	44%	134 respondents
I have identified the key risks to my business (End)	85%	15%	74 respondents

Source: know.space

Similarly, the technical capacity required for participants’ products or services was seen to have improved whilst on the Accelerator.

• Respondents’ perception of whether they have the correct people and skills rose by 25%, to 85%.
• Those claiming to understand the IP, trade secrets, or know-how needed for their business increased by 16%, to 91%^{[footnote 13]}:.
• Awareness of the required infrastructure also grew by 15%, to 94%.

Figure 9 Technical capacity at the Start and End of the Accelerator

Canvas question	Yes	No	Respondents
I have the people and skills to deliver my product or service (Start)	60%	40%	182 respondents
I have the people and skills to deliver my product or service (End)	85%	15%	107 respondents
I understand the Intellectual Property, trade secrets, or know-how that my product or service relies on (Start)	75%	25%	182 respondents
I understand the Intellectual Property, trade secrets, or know-how that my product or service relies on (End)	91%	9%	107 respondents
I am aware of what infrastructure needs to be developed to deliver my product or service (Start)	79%	21%	168 respondents
I am aware of what infrastructure needs to be developed to deliver my product or service (End)	94%	4%	97 respondents

Source: know.space

Networking and pitching skills were also cited as being improved for some participants, with one stating that ”the pitch coaching and opportunities to present…have been invaluable for honing my messaging and demonstration skills.” This was corroborated by another respondent who said that the “experience has boosted my confidence and helped me improve my networking and pitching skills.”

Others alluded to their general skillset having improved. For example, one participant reported that “From the start to the end, every week has been filled with vital knowledge and guidance […] the one to ones with world class mentors have helped tailor and shape our business as well as vital skills needed to be developed.”

3.3 Partnerships and collaboration

---

Quotes from participants

“We have made partnerships with a number of alumni members in different areas where we could add value to each other and we are exploring opportunities to work together”

“Networking with the vibrant accelerator cohort opened doors to collaborations I couldn’t have gained access to otherwise. The connections facilitated our proof-of-concept payload project with Airbus”

“[The Accelerator] led to expanded networks and an intention to talk further and look into partnership”

---

An important component of the Accelerator was its networking aspect, which played a key role in fostering new ideas and, in several instances, led to the formation of new partnerships and collaborations. The vast majority of respondents (96%) agreed that the Accelerator had a positive impact on expanding their network, with one participant noting that they had developed a “wider network that will be instrumental in the coming year.”

A few participants specifically highlighted the value of building industry-specific space contacts. One respondent stated they had “become much more integrated into the sector,” while another described how their UK space sector network had been “drastically expanded” through their participation. Additionally, a different participant referenced the Accelerator as a catalyst for “better networking skills,” noting that they now feel more confident in their ability to “communicate better.” This illustrates that the networking impact is twofold: it not only facilitates key introductions but also enhances networking-related skills. Several respondents further emphasised that these new connections have laid the groundwork for potential future partnerships and collaborations.

Participation led to new partnerships for 60% of organisations (30% responded ‘No’ and 5% ‘Other’). A founder in Leo highlighted the formation of partnerships with a “co-founder, US strategic partner, and technical expertise partner” as a direct outcome of their involvement. Similarly, a Geo programme participant made a critical connection during the investor day, describing it as an “opportunity to connect with potential partners.” They attributed the event to providing them with an “in” with Deloitte Ventures, which also led to KPMG expressing interest.

Several companies formed official partnerships as a result of the programme. One participant detailed how networking led to a significant business outcome: “The Accelerator introduced us to Alden Legal, who helped us finalise a bespoke 4-year legal agreement with a satellite imagery provider.” They highlighted another key connection, adding that the Accelerator “introduced us to Geospatial Insight, who is speeding up our imagery orthorectification processes required for some of our machine learning modelling.” In some cases, these collaborations went even further, leading to structural business changes. One respondent shared how they had “joined with another startup” and now “work under one umbrella [company].”

Among those who did not report forming partnerships, some referenced other positive impacts that might precede future collaborations. One respondent replied, “Not partnerships, but connections with other entrepreneurs for future possibilities,” while another responded with, “Not official commercial partnerships, but numerous knowledge exchanges between parties in the programme.” Another respondent shared this sentiment, believing the Accelerator “resulted in conversations that could grow into partnerships.”

3.4 Wider impacts

---

Quotes from participants

“I like particularly the progressive mindset or approach in managing the business”

“[The Accelerator was] very focused on practice and was tailored to the company’s needs.”

“The programme has […] allowed us to gain industry expertise”

“I feel more confident as a business person [as a result of participation]”

“[The Accelerator gave me a] broader understanding of the space industry”

“[We] gained knowledge and understanding of our business without any stress”

“[We gained access to] increased community support”

“All Space Sector Start-ups should look to go through the Accelerator Programme”

“[The Accelerator was] useful for me as a new business owner to understand roles and expectations”

“[The Accelerator was a] good blend of challenging and supporting/encouraging”

“We increased our brand awareness [due to participation]”

---

3.4.1 Equality, Diversity & Inclusion (ED&I)

The Accelerator set ambitious ED&I targets. Overall, outcomes against the programme’s objectives are mixed, but the patterns observed are broadly in line with wider ED&I trends in the space sector. While progress has been made, challenges remain — particularly in achieving gender diversity targets.

The Accelerator did not achieve its stated target of 40% female representation; 1 in 7 (14%) of successful applicants were women. This is below the UK start-up average, where 20% of new incorporations in 2022 were all-female-led^{[footnote 14]}:, and in the space industry, women make up 24% of the workforce^{[footnote 15]}:. It is also 3% lower than the national average for all STEM jobs^{[footnote 16]}:. However, the gender balance of participants is ultimately shaped by the pool of applicants. This suggests that early and targeted engagement with female founders – or broader efforts to encourage female entrepreneurs – may be needed to improve diversity in future Accelerators. Despite these challenges, significant effort was made to address gender imbalance both during the application process and subsequently. Entrepreneurial Spark published the ‘Women in Space’ report examining barriers faced by women establishing space ventures and recommending specific actions to enhance gender diversity in the sector.

Figure 10 Share of participants by gender

Title	Male	Female	Prefer not to say	Total
Gender	81%	14%	5%	100%

Source: know.space

Respondents: 143

Against the target of 40% ethnic minority participation, 52% of participants non-White British ethnic groups (i.e. the definition used by the government), indicating that this target has been met.

Figure 11 Share of participants by ethnicity

Title	White British	Asian or Asian British	White Other	Black, Black British, Caribbean or African	Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	Other ethnic group	Prefer not to say	Total
Ethnicity	42%	22%	15%	5%	8%	3%	5%	100%

Source: know.space

Respondents: 134

More broadly, there is evidence that the Accelerator has had a positive impact on ED&I. Participation was seen to improve ED&I representation in 35% of companies, while 24% reported no change and 41% responded ‘N/A.’ At the start of the programme, 64% of businesses had ED&I plans in place. By the end, this had materially risen by 21%, to 85%.

3.4.2 Qualifications

An objective of the Accelerator was that at least 20% of participants should not hold an undergraduate degree (or higher level of qualification, i.e. Master’s or PhD). This target has not been met, with only 6% of participants not holding an undergraduate degree or above^{[footnote 17]}:. This is reflective of a wider trend in the space sector – which has a highly educated workforce – where over 3 in 4 employees (77%) possess at least a bachelor’s degree^{[footnote 18]}:.

Figure 12 Share of participants by their highest qualification

Title	PhD	Master’s degree	Bachelor	A-level equivalent	Total
Qualification	23%	48%	23%	6%	100%

Source: know.space

Respondents: 134

3.4.3 Regional growth

There is some evidence that the Accelerator has contributed to regional growth. While participants were predominantly based in the South of England, 55% of participating companies were located outside of London and the South East.

This distribution is comparable to the proportion of UK space companies headquartered outside these regions (55%), and space sector employment outside London and the South East (59%)^{[footnote 19]}:. Accelerator-funded activity appears to align broadly with the regional distribution of UK space activity, with every region and Devolved Administration of the UK having benefited from companies participating in the programme.

Scotland and the North West stand out as particularly active areas relative to the concentration of space organisations. While there are various possible explanations for this, including successful awareness-raising by local space stakeholders (such as the North West Cluster) or a ‘word of mouth’ effect within local ecosystems, no definitive evidence is available to confirm this.

Table 8 Location of companies

Area	Number of companies
London	42
South East	25
North West	17
Scotland	14
South West	12
East Midlands	8
North East	8
East of England	7
West Midlands	7
Yorkshire and the Humber	7
Northern Ireland	2
Wales	1
Total	150

Source: know.space

4. Discussion

4.1 Objectives

Seven key objectives were set for the Accelerator and where possible, we report on progress so far towards these objectives. We also present the ‘degree of measurability’, which indicates whether survey and Canvas data can directly measure each objective’s success. While three objectives can be fully measured with available data, four can only be partially assessed due to data quality, attribution challenges, and time-to-impact considerations.

Compared to the pilot, the programme set highly ambitious and intentionally stretching goals to challenge organisers. As a result, indicators linked to these objectives – such as employment and catalysed investment – demonstrate positive impacts but are assessed against a high benchmark. While these indicators contribute to the overall objective, their full impact is expected to materialise over a longer timeframe.

Table 9 Key objectives, progress and degree of measurability

Objective	Progress	Degree of measurability
1. To support 180 high-growth and high-potential space entrepreneurs.	160 businesses supported by the Accelerator so far (89%, off target). While this measure was not met, a deliberate effort was made to focus on accepting companies of high quality onto the programme, hence falling slightly short of the planned 180 businesses.	Full
2. To create 360 jobs, or 2 jobs per participant on average (representing a doubling of job creation impacts from the Accelerator Pilot, which enabled the creation of roughly one job per participant).	So far, an estimated 112 jobs have been created by companies participating in the Accelerator (though this cannot be definitively stated to be a result of participation). This is equivalent 0.85 FTE per participant being created while on the Accelerator. This number was 2 FTE per participant for ‘Ongoing’ surveys. We expect this number to increase with time.	Partial
3. For 40% of participants to be from an ethnic minority	Above target: Ethnic minority representations at 52%.	Full
4. For 40% of participants to be female.	Female representation is below target at 14%. Entrepreneurial Spark has produced a report on the barriers female entrepreneurs face in the space sector and has hosted/facilitated roundtables and panels at Ignite Space to address these challenges.	Full
5. For 20% of participants to not have an undergraduate degree (or higher-level qualification, e.g. Master’s, PhD).	Below target, with 6% of participants to date not holding an undergraduate degree or higher qualification.	Full
6. An 80% business survival rate from the start of the Accelerator through to March 2026.	Due to delays in insolvency information reaching public databases and the objective being measured in March 2026, it is not possible to assess this at present.	Partial
7. To catalyse £50m in investment, equivalent to 35 times the UK Space Agency’s initial investment (building off the Accelerator Pilot which catalysed investment of 23 times the UK Space Agency investment).	Companies have raised a total of £37m over their lifetimes, including £15m since joining the Accelerator: £6.2m whilst on Accelerator, or immediately afterwards (Exit surveys) and £8.8m since (Ongoing surveys). Companies are currently applying for £77m in funding and anticipate securing £483m over the next 1–3 years.	Partial
8. For 50% of participants to be new to the space sector.	It is difficult to assess at this stage. While 84% of companies consider their business to (now) be within the space sector, it is unclear whether they are new to the industry. Based on contextual knowledge, we identified many companies that are new or have recently entered the sector. However, measuring this against the objective remains challenging, as no specific survey question was fielded.	Partial

Source: know.space

4.2 Conclusions and next steps

There is substantial evidence demonstrating positive outcomes across multiple dimensions for the 160 businesses that participated, and the follow-up analysis with approximately 50 businesses one year post-participation reveals an encouraging longer-term impact story. The Accelerator has had a positive impact on company growth, enabling first-time space sector revenue generation, improving knowledge and skills, and fostering valuable collaborations and partnerships.

To pick out a single finding which is perhaps indicative of the benefits that the Accelerator is bringing to participants, 99% (66 out of 67 respondents) stated that they would recommend the UK Space Agency Accelerator to other entrepreneurs in the space sector^{[footnote 20]}:.

For some indicators, it is difficult to distinguish the programme’s direct contributions from companies’ natural growth trajectories. In some cases, qualitative evidence and specific examples demonstrate the connection.

However, the most important measures of the Accelerator’s effectiveness are not yet observable: whether they survive, successfully commercialise new products and services, attract further investment, and establish meaningful market share in the space sector.

Therefore, to fully understand the programme’s success, independent monitoring and evaluation should be implemented to produce more accurate and credible evidence regarding the programme’s impacts. The picture we present here is very much one of an emerging impact story.

Additionally, improvements in data collection methodology could address some current limitations. This report relies substantially on self-reported opinion data, which can be subject to optimism bias or imperfect recall. The assessment of benefits could be improved with administrative data on longer-term outcomes (e.g. eventual firm survival and attributable revenue). It would also benefit from more objective survey measures of participants’ knowledge and skills. Participants’ progress could be recorded systematically at the start and end of the Accelerator, for example recording the number of their potential users identified, the number of users contacted, the number of user responses to contacts, number of users participating in the startup’s market research. Shifting the evidence to objective measures of participant knowledge and activity, and away from opinion surveys, would strengthen the benefit case for the Accelerator and inform future programme and policy decisions.

---

1. know.consulting ltd. (CRN: 12152408; VAT: 333424820), trading as know.space ↩

2. Originally developed by NASA, Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) are a measurement system used to assess the maturity of a particular technology, from basic research (TRL1-2) through to full maturity (TRL9). ↩

3. Canvas businesses tools are used as a diagnostic, planning and modelling tool to identify areas of strength and weakness to form a strategy. The Accelerator developed its own space industry-specific Canvas (for each of the Explore, Leo and Geo programmes), the answers of which were used in their first 1:1 session, helping them set priorities for the programme ahead. ↩

4. The application survey was a prerequisite to joining the Accelerator, whereas this was not the case for the survey conducted after the Accelerator concluded, i.e. there are likely to be lower incentives to respond. ↩

5. We only had data for 93 companies for employment at start and end of their Accelerator participation. For these companies, the average increase in employment was 0.85 FTE. To calculate the estimated average for the wider population, we then apply this average to the 132 companies that completed the exit survey (not the total population of 160, as we view employment impacts as less likely for those who were not responding at this stage) to generate the estimated total of 112 jobs. ↩

6. Revenue changes across the programme are highly sensitive to outliers. For example, in the Leo cohort, removing the lowest revenue change (-£115k per month) would shift the average to a positive (+£2k). Moreover, revenue changes are often unrelated to Accelerator participation, as numerous other factors influence business performance and drive change. ↩

7. For contextualising these figures, it is important to recognise that not all businesses require external funding. ↩

8. Myriota UK Ltd (a Geo cohort company) secured £25m in Australian public funding during their Accelerator participation; however, this amount has been excluded from the financial impact figures due to unclear attribution between the programme and this overseas investment. ↩

9. ‘Other’ includes bootstrapping, commercial revenue and investment from family and friends. ↩

10. Note: As discussed in the introduction, there are fewer responses at ‘End’ for each question. Attrition may arise from companies entering insolvency or from dropping out of the Accelerator, or simply as due to reduced incentives to respond after completion. This creates some risk of bias towards well-performing companies, and/or those who benefitted from Accelerator participation. ↩

11. London Economics (2023). Europe’s space sector: unlocking potential through R&D. Available from: https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/europes-space-sector-unlocking-potential-through-rd/ ↩

12. As above, see caveat on attrition. ↩

13. Sample quote: “Engaging with seasoned professionals in the legal, finance, and space sectors through accelerator workshops and training expanded my knowledge in areas like IP strategy.” ↩

14. The Alison Rose Review of Female Entrepreneurship Progress Report 2025. Available from: https://twk.pm/3grrk5aggw ↩

15. know.space (2023). Size & Health of the UK Space Industry 2022, for UK Space Agency. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6426b014fbe620000f17da19/know.space-Size_Health2022-SummaryReport.pdf ↩

16. PwC. Women in tech: Time to close the gender gap. Available from: https://www.pwc.co.uk/who-we-are/her-tech-talent/time-to-close-the-gender-gap.html ↩

17. This is based on a combination of information collected at application stage (Explore 2, Leo, Geo) and at exit stage (Explore 1), Data should be collected at application stage for all cohorts in future. ↩

18. know.space (2023). Size & Health of the UK Space Industry 2022, for UK Space Agency. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6426b014fbe620000f17da19/know.space-Size_Health2022-SummaryReport.pdf ↩

19. ibid ↩

20. This question was not asked for two-thirds of the Explore cohorts; some participants missed it entirely. ↩