<h1 id="the-ultimate-guide-to-your-esa-bic-application">The Ultimate Guide to your ESA BIC application</h1> You want to be a space entrepreneur, you have an idea for a space business and you live in (or you are realistically able to relocate to) one of the 23 ESA countries. You’ve come to the right place. In this guide <ol type="1"> <li><a href="#background">Background: what ESA BIC is</a> <ul> <li><a href="#evaluation">About the evaluation</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="#before-your-esa-bic-application-doing-your-homework">Doing your homework</a> <ul> <li><a href="#homework1">Homework 1: your value proposition</a></li> <li><a href="#homework2">Homework 2: an ode to feasibility</a></li> <li><a href="#generaltips">General tips before diving in</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="#bpguide">The Business Plan, step by step</a> <ul> <li><a href="#execsummary">The Executive Summary</a></li> <li><a href="#team">Team and company setup</a></li> <li><a href="#valueprop">Value Proposition</a></li> <li><a href="#productservice">Product/Service in depth</a></li> <li><a href="#market">Market Analysis</a></li> <li><a href="#businessmodel">The Business Model</a></li> <li><a href="#risk">Risk</a></li> <li><a href="#financing">Costs, financing, projections</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="#ipguide">The Incubation Proposal, step by step</a> <ul> <li><a href="#section-1-vs-section-2-should-you-even-apply-for-boost">Should you apply for Boost?</a></li> <li><a href="#the-activity-proposal">The Activity Proposal</a></li> <li><a href="#management">Management</a></li> <li><a href="#financing-and-funding-request">Financing and Funding Request</a></li> <li><a href="#support-request">Support Request</a></li> <li><a href="#section-2-boost-funding">Section 2: Boost Funding</a></li> <li><a href="#tying-it-all-back-together">Tying it all back together</a></li> <li><a href="#the-five-minute-consistency-check">The five-minute consistency check</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="#finishing">Finishing thoughts</a> <ul> <li><a href="#an-unofficial-remark-about-using-ai-in-your-esa-bic-application">Using AI in your application</a></li> <li><a href="#dont-get-disqualified-on-a-technicality">Don’t get disqualified on a technicality</a></li> <li><a href="#preparing-for-the-esa-bic-tender-evaluation-board-meeting">Preparing for the TEB meeting</a></li> <li><a href="#parting-words">Parting words</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="#faq">Frequently asked questions</a></li> </ol> I have written this guide to dramatically increase your chances of getting into ESA BIC. But first, who am I and why should you listen to me? My name is Balazs and I’m a space mentor, I help space startups be better at business. I have worked with more than 100 space companies in programmes like Techstars Space Accelerator, the UK Space Agency Accelerator, the EU Space Academy, the CASSINI Business Accelerator and (you guessed it), ESA BIC. In the context of ESA BIC, I have been a mentor and also an evaluator. Read and evaluated applications and sat on Tender Evaluation Boards that decide on which company to accept into the programme. Also, my company, Astro42 has also developed software for several ESA BIC portfolio companies. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Space Agency. I am not employed by, nor do I officially represent the European Space Agency in any capacity. <img src="undefined" srcset="undefined 720w, undefined 1024w" sizes="(min-width: 768px) 730px, 88vw" width="1024" height="876" loading="lazy" decoding="async" alt="Balazs Slezak, founder and CEO of Astro42 and an ESA BIC mentor and evaluator" /> Balazs Slezak, founder and CEO of Astro42 But enough about me (<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/balazsslezak/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">check out my LinkedIn if you’d like to learn more</a>). Let’s talk about how YOU will get into ESA BIC – which might be the start of the next breakthrough in the space industry. What you’ll find in this guide: <ul> <li>Background (What is ESA BIC and what to expect from the evaluators)</li> <li>Doing your homework before your application (value proposition, feasibility, scope)</li> <li>The step by step guide to filling out your ESA BIC Business Plan</li> <li>The step by step guide to filling out your ESA BIC Incubation Proposal</li> <li>Finishing thoughts (using AI, preparation for your pitch meeting)</li> </ul> <h2 id="background">Background</h2> First let’s talk about what the European Space Agency’s Business Incubation Centres (ESA BICs) are, and what they aren’t. The ESA BICs are initiatives by the European Space Agency to support startups and entrepreneurs in developing space-related business ideas. They provide equity-free funding (usually around 60 000 EUR; the exact amount and the currency vary by BIC, so always use your own BIC’s precise figure when you write your application documents), technical expertise, office space, and business mentoring to help incubate and accelerate innovative companies. Thus, applying for ESA BIC is not an academic grant application. It’s more like trying to convince an investor to invest in your startup. Which IT IS! ESA is investing European taxpayers’ money into the future of the space industry (and it has paid off massively, resulting in some of the largest European space juggernauts like Isar Aerospace, D-Orbit, The Exploration Company, ATMOS Space Cargo, Open Cosmos, Kinexon and the list goes on). The combined value of ESA BIC incubated companies is estimated to be 12 billion EUR. So when the Tender Evaluation Board (TEB) reads your application, the main question they ask is: does this company have the potential to create immense value <ul> <li>in space,</li> <li>for space,</li> <li>on Earth, making use of space?</li> </ul> <h3 id="evaluation">About the evaluation</h3> There are some formal aspects that can immediately disqualify the company. They first ensure the application is complete, correctly formatted, and meets basic eligibility requirements, such as: <ul> <li>being a legal entity in the BIC’s region</li> <li>incorporated not more than 5 years ago</li> <li>having a clear space connection</li> <li>founders keeping majority control: more than half of the shares must be owned, directly or indirectly, by the entrepreneurs applying, and the company must fit the EU definition of an SME</li> </ul> Be sure to complete the cover letter and the compliance checklist, and have someone double check it. One more trap hiding in plain sight: the cover letter and the requirement checklists must be signed by the majority shareholder, or by shareholders whose combined ownership exceeds 50%. A perfectly good application signed by the wrong person is a formal non-compliance. Most BICs allow applying without a legal entity, provided you incorporate immediately after the positive decision. Check local rules. (The incubation contract can only be signed by a legal entity.) So you’ve managed to not immediately disqualify yourself. Good job. Now you’ll need to achieve a score high enough to be recommended for the funding. So let’s see the scoring criteria and their weighting. <table> <thead> <tr class="header"> <th>Category Name</th> <th>Percent</th> <th>Description</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr class="odd"> <td>Background and Experience</td> <td>25%</td> <td>Evaluates the team’s qualifications, entrepreneurial track record, complementary skills (e.g., technical and business expertise), relevant experience in space or related fields, your support entities, and the credibility of your vision. A strong, diverse team with demonstrated competence increases the score, while skill gaps can weaken it.</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Technology/Service</td> <td>20%</td> <td>Assesses the space connection, the technical feasibility and innovation level of the solution, the development strategy, and your intellectual property strategy. Maturity is measured on the Innovation Readiness Level scale (IRL, typically entering around 3 and aiming for 5 to 6 by the end of incubation; see the Readiness Level section below). Prototypes or beyond-concept stages are preferred.</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Value Proposition & Market</td> <td>20%</td> <td>Focuses on the market potential, commercial viability, customer appeal, and value proposition, including a clear business case, high exploitation potential, and scalability beyond niche markets (e.g., European or international expansion). Dependence on ESA as the sole customer is a weakness.</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Business Modelling and Risk</td> <td>15%</td> <td>Reviews the revenue model, the financial plan, the risk assessment and mitigation strategies, addressing challenges like market risks, competition, and scalability. Realistic models with socio-economic impact (e.g., job creation) score higher.</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Activity Proposal</td> <td>20%</td> <td>Examines the incubation plan’s realism, quality, milestones and cost planning, work break-down, and management, ensuring alignment with the ESA BIC support on offer (incentive funding, technical expertise). It should demonstrate why your company is a good investment opportunity for the ESA BIC and how incubation will move you towards product and market readiness.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Each category is scored on a 100-point scale. You will not find pass thresholds printed anywhere in the application pack, but in my experience from sitting on evaluation boards, the working rule is roughly this: score at least 40 in every category to stay in the game, and land a weighted total above 60 to be recommended for funding. To be completely realistic, a company that gets 100 points on every criteria is so advanced they definitely don’t need the ~60k EUR. Instead, you are going to follow the lead of one of my favourite TV characters, Jeff Winger: <video class="meme" autoplay loop muted playsinline preload="none" width="400" height="222" poster="undefined" aria-label="Jeff Winger from the TV show Community is aiming for a doable and passable ESA BIC application."><source src="undefined" type="video/mp4" />Jeff Winger from the TV show Community is aiming for a doable and passable ESA BIC application.</video> <h2 id="before-your-esa-bic-application-doing-your-homework">Before your ESA BIC application: doing your homework</h2> I know you’d want to dive right into filling out the application, but please resist the temptation for now. If you don’t get the fundamentals right, it will all be in vain. (Even if you get the funding, you will fail eventually. Then what’s the point?) You need to do your homework first. <h3 id="homework1">Homework Part 1: your value proposition</h3> Let’s start with the section where most companies are disqualified (and the reason why most startups fail, in general). Evaluation criteria are public knowledge, and they are in principle roughly equal. But one is more equal than the others (pardon the Orwell reference). And it’s the “value proposition and market”. It represents 20% of the score, but it’s the most important one. And you’re almost guaranteed to screw it up if you go into it “Idea First”, as opposed to “Problem First”. Well, unless you’re Henry Ford, Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. Once in a generation someone stumbles upon an idea so good that it creates its own market. But the odds are not in your favour. The vast majority of startups fail because they fail to create a product the market has a demand for. ESA BIC evaluators know this. So then, how to make something people want? I have dedicated most of my adult life either trying to do it or trying to help countless companies answer this question, and could write books about this (possibly I will!), but to try to simplify it. Fall in love with the problem, not the solution. (Also, the title of a <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Love-Problem-Solution-entrepreneurs/dp/1786788063/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">great book</a>. Not an affiliate link.) If you try to invent problems and try to solve them in a vacuum, i.e. without talking to potential customers/users, you’re gonna have a bad time. <img src="undefined" width="320" height="240" loading="lazy" decoding="async" alt="The ski instructor from South Park is warning you to do your homework before your ESA BIC application. Otherwise, you're gonna have a bad time." /> Most failed startups don’t even manage to identify a real problem the target market faces, let alone build a product they need. Validating the problem Of course, you already have an idea of the SOLUTION. What your product will do, maybe even what it will look like. Well, this is how the human mind works. It’s not just you. But it’s still a trap. You have to take a step back. Actually, a few steps back. From your assumed solution, trace back what PROBLEM the customers would solve with it. But of course the other way around is always much better. Find problems and think of ways to solve them. Really important: if it’s a “tragedy of the commons” type problem, that is, it’s a problem for everybody (wildfires, climate change, space debris), it’s going to be very easy to validate the problem, and VERY hard to find anyone to pay for the solution. Still, you have to have an assumption. Example. Your product idea is a software solution that uses telescopic images of asteroids to determine which contains what materials. On the surface, this is an amazing product idea. Hip, sexy. Let’s take a step back. Who would be interested? For instance, asteroid mining companies. What question to ask them? Should you ask them “hey, this is the product I’m making: [lengthy description]. Would you like to use it when it’s ready?” No. Objection, your honour. Leading the witness. How about “How do you currently evaluate which asteroid to pick when planning your exploratory mission?” Much better question, because they might give you more info than you initially expected. For instance, their answer can be in three categories: <ul> <li>“We have an assumption, but currently we don’t care. We’ll cross this bridge when we get there, 15 years from now.” → you didn’t invalidate the problem, but you might be too early. Time to think in 4 dimensions, Marty. Think of ways to create value with your core value proposition in the meantime, possibly on Earth. But all in all, back to the drawing board!</li> <li>“There is an open NASA database with near-earth asteroids already, and we mostly know the metal content of most of them. And it’s free.” → problem disqualified. Lucky you haven’t spent six months building the software.</li> <li>“Well, we have an in-house team that does the computation. It takes us 2-3 days to analyse an asteroid. And we need to pick the first one soon for our exploratory mission.” → now you’re on to something. This is something they already spend resources on, it’s timely, and it’s highly relevant to their business. Problem validated, time to take the next steps!!!</li> </ul> There is no way to sugarcoat it. Talk to the potential customers! Even if (especially if!) you won’t be able to actually sell them anything in 10 years. If you’re a first time entrepreneur and you have no idea how to go about it, here’s a crash course in one paragraph. Pick 50 people from your ideal customer persona on LinkedIn, and add each of them as a connection. The initial message can be along the lines of “Hi, I’m a student/researcher/entrepreneur and I’m working on a solution and trying to validate a concept that would solve [problem] for [industry/niche]. Could you spare 15 minutes to answer some questions?” Most of these people will ghost you. That’s the reality of the game. However, statistically, some of them will answer. And if no one was interested in solving the problem enough to warrant a response… well, there’s your answer. The problem/pain point is not painful enough. Again, back to the drawing board. There are three meaningful deliverables resulting from this exercise: <ol type="1"> <li>Your Ideal Customer Persona (ICP) – validated</li> <li>The problem that needs to be solved – validated</li> <li>Your value proposition concept (how you’re going to solve the problem) – assumption, not necessarily validated yet</li> </ol> <h3 id="homework2">Homework Part 2: An ode to feasibility</h3> The other most common thing applicants are disqualified over is they dream too big with no credible path to get there. Yes, you must have a grand vision. But if you can’t show credible and realistic steps to get there, you’re not visionary, you’re delusional. Have an ambitious long term vision, but be extremely realistic in what you want to achieve using roughly €60k within your BIC’s incubation window. Typically that window is 18 months; many BICs let you request up to 24, so if your work is R&D heavy, ask your BIC whether a longer period is possible and justify it in your Incubation Proposal. This means, more often than not, your best course is to DECREASE THE SCOPE drastically!!! Also, when in doubt, go back to the PAIN POINT, and think about different ways to solve it. The best way to do it is to deeply understand what the customers are trying to achieve. Two examples: <ul> <li>The problem is low lifespan of spacecraft due to running out of fuel. Two completely different ways to solve it: in-orbit refueling OR designing better systems to make the same amount of fuel last longer.</li> <li>Instead of building your own hardware, develop a software solution that leverages existing capabilities. Or vice versa.</li> </ul> Sometimes you can build a completely marketable solution in the allotted time and budget (e.g. when your product is a SaaS application), but when it’s a more R&D intensive endeavour, the time and budget will only allow you to take a small step towards your ultimate goal. Best practice is, determine what your riskiest technical assumption is, and find a way to de-risk it. In an ideal scenario, your time in ESA BIC de-risks both the business side and the technical side enough to become investment-ready. So how to be a visionary instead of delusional? Let’s see some examples. Delusional: Build a vertically integrated launch service to compete with SpaceX Realistic 1: Build a proof of concept of a new design for a small launch vehicle propulsion system that has a realistic chance of outperforming the existing competition in one particular niche. Realistic 2: Build a software platform where smallsat operators can book rideshare missions on small launchers. (Uber for satellites.) Delusional: New constellation to monitor forests Realistic 1: SaaS solution that leverages existing satellite imagery for forest monitoring Realistic 2: Prototype of a new design of a Lidar sensor that could be used for more effective forest monitoring Good examples of a realistic, reduced scope: <ul> <li>Digital 3D model, 3D printed prototype</li> <li>Computational engineering design, simulation (no physical hardware)</li> <li>Breadboard prototype</li> <li>Testing your payload on a stratospheric balloon (as opposed to LEO)</li> <li>Software with drastically decreased functionality. One key function, nothing else. Think Tinder’s first version (swiping) or Snapchat (disappearing photos).</li> <li>Software with only one key customer persona in mind (solving the problem for forestry, but not for agriculture or mining. Solving the problem for Earth Observation cubesats in LEO only, not larger satellites in MEO or GEO)</li> <li>In case of a novel algorithm, a Jupyter Notebook demo or visualisation</li> <li>Flipping the script and solving the problem in a completely different way (e.g. software instead of hardware)</li> </ul> After you’ve validated the problem and the customers, and confirmed that your goal is realistic, you need to decide what exactly you’re going to apply with. The best practice is pick one not too big initial target market, and one particular problem, and aim to solve it. Common mistakes: <ul> <li>too many value propositions masquerading as one (a.k.a. swiss army knife approach or the “super app syndrome”)</li> <li>the consulting business masquerading as a startup (this one is not just weak positioning: the compliance checklist formally requires that consultancy is not your main business activity, so it can sink you before scoring even starts)</li> <li>too complicated (if you can’t explain it to your grandma in 5 sentences, the TEB is probably going to throw it out, saying that you don’t understand it yourself)</li> <li>full of jargon (extra minus points if it’s non-space jargon)</li> <li>idea or initial market too big, with no credible roadmap to get there (I’m building the next SpaceX.)</li> <li>nonexistent market</li> <li>targeting too many markets at the same time</li> </ul> The goal you want to achieve with ESA BIC doesn’t have to (and shouldn’t) be your ultimate vision, but an important milestone in getting there. If you are building something truly extraordinary, you will need several rounds of venture capital funding (each round to reach another milestone). So what is a minimum viable milestone? (Typically, successfully tests/validates one or very few core assumptions. Preferably your riskiest assumption.) Now is the time to do some extra research: what do you need to reach that milestone? How much money? Partners? Human resources? If you need too much money, your best bet is to reduce the scope further. Evaluate very honestly the current skills that you have on your team, and what gaps there are. It’s fine if there are gaps, but have a plan to fill them. The evaluators are seasoned professionals and WILL see the gaps, and they are giving you minus points if you fail to identify them. Do you need a hardware manufacturer? Contact them. Now. Ask for an estimate. You need to buy commercial-off-the-shelf equipment? Software licenses? Do your research, how much is it? How are you going to handle software development, if any? Do you want to outsource software development? <a href="/contact-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Contact us</a> 🙂 But in all seriousness, evaluate different options (the founders doing it themselves, hire freelancers, hire a software development agency, vibe-code it? There is no wrong answer here, but you have to have an answer.) Be mindful though, some ESA BICs allow some portion of the funding to go to salaries (founders and employees), however in some of them any sort of human resource cost is not eligible. In that case, you will have to outsource. Check your particular ESA BIC for guidance. <h3 id="generaltips">General tips before diving in</h3> Before you start filling out your application, I’d like to give you two tips that can multiply your chances of a successful application. Get in touch with your local BIC beforehand Write to them and tell them you’re planning on applying. Ask for a meeting, build relationships. Ask for tips and tricks. Ask questions if you’re unsure about something on the compliance checklist. Some BICs are even willing to give you concrete feedback on your application documents if you send them early drafts. At some BICs, making contact before applying is not just good practice but a formal requirement on the checklist. It really matters, do it. Don’t leave it to the last minute I know it’s easier said than done, but try to submit your final application a week before the deadline (consider it your internal deadline). Which means, more often than not, start working on it as soon as possible. Two reasons for this. One, you have a buffer in case something unexpected happens. Two, in case you make a mistake that can be interpreted as non-compliance in the compliance checklist, or you forget to attach one of the three mandatory documents, even the stricter BICs might get back to you and ask you to rectify before the deadline. <blockquote> Six things to confirm with your own BIC before you write a single number The templates are common across the ESA BIC network, but the money and the rules around it are local. Before drafting, confirm with your BIC: <ol type="1"> <li>The exact amount of funding and the currency.</li> <li>The incubation length you can request.</li> <li>Which cost categories are eligible, especially salaries.</li> <li>The payment schedule: how much of the funding arrives up front, how much at the mid-term and final reviews, and how much is paid only against evidence of spending.</li> <li>Physical presence expectations at the incubator.</li> <li>How resubmissions are handled if you are rejected.</li> </ol> </blockquote> <hr /> <h2 id="bpguide">The step by step guide to filling out your ESA BIC Business Plan</h2> Now that you’ve done your homework, you have an existing painful problem to solve, and a realistic approach to get to your first milestone, now is the time to download the application documents and start filling them out. It might seem daunting at first, but bear with me. The application documents themselves are an amazing resource full of guidance, instructions, tips and tricks. ESA wants you to succeed. So I’m not going to repeat the content of the documents, so the following guide is to be interpreted TOGETHER with the application documents. (I’m only going to repeat points that I find critically important, and if I have nothing to add to the blue text, I’ll skip that section entirely.) Before you start getting overwhelmed by the sheer number of documents, don’t panic. Most of the docs are for reading only. DO NOT start filling out the Incubation Contract Template (you can safely ignore it entirely for now, cross that bridge when you get to it, as in, accepted). There are two important documents to fill out, the Business Plan and the Incubation Proposal. There is also an official Tables & Figures spreadsheet in the pack with ready-made SWOT, Risk, Profit and Loss, Plan (Gantt) and Funding sheets. Use it. You fill in the sheets and paste them into your documents as figures; rebuilding these tables from scratch only invites formatting drift. Also, important to note that each BIC has a slightly different template for these documents, so always work from the version your own BIC publishes. That said, let’s dive in. <video class="meme" autoplay loop muted playsinline preload="none" width="500" height="202" poster="undefined" aria-label="Getting started on the ESA BIC Business Plan (the Dark Knight “and here we go” meme)."><source src="undefined" type="video/mp4" />Getting started on the ESA BIC Business Plan (the Dark Knight “and here we go” meme).</video> <h3 id="execsummary">The Executive Summary</h3> Probably the most important section of your application. The goal is not to cram all the information into it, but to give an overview to the reader, and make them want to learn more. <blockquote> Know your page budget before you write a word <ul> <li>The Executive Summary has a hard limit of one page. The template even adds an exclamation mark.</li> <li>The whole Business Plan is capped at 25 pages including annexes. The core should ideally stay under 15 pages, with 20 as the ceiling.</li> <li>Annexes are for informative material only (brochures, CVs, letters of support). They are not overflow space for your core argument.</li> <li>Do not change or reduce the font size. The template forbids it explicitly, and shrinking the font to fit more in is the oldest trick evaluators know.</li> <li>And before you submit: remove all the blue instruction text. The template bolds this instruction for a reason. Leftover blue text is one of the most common, most embarrassing formal slips.</li> </ul> </blockquote> The first impression can decide the mindset the TEB member reviewing your application will have during the next 30-60 minutes while they are reading the rest. If they don’t like it, or don’t understand it, it will be hard to change their minds. (It’s not their fault, this is how the human brain works.) As mentioned before, ESA BIC applications are like pitching an investor. Even though there is no set structure, I recommend the following (that has an eerie resemblance to a good pitch deck structure). <ul> <li>Problem statement (using some storytelling elements incorporating how the problem is affecting the customer is a big plus)</li> <li>Elaborate on who the customer actually is (optional)</li> <li>Solution (and how it helps the customer, how it solves the problem)</li> <li>Optional: Why now? (if timing is relevant, or it hasn’t been possible until recently due to some breakthrough)</li> <li>Competitive advantage</li> <li>Business model (how are you going to eventually make money?)</li> <li>Short term goals, long term vision</li> <li>Where we are now (if you have any result, got revenue, got LOIs, received investment, got into another accelerator before, say so)</li> </ul> Best practices: <ul> <li>Very clear, simple language.</li> <li>Go through the executive summary several times. This is the section where every word that doesn’t add value, in fact, subtracts value. Scrutinise each word.</li> <li>Use layman terms if possible. If you use space-related acronyms, do so after explaining them once. E.g. Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Don’t assume every reader is a space professional.</li> <li>ONLY the essentials. You can (and will have to) elaborate everything later. This is also not the place for geeking out, no overwhelming technical detail.</li> <li>Have a friend or family member (who is not in the space sector) read the executive summary. If they can explain the basics of your value proposition back to you, you’re golden.</li> </ul> And the blue text writing tips in the application document list a lot of things to put in the summary. My advice, be selective. All of the information will be put in excruciating detail later in the document anyway. Only include information if it shows something extraordinary or unusual. <ul> <li>The space connection: only elaborate here if it’s not obvious. Hint: If the word satellite or spacecraft is in your executive summary at least once, it’s obvious.</li> <li>Founding team’s skills: only elaborate on this if the founders have some relevant or extraordinary achievements or credentials. E.g. got a PhD at Oxford, worked at a space company, or won a NASA competition. Otherwise just one sentence is enough (e.g. ”Founding team includes aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers and physicists”)</li> <li>IP and patents: only if you already have something, or you are licensing a patent from somewhere. Otherwise omit here.</li> </ul> Short and long term vision. This is the part where you elaborate it. Extremely important, and tends to get overlooked. (Beachhead strategy, target a narrow niche whose problem you can solve → but have a big market in mind) Let’s see a fictional example. Elon Musk applies to ESA BIC in 2002. (In our timeline, ESA BIC started in 2004.) <video class="meme" autoplay loop muted playsinline preload="none" width="480" height="272" poster="undefined" aria-label="Elon Musk writing his ESA BIC executive summary in 2002"><source src="undefined" type="video/mp4" />Elon Musk writing his ESA BIC executive summary in 2002</video> <blockquote> Business Opportunity and Space Connection The space industry in 2002 is constrained by exorbitant launch costs (often exceeding $100 million per mission) making interplanetary exploration, like missions to Mars, financially unfeasible for private entities and limiting Europe’s role in global space advancement. As a newly founded startup, SpaceX aims to disrupt this by developing low-cost, reliable rockets through innovative design and vertical integration. Our space connection is upstream and direct: we intend to become a supplier of launch services to the space sector itself, developing a new launch system, its propulsion and its avionics. Our solution is a small orbital launcher, the Falcon 1, using breakthrough simplifications in propulsion and avionics to slash costs by 50-70%. This leverages a market in transition: the telecom downturn and the recent bankruptcies of Iridium and Globalstar have reshaped launch demand toward smaller, cheaper missions, while the EU’s 2002 decision to fund the Galileo programme signals growing European institutional demand for launch capacity. Developments include conceptual blueprints inspired by Russian engine tech, adapted for Western standards. The 60k EUR funding from ESA BIC would enable us to validate one core assumption: that our low-cost liquid propellant engine design can achieve stable combustion in advanced simulations, proving viability for affordable launches without exotic materials. Target Market We target the growing small satellite market, estimated at $1 billion globally by 2005, including European telecom and Earth observation firms under ESA’s ARTES programme. Priority is U.S. and European government and research contracts for small payloads, a segment underserved by heavy-lift providers whose smallest offering costs many times ours. Competitive Advantages Unlike established players like Arianespace’s expensive Ariane 5 or Russia’s Proton (with geopolitical risks), SpaceX’s in-house manufacturing will avoid supply chain dependencies, enabling 30% faster development and lower prices. No direct competitors exist for a private, low-cost small launcher, differentiating us via agility and Mars-focused vision. Business Model Revenue from launch contracts ($10-20M per future mission) and payload integration fees. Potential partnerships with ESA for technology exchange (e.g., avionics) and universities for R&D. Offer organised as end-to-end launch services, starting with simulations for clients, delivered via secure digital platforms and future ground facilities. Priority market: Europe for collaborative missions, aligning with EU space autonomy goals. Vision Short-term goals (next 18 months): Validate key assumptions through computational simulations to de-risk the venture, and raise follow-on funding. Using the 60k EUR for proof-of-concept: developing and running detailed engine combustion and trajectory simulations (e.g., using CFD software for kerosene-LOX flow stability and orbital mechanics modeling), costing ~€35k for software licenses/computational resources and €25k for expert consulting/analysis. Long-term: Launch Falcon 1 by 2004, evolve to reusable systems by 2017, and enable Mars missions by 2030, with international growth via ESA ties for 20% European market share. Scalability through modular designs for larger rockets. Intellectual Property Protection Engine designs and guidance algorithms are trade secrets, with patents planned for filing via USPTO and EPO post-simulation validation; ownership by SpaceX. Founding Team Skills Founder Elon Musk, fresh from selling PayPal, brings entrepreneurial acumen, physics knowledge, and vision for space colonisation. Early team includes propulsion experts from aerospace firms, providing engineering and project management to prototype and commercialise. </blockquote> A note on this example: it is deliberately expanded here so I can show every building block. Your real executive summary must fit on one page, so expect to keep only the strongest sentence or two from each block. Also notice what the wrong-in-hindsight projections are doing: a 2002 founder would plausibly have promised Falcon 1 by 2004, and that is fine. Confident, defensible optimism is expected. Inventing facts is not. <h3 id="team">Team and company setup</h3> It’s a common misconception that ESA expects full time, well-rounded founding teams to apply. Sure, it helps. But it’s not a requirement. If you are alone, or the in-house team only covers part of the necessary areas of expertise, don’t panic. The best practice is to try to cover every (even minor) area with people. Perfectly fine (expected, even) to cover some (or even most) areas with external paid consultants, agencies or freelancers. Best is to name them (with their consent). If you don’t know the concrete person, say so. (E.g. ‘we are in need of a mechanical engineer who we are going to hire as soon as possible”.) Every minor skill gap you don’t have a plan to fill is a minus point. If you don’t know the concrete people, but you have a strong network in an area, say so. E.g. We have great relationships with university professors at [University] that we can turn to for advice on [topic]. Advisory board members are worth their weight in gold. If you have mentors who are willing to help you, list them. If you have found a manufacturing partner or outsourcing provider, list them. (We at Astro42 are generally more than happy to be listed on ESA BIC applications as the software development partner.) If the university lets you use their lab for free, say it here. If your uncle has a spacious garage you can use as a workshop/lab for free, say so. These things show you can leverage your network and hustle. The company itself (not just the people). The template’s Company subsection asks for things founders routinely skip because they feel like paperwork: why you founded the company, its legal status, and the shareholding structure with the actual names of the shareholders and their percentages. If the company is registered, state the date of establishment (it must be under five years old) and attach an extract from the company registry as an annex. If it is not registered yet, describe both the current situation and the intended structure: what legal form you will choose, and who will own what. Remember, the incubation contract can only be signed with a legal entity, so a clear intended structure is what lets the BIC move fast after a positive decision. Finally, the template asks what the most significant developments of the company will be during incubation: first significant orders, a finished prototype, a strategic trade show, key hires. One honest paragraph here signals you think like an operating company, not a project. A note to single founders What to do if you are a single founder? Should you go look for a co-founder? I mean, you can, but unless there is a concrete person that you already know and trust, and their skills would be complementary to yours, I would advise you not to. Co-founder relationships are one of the most crucial factors in a startup’s success. A bad co-founder relationship can doom your venture. If you rush into it, it would be like getting married after the first date. Not very wise, and rarely works out. At this stage, evaluators don’t really care how you structure the project team. If you are not building technological breakthroughs, but using existing technology to create value (e.g. most downstream applications fall into this category), your best bet is to outsource a large chunk of your technical work to a specialist firm if you can’t do it yourself. As mentioned above, if you’d like to have co-founders eventually, look for contractors, freelancers and consultants. You can even hire an employee or two (check the local BIC’s rules, sometimes you are not allowed to spend money on payroll). You’ll be able to pay them fair market rates if you get funded, without giving up equity to a stranger. And if you have good chemistry, matching work ethic, and work well together, you can promote them to co-founders later by offering them equity. But to be realistic, the stigma venture capitalists used to hold against single founders appears to be disappearing. So having no co-founders will not really impair your chances of raising investment later either. If you are a single non-technical founder, you can still be very well-positioned to get into ESA BIC if: <ul> <li>you have done your homework and your value proposition is strong and validated</li> <li>you are covering all the areas of expertise necessary with external people or companies</li> <li>your plans are realistic.</li> </ul> Will you get maximum points on this category? Well, probably not. But you’re guaranteed to not get disqualified if you follow the three points above. <h3 id="valueprop">Value Proposition</h3> This should be quite straightforward after you’ve done your homework. What TEB members really want to see here <ul> <li>Clarity above all else: who you serve, what job you do for them, how you do it better than their current alternative, and proof someone wants it.</li> <li>A measurable outcome: time, money, risk, or compliance improved by a concrete amount.</li> <li>Primary evidence: named pilots/LOIs, paid trials, or letters with numbers in them (volume, price, timeframe).</li> </ul> Here’s one tight template you could use: <ol type="1"> <li>Customer + job For [specific role, in a specific industry/region] who must [critical job-to-be-done] under [constraint/regulation/SLA].</li> <li>Pain with current alternative Today they use [status quo/competitor/internal workaround], which results in [quantified pain: cost, delay, error rate, loss].</li> <li>Your offer and unit of value [Product/Service] is a [category] that delivers [unit of value: alerts, cm-accurate positions, hectares scored/day, images/day].</li> <li>Why you win (vs named alternatives) Unlike [Alt A, Alt B, status quo], we [differentiator] because [unique enabler: algorithm, constellation access, license, patent, data pipeline, integration, certification].</li> <li>Quantified outcome (numbers matter) Customers see [metric 1] and [metric 2], e.g., “reduce [X] by [Y%] within [Z] weeks; accuracy/risk/latency improved from [baseline] to [new].” Tie to euros.</li> <li>Evidence of pull [N] LOIs/pilots, [€] prepayments/paid trials, [conversion rate], [retention], named partner/channel. If early, show calendarized commitments.</li> <li>First application example One crisp scenario with inputs/outputs/SLA: “Municipal flood teams receive 2-hour latency flood extents (±15 cm vertical accuracy) for 94 km of river, within 20 minutes of satellite pass; triggers automated siren workflow.”</li> </ol> Fictional good example: <blockquote> For EU food retailers liable under EUDR, DeForestChecker verifies cattle and soy suppliers’ deforestation risk monthly at farm-polygon level across LATAM. Compared to manual audits, we cover 1M ha/week at €0.05/ha, false positives <3%, decisions in 48 h, integrating to SAP GTS. Three retailers signed LOIs totaling €420k ARR; a top insurer signalled intent to offer 8% premium reduction for certified buyers. </blockquote> Fictional bad example: <blockquote> DeForestChecker is an AI-powered, end-to-end platform that helps organisations of all sizes optimise sustainability, reduce risk, and stay compliant with EUDR. With real-time insights, seamless integrations, and intuitive dashboards, we streamline supply chains, accelerate decisions, and drive growth across industries. </blockquote> If it’s not 100% clear for you what to write here, you probably didn’t do your homework. <h3 id="productservice">Product/Service Description in Depth</h3> <h4 id="spaceconnection">The Space Connection</h4> You need a credible link to space that is instrumental to the benefit, not ornamental. But since failing the space connection is eliminatory, it deserves more than a slogan, and ESA has effectively published the marking scheme in a document shipped with the pack: the Space Connection Assessment, subtitled, genuinely, “the We Need More Space check”. It is a three-part test. 1. We need space. The reviewers must be convinced that space provides a feasible solution to the problem, and that it offers a technical, cost, or other advantage over non-space alternatives. This means you must actually know the non-space alternatives and how well they meet the requirements. “We use satellites” is not an argument; “ground sensors would need 4,000 installations to match one satellite pass” is. 2. We need more. Some innovative step must be taken beyond what is obvious or already in common use. ESA even publishes the list of connections that are normally rejected: <ul> <li>Repackaging space-related data, software, or hardware.</li> <li>Reusing a technology, product, or service that another ESA BIC startup already commercialised.</li> <li>A technology transfer from space that has already happened in your target domain.</li> <li>“Yet another” location-based service for mobile phones.</li> <li>Applications using Earth Observation data as little more than a background map, with no real processing.</li> </ul> One nuance that surprises applicants in a good way: a standard technical solution can still qualify if the novelty is in the business model, or if you bring space into a market segment where it is not yet used, even though it is standard elsewhere. 3. Space is available. You must be able to actually get the data, service, or technology you depend on, in practice and at a price that does not kill the business case. Incubation cannot start before that access is granted, so “we will figure out data licensing later” is a red flag. If you plan to build on an ESA patent, a positive statement from the ESA patent office is required with your proposal. Practical tip: the assessment document is designed to be filled in and sent to your BIC before you apply. Do exactly that. It costs you an afternoon and turns the most common elimination reason into a solved problem. <h4 id="the-technology">The Technology</h4> This is the place to geek out. Describe your technology in detail. Practical advice: even though every TEB member has signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), and ESA themselves are very serious about protecting trade secrets, NDAs are only valuable as long as you are willing and able to enforce them in court. Also, documents can leak. Also, humans are fallible creatures. So my advice is, don’t reveal all your secrets in this section. If your value proposition is based on some really novel (maybe patentable) invention, explain what exactly your technology does, and only superficially show how. Don’t put anything in this application that you wouldn’t be comfortable leaking to your competitors or your clients. On the other hand, if your value proposition lies in the application of an existing technology (e.g. most downstream businesses fall into this category), put as many technical details as possible. This increases your credibility. If you have them, you can include graphs of your software architecture. <h4 id="readiness">The Readiness Level</h4> Check the Innovation Readiness Level (IRL) table in the application pack. This is not the NASA-style TRL you may know from engineering. IRL blends how mature your technology is with how mature your business is, on a single 1 to 9 scale. That distinction matters: a founder can hit TRL 3 in a lab without ever talking to a customer, but they cannot hit IRL 3 that way, because IRL 3 is “experimental evidence of business opportunity”, meaning early validation of the market and the competition as well as the technology. If you did the homework in the depth I described above, you are most likely already around IRL 3. A realistic target by the end of incubation is IRL 5 to 6: a tested prototype or pilot with a credible business plan behind it. State both your current IRL and the IRL you intend to reach by the end of incubation, and make sure your Incubation Proposal actually delivers the climb between the two. <img src="undefined" srcset="undefined 720w, undefined 1360w" sizes="(min-width: 768px) 730px, 88vw" width="1360" height="1110" loading="lazy" decoding="async" alt="The Innovation Readiness Level (IRL) scale from 1 to 9, blending technology and business maturity, with entry around IRL 3 and target IRL 5 to 6" /> The Innovation Readiness Level scale, redrawn from the official reference in the application pack. If you happen to have anything tangible (e.g. working prototype, 3D model or a proof of concept software application), I encourage you to insert an image here (photo, 3D render, screenshot). <h4 id="the-research--development-rd-strategy">The Research & Development (R&D) strategy</h4> You might be wondering why the blue text asks you to repeat so many things that are elaborated in detail elsewhere. This section should be the concise summary of several other parts of the application. E.g. the Incubation Proposal and Risk. Only mention the key points, and be straight to the point. Reiterate here what part of the work will be done in-house and what you’re planning to outsource. If you have access to laboratory space or any other unfair advantages, reiterate here. <h4 id="ip">Intellectual Property</h4> The template gives IP its own subsection, and IP strategy is one of the explicitly scored items under Technology/Service, so skipping it costs real points. The questions it asks: what do you own or license, who holds it, how long is it valid, and which territories does it cover? Match your honesty to your stage. If you have nothing filed yet, describe your strategy instead of inventing a portfolio: what is potentially patentable, what will stay a trade secret, and what event triggers a filing (for example, completing the very prototype this incubation is meant to produce). If your edge is a trade secret, explain how you protect it in practice: limited disclosure, staged access, contracts, the “what but not how” approach from the Technology section above. If you are licensing technology in from outside, state the contractual terms you have or the ones you will need: exclusivity, territories, duration, royalties. And remember from the space connection section: incubation cannot start before access to the technology or data you depend on is actually granted, and ESA patents require a positive statement from the ESA patent office with the proposal. A bare “we will patent it later” earns nothing. One honest paragraph about what you protect, how, and when, earns the points this section carries. <h3 id="market">Market Analysis</h3> ESA BIC evaluators act like investors, so the market analysis is as important for them as it would be for a venture capitalist. <h4 id="the-context">The context</h4> Before demand and competition, the template opens with a Context subsection: the regulatory, political, and social environment your company will operate in, and the trends you cannot control. For space companies this is rarely filler. Ask yourself: What regulation creates or constrains your market? Export controls, spectrum licensing, Earth Observation data policy? Is your sector regulated, and is that regulation harmonised internationally? Are there standards, and are they mandatory? What happens to your business if the rules change, and who is lobbying for and against them? Note that regulation is often the market maker. The DeForestChecker example above only exists because EUDR does. If your demand depends on a rule, say so explicitly and show you follow its politics: it demonstrates exactly the kind of situational awareness this subsection is designed to test. <h4 id="the-demand">The demand</h4> Very important, don’t equate the existence of a problem with a demand. Here’s a neat bottom-up approach to calculate your total addressable market (TAM). [theoretical maximum number of potential units you could sell] x [average cost of your product/service per unit on an annual basis] For instance, you are selling a Space Situational Awareness solution. Your pricing model is akin to a SaaS (yearly fee per satellite). Theoretically everyone who operates satellites could buy this, so the first part of the equation is every satellite in orbit: ~12 000 in 2025. Your average yearly fee is 50 000 EUR. Your TAM is 12 000 x 50 000 = 600 million EUR. If your theoretical maximum is growing (e.g. number of satellites is projected to reach 27 000 by 2030), say so. You can include a graph. But TAM is only the first layer, and on its own it is the least credible one. The template asks for two more, and evaluators notice when they are missing. Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM) is the slice of the TAM you can actually reach, given your geography and what your product really does. If regulation, language, data access, or your go-to-market mean you realistically sell to European operators first, your SAM is that subset. Continuing the SSA example: if roughly 3,000 of those satellites are operated from Europe, your SAM is 3,000 × €50k = €150M. Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM) is what you can plausibly win in the first few years, given the competition, your size, and the barriers to entry. This is the number the evaluators will sanity-check against your financial projections, so the two must agree. In the example: signing 40 satellites in three years gives a SOM of €2M. Finally, the template asks how you gathered your data, how reliable it is, and for upper and lower forecasts. Take that seriously: show the funnel, name your sources, and give a range rather than a single point. A modest, well-sourced SOM is far more convincing than a giant unsupported TAM. <img src="undefined" srcset="undefined 720w, undefined 1360w" sizes="(min-width: 768px) 730px, 88vw" width="1360" height="916" loading="lazy" decoding="async" alt="TAM, SAM, SOM market sizing funnel continuing the SSA pricing example" /> The three market layers the template asks for, continuing the SSA pricing example. SAM and SOM figures are illustrative. <h4 id="the-competition-and-competitive-advantage">The competition and competitive advantage</h4> Not much to add to the blue text, just to reiterate this: Never write that you don’t have competition. If the problem you discovered in your homework above exists, the customers are already solving it somehow. Workarounds, hacks and ‘doing nothing’ count as your competition. (To be frank, inertia is a far more dangerous competitor than the industry behemoths like SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Airbus etc.) The best practice here is to list alternatives to your product/service and analyse them as objectively as you can. It’s fine, even encouraged to insert a graph or a table, but beware of stating your product is the best at every category. No one will believe that. Avoid this and similar things: <img src="undefined" width="1024" height="870" loading="lazy" decoding="async" alt="Fictional competitor analysis where you are better than everyone else. Very bad idea in an ESA BIC application." /> Inspired by Steve Blank ESA BIC evaluators don’t expect you to be better than the competition at everything (you wouldn’t be applying to ESA BIC if you were). They expect you to be substantially better than them (or different enough) in exactly ONE category your ICP finds meaningful. Upstream Example: We are not competing with SpaceX rideshare missions on price (they are far cheaper), we are beating them at speed, we offer half the lead time due to [“unfair” advantage]. Downstream Example: Our Earth Observation solution only helps soybean farmers optimise irrigation (products on the market are better suited to other types of crops due to [industry insight] and they are suboptimal for soybeans). <h3 id="businessmodel">The Business Model</h3> The blue text defines the classic Business Model Canvas. If you are familiar with the format, it’s OK to include the completed canvas as an image as well. As you are most likely an early stage startup, do not overcomplicate this part. Here’s some best practices you can use as a B2B company. <h4 id="communication-distribution-and-sales-channels">Communication, distribution, and sales channels</h4> More often than not, your most cost-effective sales channel will be cold outreach (via email or LinkedIn) and networking (leveraging your network, or going to industry events) in the first 18 months. My recommendation: communication via LinkedIn only. For the love of Neil Armstrong, do not list up Tiktok, Instagram, Pinterest, even Facebook. Nothing wrong with using these, even in B2B, but when you are strapped for resources (time and money), focusing on one channel always beats a scattered approach. <h4 id="customer-relationships">Customer relationships</h4> Realistically, you have only a handful of customers who are technically co-development partners – as you tailor your product to their specs and feedback. These relationships are a goldmine for information and insight, so I recommend one of the founders should introduce a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly check-in with each of them. Say so in the application. <h4 id="revenue-models">Revenue models</h4> Don’t try to reinvent the wheel here. What you write here doesn’t have to be the final version. It just has to be convincing enough for the TEB that you know what you are doing. They know that these things change. So some rules of thumb: <ul> <li>Downstream software application (e.g. Earth Observation software), it’s almost always software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a subscription fee, usually per user per month/year.</li> <li>If it’s a two or more sided platform or marketplace, it might be a subscription or a commission based structure (a percentage of the transaction value).</li> <li>In case of an upstream software (e.g. Space Situational Awareness), it’s usually still a SaaS, but rather a per unit per year. (e.g. per satellite per year).</li> <li>In some cases you can do Pay-as-you-Go, so bill per unit per minute (e.g. per antenna per minute, in case of ground stations). Or per gigabyte. Or kilowatt-hour. Or square kilometer per month. You can get creative.</li> <li>In case of deploying software directly on spacecraft, it’s licensing, and usually follows the same model (licensing fee per unit per year).</li> <li>In case of hardware, the most straightforward is selling the units. However, if you are able to protect your intellectual property, you can license the technology / know-how.</li> </ul> <h4 id="pricing">Pricing</h4> Whenever possible, try to implement value-based pricing. If you have done your homework, you know how much the problem costs your customer. Implement a pricing structure that it’s a NO-BRAINER for your client. In the words of Rob Snyder, it would be weird if they didn’t buy it for that price. As a rule of thumb, price between 10%-30% of the value generated for the client. E.g. if your in-orbit satellite refueling service saves your client $1 million per liter, price a liter of fuel between $100k and $300k. Usually, if you don’t know the value generated for the client, you didn’t do your homework thoroughly enough. In this case, you have two fallback options: <ul> <li>See what competitors or comparable services are charging and copy them</li> <li>Cost plus margin, which will usually not yield too much profit, so I would use this as last resort.</li> </ul> <h3 id="risk">Risk</h3> Risk is a natural part of the business. Space is inherently risky. The purpose of this exercise is to show the evaluators that you have your feet firmly on the ground and understand the world around you. There are two fundamental types of risk when it comes to building space businesses: technology risk and market risk. Investors don’t like either, but especially hate it when both are present. Your overarching goal with ESA BIC is to de-risk your venture in both categories, so in an ideal case you’ll be investment-ready by the end of the programme. <h4 id="swot">SWOT</h4> Ideally, you have mentioned all your strengths and some of your opportunities in previous sections (e.g. the executive summary, the Team, Competitive advantage etc). Revisit those, and put them in the table. Use the SWOT sheet in the official Tables & Figures workbook rather than drawing your own. Strengths are about the team’s skills, experience, your network, relationships etc. Weaknesses can be the lack thereof. Be very honest and thorough about weaknesses and threats. Common mistakes here: <ul> <li>listing your product’s features as strengths or opportunities (competitive advantages are good, though)</li> <li>vague, generic statements that mean nothing (e.g. “Technological risk” or “Competition” as threat, “Market expansion” as opportunity)</li> <li>Mixing up weaknesses (internal) with threats (external) or strengths (internal) with opportunities (external).</li> </ul> For the table, best be concise, but feel free to go beyond and explain each element in detail (but explaining the obvious does more harm than good). This is another example of how Elon Musk would have written this section in 2002: <table> <colgroup> <col style="width: 33%" /> <col style="width: 33%" /> <col style="width: 33%" /> </colgroup> <thead> <tr class="header"> <th></th> <th>Positive</th> <th>Negative</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr class="odd"> <th>Internal</th> <td>Strengths Strong founder leadership and funding · Innovative approach translates to cut costs · Talented early team of experienced aerospace professionals · Visionary goals (affordable space access, Mars missions) attract talent and press · Positioning the company as a disruptor in a stagnant industry</td> <td>Weaknesses No track record or proven technology · Limited resources and scale · Limited infrastructure compared to incumbents · High dependency on founder · Inexperience in industry challenges</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <th>External</th> <td>Opportunities Growing commercial space market · Emerging institutional demand for affordable launch (e.g. Galileo deployment ahead) · Government contracts and partnerships · Access to evolving tech like Russian-inspired engines and early GNSS systems for guidance improvements · Opportunities to disrupt high-margin industry practices · Global space interest (rising focus on Mars exploration) · EU policies promoting space commercialization</td> <td>Threats Established competition with proven reliability and government ties · Post-dot-com bubble recession could limit investor interest · High development costs risk rapid fund depletion · Strict US export controls and safety regulations · Issues with international tech acquisitions (e.g. buying Russian tech) · High risk of development setbacks in rocketry, where failures are common and could lead to bankruptcy before first launch</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4 id="risk-analysis">Risk Analysis</h4> The best practice here is that each of your weaknesses and threats should be addressed here. Add other risks as you see fit. If you find a risk that you cannot reasonably mitigate, it’s better to put it in anyway than omitting it and having the TEB member point out that it’s missing. Not much to add to the blue text. Instead, here’s an example for 2002 SpaceX. <table> <thead> <tr class="header"> <th>Risk</th> <th>Impact</th> <th>Likelihood</th> <th>Severity</th> <th>Magnitude</th> <th>Precaution Measures</th> <th>Mitigation Plan</th> <th>Cost of Mitigation</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr class="odd"> <td>No track record or proven technology</td> <td>Technical, Schedule</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>Conduct simulations; seek early validations</td> <td>Partner with universities; build prototypes iteratively</td> <td>Low</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Limited resources and scale</td> <td>Cost, Schedule</td> <td>High</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Start lean; use personal funding efficiently</td> <td>Outsource non-core; expand team gradually</td> <td>Moderate</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>High dependency on founder</td> <td>Cost, Schedule</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>Diversify decision-making; document processes</td> <td>Secure co-founders/investors; create contingency plans</td> <td>Low</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Inexperience in industry challenges</td> <td>Technical, Schedule</td> <td>High</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Hire experts early; invest in training</td> <td>Consult mentors; learn from public failures</td> <td>Low</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Established competition</td> <td>Cost, Technical</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Differentiate via innovation; monitor competitors</td> <td>Form strategic alliances; focus on niche markets</td> <td>Moderate</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Economic and financial risks</td> <td>Cost, Schedule</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>Budget conservatively; seek grants</td> <td>Raise external funds; cut non-essential spending</td> <td>Moderate</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Regulatory and geopolitical hurdles</td> <td>Schedule, Cost</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>Engage lawyers; build relations with agencies</td> <td>Comply proactively; explore alternatives (e.g., in-house tech)</td> <td>Moderate</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Technical and industry failure rates</td> <td>Technical, Cost</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>Use risk assessments; simulate extensively</td> <td>Iterate designs; have failure recovery strategies</td> <td>Low</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Funding shortfall from personal investment depletion</td> <td>Cost, Schedule</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>Secure early grants/partnerships; budget tightly</td> <td>Seek emergency investors; pivot to consulting</td> <td>Moderate</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Inability to acquire external technology</td> <td>Technical, Cost</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>High</td> <td>High</td> <td>Develop in-house alternatives from start</td> <td>Accelerate internal R&D; form new supplier ties</td> <td>High</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Industry skepticism leading to talent/partnership shortages</td> <td>Schedule, Technical</td> <td>High</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Highlight visionary goals; offer equity incentives</td> <td>Network aggressively; use personal founder network</td> <td>Low</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Timeline delays in development milestones</td> <td>Schedule, Cost</td> <td>High</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Set realistic phased goals; monitor progress</td> <td>Adjust scopes; extend funding runway</td> <td>Low</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Operational challenges in facility setup and logistics</td> <td>Cost, Schedule</td> <td>Moderate</td> <td>Low</td> <td>Low</td> <td>Start with minimal viable setup; use off-the-shelf</td> <td>Optimize supply chains; outsource non-core</td> <td>Moderate</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h3 id="financing">Cost structure, financing and financial projections</h3> About this part, try to be as realistic as possible. If you are building a downstream Earth Observation SaaS, you should project some revenue from customers in the first 3 years. But if you are building hardware, or your venture is more R&D intensive, no one expects actual customer revenue from you. However, if you have plans to leverage other funding sources e.g. Horizon Europe, Eureka, or other national opportunities, you can include them as positive cash-flow. In this case, feel free to rename the section from Sales revenue to something else, like Cash inflow. Or you can put them into the Other income category. One thing founders discover too late: when the money actually arrives. At many BICs, part of the funding is paid as reimbursement. You spend on eligible items first and claim the money back at the review meetings. If that applies at your BIC, it is a real working-capital requirement: ask for the payment schedule before you apply, plan the cash to bridge it, and let your financial projections show the timing honestly. A plan that silently assumes all the funding arrives on day one tells the evaluators you have not read the contract. What people often do wrong is the direct cost of sales. It’s the variable cost that you incur if you sell your product or services, and you wouldn’t incur otherwise. If you are a manufacturing company, this is for instance the material costs, the cost of the components that you have to buy, electricity of operating the machines. If you are a downstream company, it’s for instance the cost of the commercial satellite imagery you purchase in order to provide your service or compute costs. Salaries, marketing costs, and ANY fixed costs go in other categories below. However, optimise the table for readability, and be flexible with the categories. If a category is irrelevant, make it easier to read by deleting them. If a category is complex, feel free to create more categories (e.g. Outside services → Outsourced software development AND Consultants). Here’s an example for a ‘generic’ Earth Observation SaaS (use the Profit and Loss sheet from the official Tables & Figures workbook, and match the currency of your own BIC’s template; the values below are illustrative): <table> <thead> <tr class="header"> <th>Category</th> <th>Year 0</th> <th>Year 1</th> <th>Year 2</th> <th>Year 3</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr class="odd"> <td>Sales Revenue</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>SaaS Subscriptions</td> <td>0</td> <td>5,000</td> <td>10,000</td> <td>15,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Data Analysis Consulting</td> <td>0</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>5,000</td> <td>10,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Total Sales Revenue [J]</td> <td>0</td> <td>7,000</td> <td>15,000</td> <td>25,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Direct Cost of Sales</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Variable compute costs (e.g. AWS)</td> <td>0</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>3,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Commercial satellite imagery (e.g. Maxar)</td> <td></td> <td>2,000</td> <td>4,000</td> <td>6,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Total Cost of Sales [K]</td> <td>0</td> <td>3,000</td> <td>6,000</td> <td>9,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Gross Profit [L=J-K]</td> <td>0</td> <td>4,000</td> <td>9,000</td> <td>16,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Operating Expenses</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Sales and Marketing</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Advertising</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Direct Marketing</td> <td>0</td> <td>200</td> <td>500</td> <td>1,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Other Expenses (Trade Shows, Conferences)</td> <td>500</td> <td>1,500</td> <td>1,500</td> <td>2,500</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Total Sales and Marketing Expenses [M]</td> <td>500</td> <td>1,700</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>4,500</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Research and Development</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Technology Licenses (e.g. GIS software)</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>2,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Patents</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Commercial satellite imagery (e.g. used in training the models)</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>1,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>R&D Compute Costs (e.g. machine learning model training)</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>1,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Other Expenses (Simulations/Software)</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>5,000</td> <td>5,000</td> <td>5,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Total Research and Development Expenses [N]</td> <td>6,000</td> <td>11,000</td> <td>11,000</td> <td>9,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>General and Administrative</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Wages and Salaries (incl. social security and taxes)</td> <td>20,000</td> <td>20,000</td> <td>30,000</td> <td>40,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Consulting expenses</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>2,000</td> <td>3,000</td> <td>3,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Outsourced software development</td> <td>20,000</td> <td>10,000</td> <td>20,000</td> <td>20,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Rent and utilities</td> <td>600</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>1,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Other legal expenses (e.g. GDPR compliance)</td> <td>200</td> <td>400</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>500</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Other Expenses (Travel)</td> <td>500</td> <td>500</td> <td>500</td> <td>500</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Total General and Administrative Expenses [O]</td> <td>43,300</td> <td>33,900</td> <td>55,500</td> <td>65,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Total Operating Expenses [P=M+N+O]</td> <td>49,800</td> <td>46,600</td> <td>68,500</td> <td>78,500</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Income from Operations [Q=L-P]</td> <td>-49,800</td> <td>-42,600</td> <td>-59,500</td> <td>-62,500</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Other Income (e.g. other grants) [R]</td> <td></td> <td>100,000</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Taxes</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Income tax</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Total Taxes [S]</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Net Profit [T=Q+R-S]</td> <td>-49,800</td> <td>57,400</td> <td>-59,500</td> <td>-62,500</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <hr /> <h2 id="ipguide">The step by step guide to filling out your ESA BIC Incubation Proposal</h2> If you’ve made it through the Business Plan section of this guide, congratulations. The Incubation Proposal is shorter, more mechanical, and a lot of applicants treat it as a formality. That’s a mistake. The Activity Proposal alone is worth 20% of your score, the same as the Technology section, and unlike the Business Plan, it’s where the TEB checks whether you can actually execute. Think of it like this: the Business Plan is the dream. The Incubation Proposal is the project plan. The two should match, but they’re judged differently. Investors fund visions; project boards fund credible plans with realistic deliverables and a budget that adds up. The TEB is wearing the project board hat when reading this document.  A few practical notes before we dive in: <ul> <li>The page limit is brutal. 10 pages per section, including cover page and annexes. If you applied for Boost, that’s 10 pages for Section 1 PLUS 10 pages for Section 2. Don’t waste a single line.</li> <li>Each ESA BIC has slightly different templates, funding amounts and rules. The structure described here is common across the network, but always work from the template, figures and local rules your own BIC publishes.</li> <li>The Excel tables are mandatory. PLAN, FUNDING and RISK go in the separate Excel file, then you paste them as images or tables into the Word document. Don’t try to recreate them from scratch.</li> </ul> <h3 id="section-1-vs-section-2-should-you-even-apply-for-boost">Section 1 vs Section 2: should you even apply for Boost?</h3> Before you start, decide whether to apply for Boost Funding. The standard funding is €60,000. Boost adds a significant amount on top, but requires you to secure matching investment. (Amounts, currency and Boost terms vary by BIC, so check yours.) The temptation is obvious. More money. Why not? Two reasons not to: 1. Boost requires matching investment. This usually means a Letter of Commitment from an investor or grant body. If you don’t have one, or have no realistic path to one within the timeframe, applying for Boost makes you look unrealistic. Worse, it dilutes your Section 1 because reviewers compare them. 2. You have to write a separate plan. Section 2 is essentially a parallel 10-page proposal. If you’re rushing the application as it is, doubling the workload is a bad trade. Apply for Boost if (and only if) you have a concrete investor or co-funding source already in advanced discussions. If you’re a first-time founder applying without traction, focus on getting in first. Boost can come in your second year if available. <blockquote> Rule of thumb: complete Section 1 first. If Section 1 isn’t excellent, Section 2 won’t save you. </blockquote> <h3 id="the-activity-proposal">The Activity Proposal</h3> This is the meat of the document. It has two parts: the Milestone Planning (your Gantt chart) and the Task Descriptions. The two need to be perfectly consistent. If your Gantt has Task 4 finishing in Month 12 but your Task 4 description has output dated Month 15, you’re sending the message that you haven’t read your own application. <h4 id="milestone-planning">Milestone Planning</h4> The blue text covers the basics. Here’s what’s actually worth knowing. The three mandatory milestones: Kick-Off (Month 0), Mid-Term Review (around Month 9), Final Review (Month 18, or whenever your incubation ends). These aren’t negotiable. Don’t try to be clever and rename them or add more “official” milestones. Default duration is 18 months, with up to 24 possible. Counterintuitively, asking for 24 months on first application is usually a red flag. It signals you don’t believe your own timeline. Start with 18, and request an extension during the programme if needed (the BIC will often grant it). Task count sweet spot: 4 to 7. Too few (2-3) and the tasks are so broad they’re meaningless. Too many (10+) and it looks like you’re hiding lack of focus behind activity. Most successful applications have around 5 tasks. Don’t leave the first three months empty. A surprising number of applications show all real work starting Month 4. The TEB reads this as “we haven’t actually started thinking yet.” Have Task 1 start in Month 1, even if it’s just market validation interviews or technical specification work. Have meaningful work delivered BEFORE the Mid-Term Review. The Mid-Term is when you have to demonstrate progress to the BIC. If your only deliverable by Month 9 is “report on initial findings,” you’re in for a very uncomfortable conversation. Plan at least one tangible output (working prototype demo, signed pilot agreement, completed module) before Month 9. Common mistakes: <ul> <li>Putting Kick-Off at Month 1 instead of Month 0. (It’s Month 0. Day zero of your contract.)</li> <li>Bunching all the “interesting” deliverables in the last three months. The TEB knows things slip.</li> <li>Showing tasks running in parallel that realistically need to be sequential (e.g. “we’ll do the design AND the prototype build AND the testing all at the same time” usually doesn’t work in physical engineering).</li> <li>Not leaving any buffer for the unknown. Reality has a way of throwing surprises.</li> </ul> <blockquote> Insider tip: if you’re building physical hardware, multiply your initial time estimates by 1.5 to 2. If you’re building software, multiply by at least 1.3. This sounds pessimistic, but the TEB has seen hundreds of startups, and they know. And if the multiplied estimate no longer fits in 18 months, the answer is not to ask for 24. The answer is to cut scope. </blockquote> <h4 id="task-descriptions">Task Descriptions</h4> This is the single most important section of the entire document. Get this right and everything else falls into place. The template gives you a structure: Name, Responsible, Inputs, Objective, Sub-tasks, Costs, Output. Use it religiously. Don’t add fields, don’t skip fields. Each task should cover one logical chunk of work, typically 2-6 months long, with a clear deliverable at the end. Tasks shouldn’t be activities (like “marketing”), they should be bounded projects that produce something specific. The single best piece of advice I can give: the Output of each task must be a noun you can hold, demo, or hand over. Not a verb, not a state, not a feeling. Bad outputs: <ul> <li>“Improved understanding of the market”</li> <li>“Technology developed”</li> <li>“Customer relationships built”</li> </ul> Good outputs: <ul> <li>“Market analysis report covering 15 EU countries, with quantified TAM/SAM/SOM”</li> <li>“Working prototype demonstrating combustion stability at TRL 5, with test report”</li> <li>“Signed pilot agreements with 2 paying customers worth €30k total”</li> </ul> If you can’t articulate a concrete output, your task isn’t a task. It’s a wish. Balance technical and business tasks. A common failure pattern is the engineer-founder writing 5 technical tasks and 0 business tasks. Or the business-founder writing 5 sales tasks and 0 technical work. Either is a problem. For a typical ESA BIC application, a sensible split is: <ul> <li>2-3 technical tasks (prototype, validation, testing)</li> <li>1-2 business tasks (market validation, customer development, sales)</li> <li>1 IP / regulatory / compliance task</li> <li>1 dissemination / partnership task</li> </ul> You don’t have to follow this exactly, but if you have ZERO business tasks, you’ll get marked down on Activity Proposal regardless of how brilliant your technical plan is. The Inputs field is more important than it looks. Use it to show dependencies between tasks. The Input of Task 3 should often be the Output of Task 2. This demonstrates you’ve thought about how the work actually flows. Applications where every task has “Input: existing knowledge” reveal that the applicant treated the document as a checkbox exercise. The Costs sub-section is where you connect this section to your Funding Split. Every cost line in your task descriptions must appear in your funding table, and vice versa. Don’t fudge this. Reviewers cross-check. Sub-tasks: 3-6 per task is ideal. Less than 3 and your task is too vague. More than 6 and you’re micromanaging on paper. Let’s see what a good task looks like for SpaceX 2002. <blockquote> Task 1: Engine Combustion Stability Simulation Responsible: Tom Mueller (Propulsion Lead) Inputs: Initial Falcon 1 conceptual design (existing), kerosene-LOX combustion data (publicly available from NASA reports), CFD software licenses (procured in sub-task 1.1). Objective: Demonstrate via high-fidelity simulation that the Merlin engine design achieves stable combustion at thrust levels of approximately 340 kN over a 169-second burn, with chamber pressures within specified tolerances. Sub-Tasks: <ol type="1"> <li>Acquire and validate CFD software setup against benchmark engine data (Months 1-2)</li> <li>Build full Merlin engine geometry and meshing (Months 2-3)</li> <li>Run combustion stability simulations across operating range (Months 3-5)</li> <li>Identify and characterise instability modes; iterate injector design (Months 5-6)</li> <li>Compile simulation report with go/no-go recommendation (Month 6)</li> </ol> Costs: <table> <thead> <tr class="header"> <th>Sub-task</th> <th>Type of expense</th> <th>ESA BIC funding (€)</th> <th>Other sources (€)</th> <th>Total (€)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr class="odd"> <td>1.1</td> <td>CFD software licenses (ANSYS Fluent)</td> <td>9,500</td> <td>0</td> <td>9,500</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>1.2-1.4</td> <td>Cloud compute (AWS)</td> <td>5,000</td> <td>0</td> <td>5,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>1.4</td> <td>External propulsion consultant</td> <td>0</td> <td>7,000</td> <td>7,000</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td>14,500</td> <td>7,000</td> <td>21,500</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Output: Combustion Stability Simulation Report (PDF, ~80 pages), validated CFD model files, recommendation memo on injector geometry for prototype phase. </blockquote> Notice a few things in this example: <ul> <li>The Output is specific and tangible.</li> <li>Sub-tasks have rough month ranges (not strictly required, but helpful).</li> <li>The cost table shows realistic breakdowns, not round numbers like “€20,000 for everything.”</li> <li>External help is acknowledged (the propulsion consultant), and paid from “Other sources” not ESA funding.</li> </ul> <blockquote> Counterintuitive tip: if every cost in your tasks is funded 100% by ESA BIC, your application looks unrealistic. Real businesses have multiple funding sources. Show at least some co-funding (founder savings, pre-existing grants, customer revenue, anything). It signals skin in the game. </blockquote> <h3 id="management">Management</h3> Most applicants treat this section as filler. Don’t. It’s a chance to address the elephant in the room: how a tiny team will deliver an ambitious plan. Things worth covering: <ul> <li>Who’s in charge of what. Even if it’s just two founders, name names.</li> <li>How you’ll handle the work you can’t do yourselves. Named outsourcing partners, freelancers, agencies. (Yes, we at Astro42 are happy to be named here for software development.)</li> <li>Reporting cadence. Monthly check-ins with your BIC mentor? Quarterly board meetings? Weekly stand-ups internally? Say so.</li> <li>How you’ll respond when things slip. Because they will.</li> <li>Decision-making. If you’re a single founder, mention your advisory board. If you have two founders with overlapping responsibilities, address how disagreements get resolved.</li> </ul> Half a page is plenty. The key is to demonstrate you’ve actually thought about this rather than assuming “we’ll figure it out as we go.” Common mistake: writing the Management section in vague generalities like “We will use agile project management methodologies and meet regularly.” This says nothing. Be specific. Even something as simple as “Weekly internal sync every Monday at 10:00, monthly review with BIC mentor, quarterly board meeting with advisors X, Y and Z” is far stronger. <h3 id="financing-and-funding-request">Financing and Funding Request</h3> This is where the €60,000 of funding (ESA formally calls it the “incentive”; your BIC’s exact amount and currency may differ) gets split across your tasks. The blue text explains the rules. Some critical points worth repeating: <ul> <li>Most BICs require a large share of the funding to be spent in the BIC’s own country or region. The exact percentage is set locally (often around half). Confirm yours and plan the spend around it.</li> <li>There is usually a cap (frequently around 50% in aggregate) on how much can go to: rental of office space + spend outside the BIC’s region + entrepreneur salaries. Check the exact rule with your BIC.</li> <li>Find out when the money actually reaches you. It varies by BIC, so ask for the payment schedule before you apply. The common pattern is three tranches: a first instalment at or near the start (some BICs pay it on signature of the incubation contract, effectively in advance; others release it after your first progress meeting), a second at the mid-term review, and the balance at the final review. Some BICs instead reimburse part of the funding against invoices you have already paid. Either way, do not assume the whole sum lands on day one: wherever a tranche is paid against evidence of spend, you need enough working capital to pay suppliers first and get topped up afterwards. Plan your runway around your BIC’s real schedule.</li> <li>You do not charge VAT on the funding, but the funding will not cover VAT either. The funding is a grant, not payment for a service you sell to ESA, so you do not add VAT on top of it or invoice ESA for VAT, even if your company is VAT-registered. Separately, the funding is calculated net: it will not pay the VAT on the things you buy with it. If you are VAT-registered you can usually reclaim that input VAT from the tax office anyway; if you are not, the VAT is a real cost you carry. Budget every line as a net figure.</li> <li>Income tax is personal, and it lands on salaries. Income tax is paid by individuals on their income, not by the funding itself. So where the funding pays a founder’s or an employee’s salary (at the BICs that allow salaries at all), that salary is taxable personal income like any other, subject to income tax and social contributions. Whether the grant is also taxable in the company’s hands is a separate, jurisdiction-specific corporate-tax question. Talk to your accountant before you build your budget, not after.</li> <li>You’ll need other sources to cover anything beyond the funding.</li> </ul> Other Sources: be specific. “TBD” or “to be raised” are red flags. If you have personal savings of €40k earmarked for the business, say so. If you’ve applied for a Horizon Europe grant, say which one and the decision date. If you have a paying customer worth €10k/year, include them. The more concrete, the better. The Funding Split table. This is where your task budgets get categorised into Product Development, IPR Management, and Other. Most of your funding should go to Product Development if you’re early stage. IPR Management spend is usually small but should not be zero (filing fees, patent attorney consultations, freedom-to-operate analyses, all count). Common mistakes: <ul> <li>Spending 100% on Product Development with zero on IPR. (Almost always wrong unless your IP strategy is purely trade-secret.)</li> <li>Putting more than your BIC’s cap on entrepreneur salaries. (There is usually a cap, often around half the funding. Check your local BIC’s rules, some don’t allow founder salaries at all.)</li> <li>Round numbers everywhere. (€5,000 for everything is a sign of guessing.)</li> <li>Asking for more than the cap. (€60,000 is the standard maximum, though your BIC’s figure may differ. If your real budget is bigger, that’s fine, but show how the rest is covered.)</li> </ul> Here’s how SpaceX 2002 might have laid out its funding split: <table> <thead> <tr class="header"> <th>Task</th> <th>Product Dev (€)</th> <th>IPR Mgmt (€)</th> <th>Other (€)</th> <th>ESA BIC funding (€)</th> <th>Other Sources (€)</th> <th>Total (€)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr class="odd"> <td>Task 1: Combustion Simulation</td> <td>14,500</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>14,500</td> <td>7,000</td> <td>21,500</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Task 2: Trajectory & Mission Design</td> <td>10,800</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>10,800</td> <td>3,500</td> <td>14,300</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Task 3: Injector Prototype</td> <td>16,000</td> <td>1,800</td> <td>0</td> <td>17,800</td> <td>14,000</td> <td>31,800</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Task 4: Market Validation (US/EU)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>7,500</td> <td>7,500</td> <td>4,500</td> <td>12,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Task 5: Partnership & Outreach</td> <td>0</td> <td>900</td> <td>5,000</td> <td>5,900</td> <td>2,500</td> <td>8,400</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Task 6: Investor Readiness</td> <td>0</td> <td>1,200</td> <td>2,300</td> <td>3,500</td> <td>8,500</td> <td>12,000</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Total</td> <td>41,300</td> <td>3,900</td> <td>14,800</td> <td>60,000</td> <td>40,000</td> <td>100,000</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Notice: <ul> <li>The total funding adds up to exactly €60,000 (the cap).</li> <li>Other sources roughly equal the ESA BIC funding (a healthy ratio).</li> <li>Each task has a sensible split between categories.</li> <li>Business and IPR work appear in their own tasks, not buried as line items.</li> </ul> <h3 id="support-request">Support Request</h3> A surprisingly underrated section. Most applicants write something generic like “We would like technical and business support.” That’s a waste of the opportunity. The ESA BIC network gives you access to ESA experts. These are people who have built actual satellites, designed actual launchers, written actual GNSS algorithms. Some have decades of experience. In normal life you’d pay €200+ per hour to consult with them. Here you get a fixed allocation for free. Use the support request to ask for specific help. Not “general advisory support.” <h4 id="technical-and-ipr-support">Technical and IPR Support</h4> Examples of good asks: <ul> <li>“Review of our CFD modelling approach by an ESA propulsion engineer, particularly regarding low-frequency (chugging) and high-frequency (acoustic) combustion instability modes.”</li> <li>“Patent landscape analysis for in-orbit refuelling technologies in the European market, including freedom-to-operate assessment for our docking mechanism.”</li> <li>“Advice on radiation-hardened component selection for our payload computer, given LEO mission profiles.”</li> <li>“Guidance on certification pathway for software running on commercial spacecraft (e.g. ECSS-Q-ST-80 compliance).”</li> </ul> Examples of bad asks: <ul> <li>“Technical mentoring as needed.”</li> <li>“Help with any technical challenges that arise.”</li> <li>“General IP advice.”</li> </ul> The more specific you are, the more useful the support will be, and the more credible your application looks. <h4 id="business-support">Business Support</h4> Same principle. Be specific. Good asks: <ul> <li>“Introductions to large prime contractors (e.g. Airbus, Thales) for partnership discussions on our payload.”</li> <li>“Pitch deck review and coaching ahead of our seed round in Month 12.”</li> <li>“Sales process review for our SaaS pricing structure, especially around enterprise contract negotiation.”</li> <li>“Help structuring our first international contract (US export controls, EAR/ITAR awareness).”</li> </ul> Bad asks: <ul> <li>“General business mentoring.”</li> <li>“Help with everything business-related.”</li> </ul> <h4 id="office-support">Office Support</h4> Counterintuitive section. You usually pay for this. The “support” is access to office space, but you typically rent it. The common facilities (meeting rooms, kitchen, occasional event space) are free. Ask yourself: do you actually need a dedicated office? <ul> <li>If you’re a software-only team that can work remotely, probably not. Save the rental cost.</li> <li>If you’re building hardware and need lab access, yes, and you should consider this carefully.</li> <li>If your team is geographically scattered, no point renting a desk at an incubator site nobody can easily get to.</li> </ul> If you don’t need office space, say so honestly: “We don’t require dedicated office space at this stage; however, we would value occasional access to meeting rooms for partner discussions and BIC events.” This shows judgement, not laziness. If you do need space, be specific about what (desks, lab benches, clean room, secure storage) and where. <h3 id="section-2-boost-funding">Section 2: Boost Funding</h3> If you’ve decided to apply for Boost, here are the additional considerations. Boost is essentially a doubled version of Section 1, with the expectation that you’ll either: <ul> <li>Extend your tasks with deeper work</li> <li>Add new tasks (e.g. earlier sales hire, additional prototype iteration, expanded market validation across new geographies)</li> </ul> The blue text in the template asks for the same elements: Milestone Planning, Task Descriptions, Management, Financing, and Business Support. Common Boost mistakes: <ul> <li>Writing Section 2 from scratch, ignoring Section 1. Section 2 should clearly build on Section 1. If you’re accepted onto the BIC without Boost, you should still be able to execute Section 1 as a standalone plan.</li> <li>Vague matching investment claims. “We’re in discussions with several investors” is not enough. You need a credible Letter of Intent or commitment, and you need to attach it.</li> <li>Doubling all costs proportionally. If you double a task’s budget without adding scope, it looks like you’re inflating numbers. Be deliberate about what the extra money buys.</li> <li>Asking for Boost without addressing additional risk. More money means more accountability. The Management section in Section 2 should explicitly address how you’ll handle the larger budget.</li> </ul> A simple test: read your Section 2 and ask whether you could deliver Section 1’s outputs without it. If yes, your Section 2 is well-structured. If your Section 1 falls apart without the Boost money, you’re overdependent. <h3 id="tying-it-all-back-together">Tying it all back together</h3> The Incubation Proposal is judged on three things, even though they don’t say it that explicitly: <ol type="1"> <li>Can you execute? Realistic plan, sensible task breakdown, credible budget.</li> <li>Do you understand what you’re doing? Tasks aligned with technical needs, outputs that make sense, dependencies in the right order.</li> <li>Will you make good use of the money? Concrete spending plan, real co-funding, specific support requests.</li> </ol> If your Business Plan tells the dream and your Incubation Proposal shows the credible path to get there, the TEB sees a complete picture. They want to fund the company that can not only talk the talk but also do the work. <h3 id="the-five-minute-consistency-check">The five-minute consistency check</h3> Before you hit submit, do this cross-check. Reviewers do exactly this, and inconsistencies are the fastest way to lose credibility (and points). Even worse, an inconsistency makes the reviewer start hunting for more. You don’t want a TEB member in hunting mode. <ol type="1"> <li>Every task in the Gantt chart has a task description, and the start/end dates match.</li> <li>Every cost line in the task descriptions appears in the Funding Split table, and the numbers are identical.</li> <li>The ESA BIC funding column adds up to exactly the cap, not a penny more.</li> <li>Total Costs equal Total Funding.</li> <li>The outputs promised in the task descriptions match what your Business Plan claims you’ll achieve during incubation (e.g. if the BP executive summary promises a working prototype, a task output had better be a working prototype).</li> <li>The TRL you promise to reach in the Business Plan’s Readiness Level section is actually reachable through the tasks you’ve described.</li> <li>The people named as Responsible for tasks actually appear in your Team section.</li> </ol> Yes, this is tedious. Yes, it matters. The applications I’ve seen fail at the TEB stage were rarely bad ideas. They were good ideas wrapped in sloppy, self-contradicting documents. <blockquote> The most counterintuitive thing about the Incubation Proposal: less ambition often scores higher. A modest plan, executed brilliantly, beats a grand plan that can’t possibly fit in 18 months and €60,000. Reviewers have seen enough Icarus stories. They want a Falcon 1 (lean, focused, achievable), not an SLS (overbuilt, overbudget, overdue). </blockquote> If you’ve kept the scope tight, validated your problem with real customers, and shown a realistic operational plan with concrete deliverables, you’re in excellent shape. Now go double-check the compliance checklist one more time.  <hr /> <h2 id="finishing">Finishing thoughts</h2> If you have read this far, congratulations. If you have done your homework, and you are working on something that satisfies an existing market demand, you are already golden. <h3 id="an-unofficial-remark-about-using-ai-in-your-esa-bic-application">An unofficial remark about using AI in your ESA BIC application</h3> If you are not using AI to complement your work, you are falling behind. Heck, I’m using AI while writing this guide. Just keep three things in mind at all times: <ul> <li>Remove the telltale signs of AI-generated text, primarily the so called em dashes (—). Everyone will know you used AI, otherwise there is always plausible deniability.</li> <li>If English isn’t your first language, consider modifying your prompts to generate simpler sentences so that the written language of the application matches your spoken level of English. If there is a visible difference, it can cause suspicion at the TEB meeting.</li> <li>Do not blindly copy and paste the generated text. If you cannot explain each and every paragraph, every sentence, every word in your application (including numbers) when asked, you have failed and you might be disqualified if busted at the TEB meeting. So if the AI is generating something you don’t 100% understand, ask for clarification, justification or simplification. It’s very good at it.</li> </ul> What AI is best used for (I am deliberately not naming specific models; they change every few months, and by the time you read this any list would be stale): <ul> <li>Sentence formulation, styling, and improving paragraphs for clarity: any strong general-purpose model.</li> <li>Market, competitor, and pricing research (e.g. “how much does a commercial SSA service cost per month per satellite, on average?”): use a tool with live web search or a dedicated deep research mode, and check its sources.</li> <li>Gantt chart creation from your existing work packages (not from thin air).</li> </ul> What not to use AI for: <ul> <li>Writing entire sections based on simple prompts.</li> <li>Blind calculations (always double check the results).</li> </ul> This section was last reviewed in July 2026. <h3 id="dont-get-disqualified-on-a-technicality">Don’t get disqualified on a technicality</h3> Before you hit submit, go over the formal requirements once again. Review the compliance checklist carefully and pay attention to every detail. If you are unsure about something on the checklist, it’s better to ask for advice. Pay attention to the page limit and trim the text if you exceed it. Do not shrink the font instead; the template explicitly forbids changing or reducing the font size. Remove every scrap of blue instruction text before saving. Make sure the cover letter and checklists are signed by the majority shareholder, or by shareholders together holding more than 50%. And I can’t believe I have to say this, don’t forget to attach the cover letter. A few traps from the general requirements that surprise even well-prepared founders: <ul> <li>Excluded activities. Business connected to alcohol abuse, tobacco, religion, politics, intolerance, violence, firearms or other weapons, pornography, obscenity, gambling, or illegal drugs is out. Given how defence-adjacent parts of the space sector are, if your idea has dual-use potential, discuss it with your BIC before you invest weeks in an application.</li> <li>Consultancy cannot be your main business activity. Covered above as a common mistake, and it is also a formal compliance statement you sign.</li> <li>One BIC at a time. Do not apply to several ESA BICs simultaneously; wait for one evaluation before trying another. And you cannot be hosted in another incubator or similar programme during the incubation contract (complementary programmes may be agreed case by case).</li> <li>Resubmissions are limited, and feedback is a tool. The open call limits how many times the same company or idea can be submitted. If you are rejected, you can request an oral debriefing within 10 calendar days of the notification. Always take it: if you resubmit, you will be expected to show exactly how you addressed the previous feedback.</li> </ul> The reality is that most ESA BICs are fairly relaxed about this; they will get back to you and give you 48 hours to correct any formal errors. However, some can be quite ruthless. They may disqualify you without even looking at your business plan or incubation proposal if you make a mistake that can be interpreted as non-compliance (e.g. leave one of the compliance statements empty). Even though it is quite questionable ethically and I wholeheartedly disagree with this practice, they are fully within their rights to do so. Point is, check and double check the compliance checklist. Ask a friend, family member or mentor to double check for you, just to be sure. <h3 id="preparing-for-the-esa-bic-tender-evaluation-board-meeting">Preparing for the ESA BIC tender evaluation board meeting</h3> If your application was successful in the first phase, you will be invited to pitch to the ESA BIC TEB. You will have 15 minutes to pitch, and the TEB members will have 15 minutes to ask questions. The general rule of thumb is that how confident you come across (either on camera, or in person) subconsciously influences the evaluators, even though it does not influence scoring. This is why it’s CRUCIAL to practice, practice, practice. Especially if you are not an experienced public speaker. Time yourself. If your presentation does not fit into 15 minutes, cut it. There is nothing worse than getting cut off mid-sentence. It’s better to talk slowly and intently than rushing through. In general, less is more. The Executive Summary should serve as a baseline for the content. Your main goal is clarity above everything else, not conveying everything. Spend a bit more time on the value proposition and the problem you solve. You can use storytelling elements to highlight the problem. (”Imagine you are a flight dynamics engineer, it’s Friday evening and you’re getting ready to head home after a long day. Suddenly you get a conjunction warning. There go your plans for the evening.”) About the slide design: try to avoid crammed slides. Ideally, try to put bullet points and only the most important information on the slide. The reason is that we humans are visual creatures, and you want the evaluators to listen to what you are saying instead of reading the slides. Very few people can direct their full attention to simultaneously reading and listening. And when in doubt, the brain will take in the visual stimuli and ignore the auditive ones. <h3 id="parting-words">Parting words</h3> To sum up, this guide has shown you the basics of putting together a great ESA BIC application. We’ve covered what the program is all about, what the evaluators are looking for, and how to explain your idea’s value and feasibility. You also got step-by-step tips for your Business Plan and your Incubation Proposal. Just remember, ESA BIC is more than just funding, it’s a chance to launch your space idea into a real business that matters, whether in space or here on Earth. If you focus on solving a real problem, keep your plans realistic, and explain things clearly, you’ll set yourself up for success. Not just to get accepted, but to build something that lasts. If you’ve followed these tips, you’re already a step ahead of the vast majority of applicants. Now, go ahead and apply, make improvements if needed, and keep pushing boundaries. Space rewards the bold and prepared. Feel free to reach out or <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/balazsslezak/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">connect with me on LinkedIn</a> and <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/astro42" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">follow Astro42</a> if you want more advice or want to share how things are going. Good luck, here’s to your startup going to orbit! <h2 id="faq">Frequently asked questions</h2> <h3>What is ESA BIC?</h3> ESA BIC (the European Space Agency’s Business Incubation Centre programme) is a network of incubators across ESA member states that helps startups build space-related businesses. It provides equity-free funding (commonly around €60,000, though the exact amount varies by centre), technical support from ESA experts, and business mentoring. <h3>How much funding does ESA BIC provide, and does it take equity?</h3> The standard ESA BIC funding is around €60,000 and is equity-free: ESA takes no shares in your company. The exact amount, currency, payment schedule and rules vary by BIC, and some centres offer additional “Boost” funding on top if you secure matching investment. <h3>How do I apply to ESA BIC?</h3> You apply to your local ESA BIC by submitting two main documents, a Business Plan and an Incubation Proposal, along with a cover letter and a compliance checklist. Before writing them, validate the problem you solve with real customers, confirm your space connection, and get in touch with your local BIC. This guide walks through every section of both documents step by step. <h3>What are the ESA BIC evaluation criteria?</h3> Applications are scored on five weighted criteria: Background and Experience (25%), Technology/Service (20%), Value Proposition and Market (20%), Activity Proposal (20%), and Business Modelling and Risk (15%). A practical rule of thumb from the evaluation boards: score at least 40 in every category, and a weighted total above 60 to be recommended for funding. <h3>Who is eligible for ESA BIC?</h3> You need a credible space connection and to be (or become) a small or medium-sized enterprise incorporated no more than five years ago in the BIC’s region, with the founding entrepreneurs keeping majority ownership. Most centres let you apply before the company exists, provided you incorporate straight after a positive decision. <h3>Do I need an existing company to apply?</h3> Not to apply, but yes to sign the incubation contract. Most BICs accept applications from founders without a legal entity yet, as long as you incorporate immediately after a positive decision. Always check your local BIC’s rules. <h3>Who can build the software for an ESA BIC project?</h3> Many ESA BIC startups outsource their software and AI development to a specialist partner rather than hiring in-house, and naming that partner strengthens your application. <a href="/contact-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Astro42</a> is a software development company for the space sector that builds MVPs and products for space startups, has partnered with several ESA BIC portfolio companies, and is happy to be named as the software development partner on an ESA BIC application. <hr /> Astro42 is a custom software development company specialised in working in the space sector. We have partnered with several ESA BIC portfolio companies to build their digital products. Check out some of our relevant case studies: <a href="https://astro42.com/case-studies/spacecrop/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SpaceCrop</a>, <a href="https://astro42.com/case-studies/luna-space/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Luna Space</a>, <a href="https://astro42.com/case-studies/sensfish-marine-restoration/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SensFish</a>, and <a href="https://astro42.com/case-studies/space-needle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Space Needle</a>. If you think we might be able to help you too, <a href="/contact-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">book a free consultation</a>.