Agnikul Eyeing 50 Satellite Launches Annually, Says Founder Srinath Ravichandran

For decades, space exploration was largely dominated by a handful of global powers. Today, India is no longer knocking on that door, it has earned a seat at the table. A string of scientific milestones, frugal engineering and indigenous innovation has turned the country into one of the world's fastest-rising space powers.

For the most part, India's space ecosystem was driven almost entirely by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), with private companies largely confined to supplying components and manufacturing hardware. 

That changed in 2020, when the government opened the sector to private participation and established the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe) as an independent regulator and facilitator.

The reforms allowed private firms to build, own and operate space assets, laying the foundation for a SpaceX-style commercial ecosystem. But rather than taking on SpaceX head-on, India is carving out a niche in the global launch market by focusing on small satellites weighing under 300 kg destined for low-Earth orbits. 

Companies such as Skyroot Aerospace and Agnikul Cosmos are developing indigenous launch vehicles, advanced propulsion systems and 3D-printed rocket technologies to enable faster, lower-cost launches at scale. 

Their long-term ambition is to compete for global satellite launch contracts, although matching SpaceX's scale and reliability will require years of technological refinement and significantly deeper pools of capital.

Founded in 2017 by Srinath Ravichandran and Moin SPM, Agnikul Cosmos designs and manufactures orbital-class launch vehicles, with a focus on dedicated small-satellite launches using 3D-printed engines. It has so far raised over $78 Mn in funding from investors like Artha Venture Fund, 100X.VC, Speciale Invest, Pi Ventures and LetsVenture. 

It signed the ICEYE MoU last month, which broadened Agnikul from launch provider into a fuller space-ecosystem partner for satellite manufacturing, launch, and operations. After 4 aborted launches, the company first launched its rocket Agnibaan SOrTeD successfully in May 2024 from India’s first private launchpad near Sriharikota. 

The company is now shifting its focus from proving its technology to scaling it commercially. Rather than measuring progress by revenue alone, Agnikul benchmarks itself against launch cadence, arguing that frequent launches are the only way to demonstrate the reliability customers demand. 

"We always think of it in blocks of three launches. One successful mission is a milestone, but customers care about reliability, and reliability comes only after repeated launches," Srinath Ravichandran, cofounder and CEO of Agnikul Cosmos, told Outlook Business.

That philosophy underpins the company's long-term roadmap. Ravichandran says Agnikul is targeting up to 50 launches a year by 2030, roughly one launch every week, enabled by reusable technologies, rapid turnaround and repeatable manufacturing. 

"With recovery, repeatability and the technology we have, a launch per week is definitely possible over the next five years," he says, adding that India's challenge is no longer one of capability but of demand. 

"Earlier, the space programme was mission-driven. Today, it is becoming increasingly commercial. The philosophy has shifted from executing one mission after another to enabling multiple launches a year while keeping costs low."

In the conversation with Outlook Business, Ravichandran explained how his company is trying to differentiate itself in India's launch vehicle market, how its rockets can become satellites, how the business model extends beyond launch fees and why the future of space transportation lies in reusability, flexibility and recurring revenue.

Q. As India's private launch ecosystem evolves, where do you see your company positioned, especially alongside players like Skyroot?

A. On the launch vehicle side, Skyroot is also there. There are a few newer players who have set up shop, maybe in the US. Still, among the companies with reasonably mature technology, from whatever information is publicly available, I think it's Skyroot and us. We both have very different approaches to solving the problem, but I think we are at fairly comparable levels of maturity.

The difference is in the technology. We build liquid propulsion-driven systems. Our engines are semi-cryogenic engines. Because of that, we are able to attempt recovery of the rocket directly, since reusable systems of this kind are not possible with solid rockets.

Liquid propellant engines are also much more efficient than solid propellant engines. We took the effort to go through the entire process of 3D printing engines so that we can offer these advantages to customers.

Ultimately, the problem all of us are trying to solve is getting customers to orbit.

We believe what is missing in today's market, even with ISRO and SpaceX, is flexibility. Flexibility in pricing, flexibility in timelines, flexibility in getting satellites to the right orbit.

To solve that, we have developed technologies across every aspect of the business.

From a design standpoint, there is the modularity aspect and continuous mini-iterations of our systems. From a manufacturing standpoint, there is extensive use of 3D printing and automation. The entire rocket engine is 3D printed in a single shot.

From an operations standpoint, there is reusability and recovery. Our rocket is capable of being recovered and reused. The upper stage is also retained in space and used as an orbital platform.

So across design, manufacturing and operations, we are solving the flexibility problem. That's how we are different. It isn't just another small rocket. It's a complete launch system solution where we take care of flexibility end-to-end.

Q. You've spoken about a 'Rocket-as-a-Satellite' model. What exactly does that mean, and how does it change your business model?

A. We actually call it a Rocket-as-a-Satellite model.

Normally, the upper stage of every rocket reaches orbit along with the satellite and then becomes debris. We've developed technologies that allow the upper stage to continue functioning as its own satellite platform.

That allows us to monetise the upper stage while also helping customers because they don't always need to build an entire satellite. They can directly integrate with the upper stage of our rocket.

The upper stage of Agnibaan itself becomes a satellite. We launch as a rocket and become a satellite in orbit. That reduces manufacturing costs and launch costs because launch pricing depends on kilograms sent into space.

It becomes attractive for customers while allowing us to monetise something that would otherwise be discarded. Meanwhile, the lower stage returns and lands on a barge around 150 kilometres southeast of Sriharikota. So it's a win-win for both customers and us.

Fundamentally, it's still space transportation, but now there are two revenue models. One is dollars per kilogram, which is the launch business.

The second is dollars per month because once someone uses our orbital platform, it effectively becomes a leasing model. Since we're hosting them, payments are linked to time as well.

Let's say you're a satellite operator who wants to place a camera in space. Traditionally, you would build an entire satellite around that camera and launch it. That's the typical dollars-per-kilogram business where I charge you based on the mass you send to orbit.

What we're offering is an alternative. Instead of building a full satellite, you simply give me your camera. I'll mount it directly onto my upper stage, which already has sufficient hardware to function as a satellite.

There are two advantages. First, you don't need to build a complete satellite. Second, you're paying only for the camera's mass rather than the entire satellite's mass.

Beyond launch charges, because we're now hosting your payload for, say, five years, you can also pay us on a dollars-per-month basis as a rental model.

Q. What does your growth roadmap look like? Do you have a launch target or revenue milestone in mind over the next five years?

A. Yeah, we have targets. Again, everything scales with the number of launches.

We always think of launches in blocks of three. Even now, we're preparing for three launches together because one successful launch is a good milestone, but customers care about reliability. Reliability comes with multiple launches.

Right now, we're looking at Missions 2, 3 and 4 together. With the learnings from those, Missions 5, 6 and 7 will happen, and one of those missions will also attempt recovery again.

The other part of the business, like extending the upper stage and using it as a satellite platform, scales with the number of months and the number of assets we have in space.

By 2030, it is possible to attempt even 50 launches a year.

These numbers are, of course, based on how the market evolves and how much capacity comes up. But roughly, the plan over the next five years is that with recovery, repeatability and the technology we have built, achieving one launch every week is possible.

Q. How does this improve the economics for both you and your customers?

A. It depends on a lot of factors, so it's difficult to simplify.

Normally, it's a negative working capital business. A customer comes, pays a certain dollars-per-kilogram charge and once the satellite reaches orbit, the relationship effectively ends.

We're changing that. We don't want to throw away the upper stage, and customers benefit as well. So now there is a recurring revenue stream.

Suppose it costs $1 million to build a satellite. Let's say the camera itself costs $500,000 while the remaining $500,000 is for all the supporting hardware.

That hardware can come from us. We can offer it at a discount because we've already built it. Then instead of paying upfront, the customer can spread that discounted cost over 60 months.

This significantly lowers upfront costs and converts them into recurring payments. Most systems are designed for four to five years.

It's completely optional. If someone already has a fully built satellite, we simply launch it and charge on a dollars-per-kilogram basis. If they want to use our upper stage as a satellite platform, we can combine both services.

There can even be a third scenario where another customer's primary satellite is being launched while the remaining payload capacity is used for our rental platform.

Essentially, every mission gives us an opportunity to place one additional satellite in orbit instead of discarding the upper stage.

Normally, the upper stage has to follow deorbiting protocols and eventually burn up. Instead of wasting it, we thought we'd monetise it.

Customers also liked the idea because we're offering more than transportation—we're providing hardware and operational life.

Q. Large Indian companies often acquire startups but rarely invest in deep R&D-led ventures. Why do you think that is?

A. Yeah, I think you're right.

I'm not exactly sure why, but probably because their DNA has been built more around manufacturing and operations rather than design. So it probably feels a little foreign for them to acquire or invest heavily in companies whose strengths have been built ground-up through technology.

I think the trend has to start somewhere. Maybe a few companies will begin doing it, and then it will gradually pick up.

As a country, we've largely been a "Made in India" manufacturing story. We've developed a lot of expertise and success around manufacturing and operations.

A startup, however, usually builds its strength around design. Once that design-led approach comes in, traditional players often find it difficult to evaluate what it really means and how it can eventually translate into manufacturing.

I think that's the gap we're seeing today.

With more success stories emerging from design-led companies, and with people seeing successful examples from outside India, I think this trend will also start picking up here.

Q. Space is a long-gestation business with inherent technical risks. How do venture capital investors react to delays and launch failures?

A. I think investors generally understand that delays can happen. That's become somewhat common knowledge now. They've also seen enough failures globally to understand that failures are not something unheard of.

For us, what has worked well is taking investors through the same journey that we're going through. It's important to keep them informed. It's important to tell them about the obstacles. Tell them what can go wrong.

At the same time, explain how you're managing those risks. Ultimately, it's a risk management problem.

Traditionally, investors are also people who take calculated bets. They understand the concepts of taking risk, hedging risk and gradually de-risking an investment. Technology is simply one way in which those risks manifest.

Suppose I develop a new rocket engine and tell investors that there is a risk involved. The obvious question becomes: What are you doing to reduce that risk? What are your backup strategies?

If a mission gets delayed or experiences multiple aborts, what are you doing to ensure that doesn't happen again?

These aren't problems that are completely outside our control. They're engineering problems. And engineering problems generally have engineering solutions if they're properly understood.

Since companies like ours are still in the design and development phase, sometimes certain parameters get overlooked, and that can lead to launch aborts.

That's exactly what happened with us. We focused much more on the design and development of the rocket than on launch operations. As a result, we had a few operational lessons to learn.

Now that we've learnt them, we'll approach the next mission much more carefully from the launch operations perspective as well. That significantly reduces the risk of similar aborts happening again.

But the important thing is to communicate all of this openly with investors. Everyone should understand the same challenges. Everyone should have the same information.

When everyone has the same mindset regarding the risks and how they're being managed, it really helps.

Q. Does every successful launch significantly reduce future risks? Which all factors play major role? Could rockets one day become as reliable as commercial aviation?

A. For your first few launches, you're extremely conservative. You build in a lot of safety margins. Even if there's a very small probability of something going wrong, you simply don't proceed with the launch. That's how early missions are conducted.

But as you complete more launches, you gather more data. Every launch teaches you something. You learn what worked well.

Gradually, you begin operating with tighter margins. You become comfortable launching even when the weather isn't perfect, but is still manageable. All of those learnings start compounding over time.

What usually happens is that as your launch cadence increases, you become more comfortable pushing the boundaries.

Early flights are fundamentally different. They're really about calibrating launch operations. Later flights are about applying those learnings.

That's why you're able to deal with weather uncertainties much better. Of course, weather will always remain a factor.

It's very similar to aviation. Weather can delay flights. It can shut down airports. It can make landings difficult. Some amount of uncertainty will always remain.

I think we'll eventually get there, but we're definitely not there yet. Commercial aviation has benefited from nearly a hundred years of technological maturity.

Rockets are only now entering the production era. Until recently, rockets were always mission-specific. People built rockets to launch a few satellites, send missions to the Moon or Mars, or undertake specific scientific missions.

For the first time, people are beginning to think of rockets as transportation systems. Can they repeatedly fly? Can they return? Can they be reused? Can they operate routinely?

Once you start optimising rockets for those objectives, everything begins improving. The tolerances become better. The margins become better. The systems become more robust.

And over time, I believe they'll become comparable to flying.

Q. India still conducts far fewer launches than countries like the US and China. What are the key bottlenecks, and how do customers build confidence in Indian private launch companies?

A. I don't think it's really a capability bottleneck or even a capacity bottleneck. It's more about what the mission plans are.

Earlier, the ecosystem wasn't very mission-driven. The focus was on executing one mission after another. Today, space is becoming a much more commercial business, and the philosophy has shifted towards carrying out multiple launches every year while keeping costs low. That's the biggest change—we're now thinking about launches at scale rather than isolated missions.

From the customer side, confidence comes from demonstrating that the technology works. It really depends on how you convince the customer and what they see. It also depends on the kind of testing you've already completed. Our previous test, for example, was a fairly complex mission where multiple technologies were demonstrated.

At the end of the day, customers are trusting us with something extremely valuable. They simply want to know whether the system works. That's really what they're evaluating. There's nothing unusual about that. If you're putting something precious on our rocket, it's natural for customers to first verify that the system performs as expected.