Launching is Easy, Landing is Not | Ep. 1 with Vishal Reddy, Inbound Aerospace

0:01 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Hey Vishal, thanks for joining. Thanks for attending this episode of podcast. You first did your masters in Columbia and then joined Tesla and also worked in Giga Factory at Texas. Also were involved in the United Nations Development Program.

0:32 And this trajectory looks like a good way to, you know, settle easily in US, have a good career path. I'm curious, how did you switch over to deciding, okay, let's have a space tech podcast and sorry, space tech startup and come back to India. Yeah, yeah. First of all, thanks Satya for having me on this podcast. Looking forward to having a great conversation about why In Bound exists and why I'm at In Bound in mental. Yeah, so to answer your question, I I think I've been asked this fairly fair amount of times by people who hear our story and my story as well.

1:09 So I think this was the entire timeline for the masters and the internship and completing was that 2021 to 2023 timeline. But I think the first time I visited the US was back in 2013. I have an aunt there. I visited there for about a month. Traveled a bit in the US as well. And I think even though I was only young, I think 14 or 15 years old then, I somehow decided that this is not a long-term place for me to settle in. And I think that thought was always there in the back of my mind. And even when I was doing my undergrad undergrad at VIT Vellore, I I was looking at options for masters programs in the Netherlands and in Germany.

1:53 And even for my foreign language, I had taken German. But I think suddenly a pivot happened in the end of third year early fourth year when I decided, okay, maybe I don't want to do a fully technical masters. I might want to mix a bit of management in that. And that's when I decided that, okay, US has some of these best engineering management programs and I decided to go there. But I think always the intention was clear even from my side or from my parents' side that never look at the US as a long-term.

2:20 Maybe consider working there for a couple of years and then definitely come back. I think never looked at the US as a long-term option. And then it so happened that as I was completing my masters, my Arvind, who's the co-founder and CEO, happened to call like call me up and tell me about what he was working on at In Bound Aerospace. And I was it was too good of an opportunity for me to pass up. Surprisingly, I would I was not considering working in aerospace or considering entrepreneurship. I was always passionate about aerospace. I mean, getting a chance to work at something like NASA or SpaceX would have been really nice. But I think as a non-US citizen, you are you have to stop at Tesla, I guess. You can't really you're not allowed to work at any of those aerospace companies, your Lockheed Martins or Northrop Grumman's because of the restriction on non-US citizens. I think I I guess the benefit here is knowing Arvind from about 2015 or 16, about 10 years ago.

3:19 How I know Arvind is so my mom happens to teach yoga at IIT Madras. Arvind did his PhD in aerospace engineering at IIT Madras. And he was one of the he was one of the most regular yoga students there, very senior yoga student, you can say. So that's how I met Arvind when bunch of the PhD students had come home for lunch. And yeah, I've known him since then. Got to work with him during my undergrad as well. I was taking his help when I was doing a project sent a project to a lab inside IIT.

3:48 So definitely we've been in and out of touch over the years. And then reached out to me end of 2023. And I guess I've been part of In Bound since early 2024. So I'm originally from Telangana but I grew up here in Chennai. I think it's rare for a Telugu boy to go there and and come back and not settle down there. So Yeah, that's >> >> different thing. Yes, that's that's rare. Yeah. But even you meeting Arvind is also such an interesting coincidence, I think. I mean, how how would you you could you can't plan this?

4:21 >> Never. Never. I mean, it's one in a one in a million. I don't I don't I don't even know how you quantify something like this. And And it gets even more actually interesting with our third co-founder, actually. He He happens to be a navy fighter pilot on the MiG-29. So he wanted to become an astronaut candidate like the four astronaut candidates we have today. They're all air force pilots. so the two one of the criteria being considered for selection is you have to pass the test pilot exam.

4:51 Unfortunately, he could never sit for that test pilot exam because he was sent to Russia for the fighter aircraft induction training. So because he decided that he couldn't become an astronaut through the navy route, he decided to take early retirement and come out and try the private route. That's when he met Arvind. That was fair Oh, really? >> Yeah, yeah. So that's when he met Arvind at a space conference in 2023. And then yeah, he took early retirement in 2024. And the three of us have been on this together since. Yeah, I mean, I think you answered a few of my next questions through this. Because it is quite interesting to see three co-founders who have completely different backgrounds.

5:34 You are coming from as you said, techno management side. Arvind is I think the PhD in fluid dynamics, right? And you also have a navy pilot in the co-founding team. So I'm curious about how how do you do these co-founders work together? How do all three of you come on the same page? Or maybe if you have a disagreement, how how does it actually happen in the room? Yeah, yeah.

6:04 No, I think I think any I mean, I we are still young. This probably much less knowledge I I I can say. I mean, I'm still young and the company is still young. But I guess co-founder disagreements are part of a healthy co-founder relationship. I don't think there's a successful startup out there without co-founder disagreements. But I think since 2024 early 2024, we've had our own disagreements in multiple different aspects. But I think finding out way to compromise between the three of us. I mean, three of us I guess have strong personalities. We probably feel strongly about individual things.

6:45 So finding a way to work with each other and compromise when things might before things get out of hand, I think is something that worked out because I've heard of stories where a startup founder went through 10 or 11 co-founders before settling down on one. So after looking at story like this, I feel definitely we got very lucky finding each other. Like you said, the chances are very very rare for all three of us to find each other. And then I feel we've found a very good team. And And to answer your question on the roles as well, I would say Arvind is the CEO / CTO. So kind of like the brains of the operation, you can say.

7:27 Sets out the technical vision and is able to manage all of our technical teams. And I would say me and Abhijit look at the business and operations side of things. Me being the more day-to-day operations, some of the investors, some of the business side of things as well. And Abhijit also from our business and strategic side of things because of his defense background gives him access to certain doors or he gets to know how some of the like defense side of like our country things much better than what me and Arvind can bring to the table. So I think three of our skill sets are definitely complementary in that way. I don't think two any two of us or any three of us have that much overlap in terms of what we are bringing to the table. Right. So that I think that ensures that all the aspects are covered once you have, you know, your responsibilities are divided in that way. But I would like to now come to the company itself. So In Bound Space the one phrase that has stayed with me regarding In Bound Aerospace is microgravity as a service.

8:38 I have thought about it a lot. And I would actually like you to break it down for me, please. I mean, microgravity as a service. Walk me through it step by step. What is it and how how do you how do you arrive at such an idea? Yeah, yeah. I mean, I hope you're ready for a long answer here. Yeah, feel free to I'm all ears. Feel free to interrupt me at any time. So I guess I guess the first question when we say microgravity as a service, the problem is we when we initially started throwing the term microgravity around, people were asking, "What is microgravity? What does it even mean? Doesn't make any sense."

9:16 But it felt easier for us to start with zero gravity. I mean, through movies or TV shows or science fiction books, people might have heard of the term zero gravity. They know the that environment where astronauts are floating around where earth's gravity does not act. So the thing is, when you look at an environment like the International Space Station or the Chinese Space Station, it is not actually zero gravity. Any object which is freely falling around the earth, it gets to experience that zero gravity.

9:46 It is not actually zero Gs. It is 10 to the power minus six Gs. That's why that quality of microgravity environment that you experience there, it's not actually zero. Because it's 10 to the power minus six, it's called microgravity. And not zero gravity. So, when you talk about microgravity as a service, you have to think about what with that service today as it exists and who all are using it. So, right now if you as a researcher on the ground as somebody on the ground who wants to access that microgravity environment, there are only two options right now.

10:22 The International Space Station and the Chinese Space Station. So, Chinese Space Station is not as accessible to either Indian or our Western counter counterparts research researchers around the world. So, with the International Space Station being the only destination, it's been a severe backlog of like access or experimental slots. So, if you wanted to do an experiment today, by the time you design, build, and test your hardware on the ground and by the time you get a slot, it's going to take a year, year and a half, or two years before you finish the experiment and before it comes back to your lab analysis. So, that was one of the premises on which the company was founded. Very interesting is IIT Madras has a facility called a microgravity drop tower.

11:06 So, a drop tower microgravity drop tower is a facility. It's a like a tall tower in IIT Madras. It's about 30 m tall. When you drop an object from the top before it hits the bottom where there's an airbag, you get about 2.2 seconds of microgravity experiment time. So, with just 2.2 seconds, this is really the only only facility in the country, this drop tower, and it's the fourth largest in the world. So, with such a small amount of time which makes it difficult for most research researchers to do any type of experiment, it still happens to be the fourth largest in the world with the largest being about nine seconds in Germany.

11:41 So, for most of your life sciences biological sciences experiments or material science experiments which require anywhere from a few hours to a few days, maybe even a few months or few years, you have no choice but to go all the way to space. So, that's where our company is looking to offer our platform to do these kind of microgravity experiments or microgravity research and then hence the name microgravity as a service. I mean, it's probably you say software as a service, you want to say microgravity service as or maybe even space as a service so you can still use the SaaS acronym. No, but it it I think helps in immediately making people understand what is that the company does and what is you know, Inboard Aerospace here for. I completely understand the now requirement of such a service. So, you mentioned about only International Space Station being available. I think even that is retiring in 2030 if I'm not wrong. So, I don't know where will people go after that. I see the importance of it.

12:48 But, can you walk me through the steps of how do you how is it different from providing zero gravity environment, you know, to humans or through how payloads are provided to separate private rocket launch launchers and how is it different from you know, using any other private rocket launch facility to you know, be in space or have a satellite in space and how is how is Inboard Aerospace different in that way? Right, right. So, great question.

13:28 You can think of Inboard Aerospace product. You can call it a space plane, you can call it a satellite, you can call it a re-entry spacecraft. All are correct terms. So, the form factor is more like a space shuttle. So, when you when I say space shuttle, you can think of the space shuttle that took Kalpana Chawla to space a couple of decades ago. More of like a space plane but without wings. So, the reason you don't have wings. So, there are three types of re-entry spacecraft you can say. So, one is a capsule. I say capsule, you can think of the SpaceX Dragon capsule, the Russian Soyuz capsule, or the Gaganyaan from ISRO's inventory, Gaganyaan capsule. They are all blunt body shaped spacecraft. They are all capsules.

14:10 And then you have a lifting body spacecraft which is what we come under. Lifting body means that it's a spacecraft or space plane without wings, but the shape of the body itself helps it generate lift as it moves through the atmosphere. So, you don't need wings to help provide that gliding effect as it comes back. And then the third is a winged space plane which has the best what you call lift to drag ratio and it can glide the most amount of distance through the atmosphere before it lands at a location. So, in terms of trade-offs, capsule has the highest volumetric efficiency as in if you take if all three of them are to share a same the same launch vehicle, the same rocket that takes them to space, a capsule can pack the highest amount of volume. And that's good because you want to be able to take in the most amount of paying customers in a single mission.

15:00 A lifting body is in between a capsule and a winged space plane in terms of volumetric efficiency, how much customer payload it's able to carry. And then a winged space plane is the least efficient because when you think of winged vehicle inside a rocket within the payload fairings, a lot of the volume is wasted unusable because of the space occupied by the wings itself. Yeah, yeah. So, the wings are sitting like this and then all the volume above the wings is just wasted. So, we would rather have that volume be used for customer payloads because revenue is important, right? So, any volume that can be monetized is important for us. So, the trade-offs is we want more volumetric efficiency than a winged space plane, but we want to be able to glide better in the atmosphere than a capsule.

15:48 So, that's where we at Inboard are trying to differentiate ourselves compared to what exists today. But then your question regards to the microgravity environment would differ compared to a let's say a launch vehicle or a satellite. So, there are two things here. We are not solving the problem of going from the ground to space. You have many different players solving this problem right now. You have very reliable existing vehicle from SpaceX called the Falcon 9 which has made rocket launches extremely common. Nowadays, it's not even a major event anymore. I think the first landing of their booster was back in 2015 or 2016 where and then after now it's very very common.

16:31 >> Well, I think landing is a major event now rather than you know, going to space. >> exactly. Exactly. So, they made it so common there and you have multiple companies Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin and Rocket Lab from New Zealand. They are all working on reusable rockets. So, the thing is there you have the first stage of the rocket the both the stages of the rocket going up to space and then you have the first stage booster coming back.

16:55 So, the second stage carries the satellite or satellites multiple satellites if it's a rideshare mission and then deploys each of the satellite in their intended orbit and inclination and then comes back. But the second stage, what happens is it gets destroyed during re-entry. So, it is designed to get incinerated. So, our Earth's atmosphere acts as a natural garbage disposal system. So, all of these satellites get destroyed during re-entry, but the important thing here to notice that any satellite that you send to space can provide that microgravity environment.

17:29 So, all of them can offer the microgravity as a service. But, what we are saying is even though they all can offer microgravity, we are able to bring back whatever you send to space. So, you are paying Inboard a premium in Yeah, exactly. Intact, yes. Very important, yeah. Bring it back in one piece. So, we are able to bring back whatever you send to space because there are some things that you might want to analyze in a lab and which you might not be able to analyze in space, but there are still a good percentage of customers who say, "Hey, I don't need my research to be brought back or my hardware to be brought back. It's enough for me to send it on a small CubeSat, get the data back, and let it get destroyed during re-entry." So, there's there's a fair degree of hardware qualification that happens in space without anything being brought back. So, even even in India itself, you might have heard of the PSLV launch vehicle or the SSLV launch vehicle.

18:18 So, the PSLV has four stages. The fourth stage which to which the final customer satellite is mated to, what happens is when they have some additional mass capacity or volume capacity left over, they offer that fourth stage as a test bed to any company that wants to qualify their hardware or do an experiment in that microgravity environment in space. So, it can be a Earth observation company trying to test a sensor, propulsion company trying to qualify their engine.

18:48 So, it's called the POEM platform. PSLV Orbital Experimentation Module, I believe. So, essentially, it's a test bed for anybody to do. It's a cheap test bed, easily accessible test bed for you or me to test our hardware there. But, the problem is whatever expensive hardware or experiments you're sending can't be brought back because the entire fourth stage gets destroyed intentionally during re-entry. So, we are saying, "Okay, if you're okay with that, you can continue. But, if you need it to be brought back, then that's where Inboard needs to come into the picture." So, Okay, interesting.

19:22 Because of this split, I have a a new doubt regarding the you know, for lack of a better word, the total addressable market that Inboard has. Because I was under the impression that every experiment that Inboard's customer or any microgravity experiment that needs to happen in space has to come back for analysis or any kind of data output. But I see that a lot of times you just need the data to be transmitted back, which can be done easily. And then I think the party is not really caring about what happens to my payload or bring back my stuff or something like that.

20:11 Correct. So, that's why I have a I doubt regarding then does that how much percentage does that change your total addressable market? I mean, do more In terms of percentage, do most of them just say, "Okay, we don't worry about the hardware." Or most of them actually want the hardware to come back to them? >> So, the interesting thing is it's difficult to So, it's like I don't know if this is a good analogy, but it's a bit like 10-minute delivery.

20:40 So, when you trying to ask what the total addressable market is for 10-minute delivery, you the answers were, "Who needs 10-minute delivery? I don't really need anything that quickly." But then when the product itself was introduced, now you see how how many people are like asked >> When the service is available, everybody wants it. >> Exactly. Exactly. So, right now the problem is service is not available. So, your alternative There are no alternatives as a at least in India.

21:05 Right now, if you wanted to test your sensor in space and bring it back, no options for you. So, one option is maybe you get it on the Dragon capsule on the Soyuz capsule after a long-drawn process of approvals, and it is going to be very expensive. And you have to wait a long time, but it is very very difficult for you to find an option right now to bring something back. So, probably not it's not the very easy to try and say that the total addressable market is this right now. And even after Inbound has 100 spacecraft available, there will be about 10 or 20%. There's no accurate way of saying that there will be about this many percentage of people who say, "I don't need re-entry." Now, it's just that they don't really have an option to bring back their hardware. At least it's a very like without extreme complexity.

21:52 in in the in today's available re-entry vehicles or normal satellite platforms. So, what they're doing is the cost of building and designing a 3U or 3U CubeSat platform has become very cheap, and then you can send your hardware on that. There are so many companies building the CubeSat platforms and offering what they call a hosted payload space. Essentially, they're offering volume on their satellite to anybody who wants to do their research or qualify their hardware. But most of these satellites very cheap to design, build it, and send it up now nowadays, but not yet cheap to bring something back. So, I guess maybe I know I've not answered your question completely, but it's more of the option not being available right now, which is forcing people to go with the split option of not bringing it back and only being forced to be happy with only data transfer. So.

22:41 Right. Right. I think it is a So, you What you're saying is it is a forced decision as of now. Since there is no let's say 10-minute delivery right now available. That's why people are waiting for a day or something. >> Yes. Yes. Yes, exactly. Understood. Okay. Yeah. So, one more thing that was quite interesting about Inbound Aerospace is that you have refused to have you know, re-entry through the normal way that we know of any even human spaceflights, which is a splashdown in ocean somewhere.

23:20 I Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're going more with the glider approach or, you know, runway, and you Yes. come down on just like a plane. So, there will be a proper landing, yes, right? >> I I wonder why was such a major decision taken directly and okay, we are not doing splashdowns at all. What is is there a huge difference in that? Because I I just add I think Recently, we had the Artemis 2 splashdown, right? So, there they went to the moon and came back safely. Nothing happened to four of our astronauts. And here Inbound is that, "Okay, no splashdowns." So, I wanted to understand the decision.

24:07 >> Yeah. Yeah. So, that was a great question because I think an interesting context would be back when the space shuttle was running, before it was decommissioned. It was an excellent spacecraft. I mean, the design back in the '70s, and it flew all the way I think until 2011 before it was decommissioned, but very very expensive vehicle. I think the program went probably 10 times or I don't know how many times beyond its original budget, but very very ahead of its time, and there was no equivalent in the world.

24:41 But the interesting thing, the capability that the space shuttle offered was its ability to come back into the atmosphere very smoothly, you can say. The thing is, any experiment or humans who were coming back on the space shuttle experienced very less G-forces compared to their Russian counterparts on the Soyuz capsule. So, all of the Dragon capsule, Soyuz capsule, and even the integrity capsule in Artemis 1 and 2, they're all capsule-shaped spacecraft. They face much higher G-forces when coming back into the Earth's atmosphere.

25:13 So, one primary important decision for Inbound to exist in this form factor and not a typical capsule-shaped re-entry spacecraft is because we want to be able to offer that smoother re-entry experience to any sensitive experiments that we do end up bringing back from space. So, there is a old research, I think, back from the mid-'80s, late '80s, early '90s talking about how high G-forces could impact sensitive material science payloads that are brought back from space. So, the problem is after the space shuttle was decommissioned and there was a period from 2011 to 2020, 2020, where NASA didn't have its own regular vehicle. And until SpaceX came out with the Dragon in 2020, and Boeing came out with the Starliner later, there were no really re-entry options. And even now, when you have a very reliable vehicle like the Dragon, you don't really have a vehicle that can match the space shuttle in terms of a smooth re-entry G-force experience that that they used to have. So, we want to say, "Hey, we are able to offer this platform that can offer you a very smooth experience, but also land precisely at a location." Which is again difficult to do with a capsule.

26:27 Because it's more like a ballistic missile trajectory or re-entry through the atmosphere. It is not able to glide through the atmosphere, and it goes more straight down. And even when the parachute deploys, it's subject to the weather conditions in that location, and there will definitely be some drift from the original intended location, target location. So, you'll have to earmark a much larger area for your landing, whether that's on the water or the land. In the The Russian Soyuz capsule does a land landing.

26:55 The Americans have always traditionally done a water-based landing. So, we want to be able to offer a smoother re-entry experience and a more precise landing option. So, if you think about the amount of Gs that the payload will experience inside, when you use parachutes, that shock of parachute deployment is again a high-G experience. It could go, I think, if I'm not wrong, more than four Gs at that moment. And if you were to not do a runway landing, if you do a land splashdown or water splashdown, even that shock of the impact as well would be again more than the number of Gs that we would want the a payload to experience. So, interestingly, the shuttle with its runway landing was able to offer the lowest or the smoothest possible experience for its its payloads. So, that's something to reach that level of payload quality as Yeah, that level of precision and payload quality, we we went with this decision to go with a runway landing and a lifting body spacecraft. So, Okay. Okay.

27:58 That makes me curious about the specific applications of you know, such a huge technological solution that you are providing. Because because of the precision and the landing part and going through the Earth's atmosphere at such high speed and still be in control. All of these technological challenges, I'm curious about the specific applications of this microgravity environment and this payload that needs to come back in one piece.

28:34 where can we What all things can we apply it for? >> Yeah. So, there's a very very interesting website called factoriesinspace.com essentially gives you an entire list of possible products that can be manufactured in space and be brought back. So, when you say in space manufacturing, you don't think of large factories with huge robots or people trying to make something, but Why not? Something possible. Possible, but at least in Inbound spacecraft for now, what we are trying to get people to think about is it's more of low-volume, high-value goods like pharmaceuticals or semiconductors that are made in small quantities inside a reasonable amount of volume, and then brought back to Earth for commercial applications. So, when you remove the effect of Earth's gravity, there are certain effects, physical and chemical effects, you know, like sedimentation, lack of sedimentation, or lack of buoyancy, or lack of thermal convection, which influence the way proteins might be crystallized in space, which influence the way 3D bioprinted organs or tissues are able to be grown in space. It influences the way you can do certain processes, which are impossible to do on Earth because you can't recreate that environment on Earth beyond a few seconds.

29:48 so, you talk about there are some big pharma companies in the US like Merck, Eli Lilly, and Bristol Myers Squibb who have all done ground making ground making research on the International Space Station. I believe there's a also been 3D bioprinting of a heart tissue and a 3D bioprinting of a knee meniscus experiment. It's for all done on the International Space Station, I think, over the last 3 or 4 years. So, a lot of this because it's not possible, you know, our gravity has to be conducted on an environment like the ISS or future platforms like ours.

30:20 And when it does come back, we are saying that a lot of these experiments are very sensitive and they will not survive they might not survive those high shock loads during re-entry. So, you're talking about delicate semiconductor crystal or ingot that you have grown in space. We want to say, hey, whatever you're bringing back, it's not exactly coming back in one piece, you can say, or in it's not coming back with the quality that you can get. So, we are saying that we are able to offer that lower G re-entry experience to bring back items in the best quality possible. You took some really big names over there. I mean, if the applications are in biotech and semiconductors, both are both of the fields are you know, hot completely right now in their own sense. I mean, even on Earth they are, you know, cooking crazy right now. I'm not I don't want to sound like as soon as Inbound Space Craft is ready, we will have people lining up with take my money and I want this product to be made. It's probably not at a stage yet where the next billion-dollar drug is being made in space and being brought back, but we are optimistic that that's not more than 3 or 4 years away. It's just one domino away from falling from one domino away from this space environment being utilized on a regular basis for something to be brought back. But, at least for now, the lower hanging fruit for us to tackle is being that lower cost more highly accessible platform as an alternative to the International Space Station.

31:52 >> Yeah, I understood. Yeah. But, that makes me curious about where where is Inbound Aerospace right now on this journey. So, can I send something right now or >> Yeah, I mean, I mean, I want to answer that we are in space right now, but that will take some time. So, we we want to do our first launch in 2028. So, right now we are in our, you can say, our peak R&D phase. We were incorporated in January 2025, then raised our first pre-seed round last July, July 2025.

32:21 So, you have multiple subsystems that need to be integrated together to build any satellite. So, you're talking about the aerodynamic shape, you're talking about the mechanisms, the structure, the materials, the propulsion, the avionics, the guidance. So, you have teams working individually on all of these subsystems and each of these subsystems need to be individually qualified, designed, qualified, and tested before it can be integrated onto the spacecraft. So, that's the work that is going on in each of these subsystem right now. Some of them are ahead of the others in terms of the technology readiness level, you can say, or the level which they are at.

32:57 Like, the guidance system might be ahead of the avionics system or the some of the subsystems are more ahead of them in their designing timelines, you can say. So, it's very important that we complete our preliminary design review. So, all space companies or satellites or launch vehicles you need to go through preliminary design review where you have kind of somewhat locked in the design of all of your individual subsystems and then you go to a critical design review which before you fabricate all of the components and integrate it. So, critical design review kind of locks in each of the individual nuts and bolts and screws and the placement of each component on the spacecraft. And once that's kind of reviewed by external experts, it could be ISRO scientists, it could be other maybe professors of our institutions who review your work that your team has done and then once they give their okay, you are able to proceed with your fabrication and eventual testing of the spacecraft before proceeding for launch. So, that's the we have an ambitious timeline set in 2028 and yeah, that's that's where we are at, yeah.

34:02 And for 2028, I think a rapid iteration would also be quite important, right? And I'm curious about how So, I'm from a software background. So, for us rapid iteration is maybe a day or a week, but right now it is even faster because of AI. But, how does it happen when you have to put something in space and bring it back and that has to work on the first try, so Yeah, yeah, that's when if if you look at a manned capsule like the Dragon capsule or the integrity capsule for from Artemis 2, I mean, then the problem is when you involve humans, you'll have to have multiple multiple redundancies for all of the subsystem, right? So, that's that's it's that same principle that you take for our spacecraft as well. I think the benefit is what we have access to is that an unlimited not unlimited, but great vast expertise from retired ISRO scientists and even serving ISRO scientists because of the formation of Inbound Space that organization back in 2020.

35:11 It's kind of like a central regulator or authority to coordinate all space activities in the country. So, they are able to transfer all of these learnings and knowledge that decades some decades of learnings from ISRO to all of these new space startups it that have been formed over the last 7-8 years. So, in that way, for us to be able to ensure that we succeed the first time, we have to make sure that we are able to cover all corners. You like, there's some things which you can never plan for in space. There are a million things that can go wrong for each of the components for each of the thousands of components. So, what you can try to do is try to simulate every possible scenario here on the ground and try to design for all of the scenarios, but end of the day, it is a harsh environment. It is high risk high reward environment. But, in terms of rapid iteration, I would say our first mission in 2028 is kind of like a prototype mission to prove that the spacecraft survives re-entry, the high heat, and high temperatures during re-entry and is able to land back precisely in one piece. So, it's not that if it gets I mean, I I'm not talking I don't want to talk pessimistic here, but if it gets destroyed during re-entry, it's not that I can quickly go and launch the next day.

36:25 So, it is down to learning what went wrong in that mission and trying to change that in the designing process before we build a new spacecraft and launch it in the subsequent missions. So, but you what we can try to do is design for and try to design for all possible contingencies in space and and not pray, but we are we confident that it survives. Yeah, as long as we have everything in our control. Yeah, I think the more you prepare, the more you're confident about these that's the Yeah, the approach. Given that you are right now fully in the research stage of it, what is the biggest challenge that you are seeing right now in this whole cycle? I mean, I think the going to space would be is not something that you are primarily worried about.

37:14 The payload will reach space, but the main target, I think, of Inbound Space is to bring it back intact in a much better condition than anything offered anywhere else. So, in this whole all the stages involved, what do you think is the biggest technological challenge or any kind of challenge for that matter right now that Inbound Space faces? >> I think the first first I would say, obviously, technological challenges. I mean, there are many that we're facing across all subsystem, but that's a given I mean, space is a space is a hard problem and hardware is a hard problem. but, I'm not saying software is an easy problem. Software is also hard. But, I like the hardware has hard in the name itself. But, yeah.

37:59 So, I think there are multiple challenges that we face across all subsystem on a daily basis, but we have that good access to expertise and advisory support as well all over the country. So, that is something that we are able to tackle and move on. I mean, it's with all aspects even with the challenging materials aspect as well where our spacecraft has to survive temperatures in excess of 1,500°C while traveling at 25,000 km/h.

38:30 So, all of these challenges, we are confident that it can be tackled eventually with time. But, I would say a non-technological challenge is the regulatory challenge. So, because you asked me why we don't want to do a water splashdown, we want to do a splashdown on the land. Our eventual goal is to do a landing on the Indian landmass. So, I would say the biggest barrier there is the regulatory challenge that we would face trying to bring an object from space traveling at those speeds hypersonic velocities and then supersonic. Basically, bring in a projectile in in Indian airspace. How do I convince the DGCA and air traffic control and the air force that, hey, we are safe. We're not going to kill anybody on the ground. We're not going to destroy any property, but we'll come back and land at X where you precisely like you want to. That would be one of the bigger challenges that we have. But, what has given us confidence is there are a couple of US private startups who are building capsules. I see one of them who have done a private re-entry on US soil and about not private re-entry. I mean, a private company who have done a re-entry on US soil, one re-entry mission on in the state of Utah in the US, and about four re-entry missions in South Australia.

39:43 So, what has given us confidence is they've kind of worked hard to put that re-entry license policy framework in place. So, from the Federal Aviation Administration of the US, so that is a framework that even our own local local regulators can follow to put to help give a re-entry license to even Indian companies to one day bring back projectiles from space without without harming anybody on the ground. Okay, yeah. I think that would be like some building something similar to what they are doing on the US front. Is it? Mhm. Yeah.

40:19 Yes, that can that can be one way of convincing >> Yeah, yeah, because I mean, you might have heard of that electric air taxi here in Chennai. It's called E-Plane. And then there's a company in Bangalore called Sarala as well. So, the thing is there's no policy today. I mean, you have a very strict framework for someone like an Indigo or Air India or SpiceJet to follow. But what who is setting the policy right now for an electric air taxi to take off from Chennai here and go to Bangalore or Hyderabad or something like that.

40:49 Because they you want to take off from a rooftop or a helipad in the middle of the city, it gets that much more complicated. You don't have helicopters flying around on a regular basis at least. So, there are some challenges, but even there I think you have some American companies and I believe European company as well who are framing the policy right now. So, there'll be challenges initially, but that's there with any new technology. I you're seeing that with autonomous vehicles right now who are working in geographically fenced areas of the world. And of course, it comes with their own problems, but if if you don't go through this, how will you how will you advance as a civilization? I have a feeling that if you had the chance to snap your fingers and solve a problem, it is the regulatory problem that you might have faced.

41:30 >> No no doubt about that. Because that's something we really really have to like go through the go through the trenches. I mean, it it is in probably it it is not a doubt it will take some time to solve it, but given the existence of certain organizations like in space, it gives us the confidence that it will be a much easier process compared to what it was before the existence of organizations like that. So, definitely we're confident in the ability to get something like that in place.

42:00 Yeah, we need to start somewhere. Talking about starting, so I want to come back to you. You I don't think come traditionally from the space background. Your formal education is not in space. So, as compared to your co-founders who are at least experienced in maybe physics or one is pilot directly. So, yeah, they have let's say hands-on experience in this. So, I'm curious about some of the misconceptions that you had about the space industry or something that you assumed that would be this way and you found out to be a lot different in the Indian space tech ecosystem.

42:46 I I think a very helpful answer is initially when you're starting out, you don't know how hard it is. So, you're that much more confident to start it. So, as you move along the problem, you realize oh, it's actually this hard or it's actually this complex. But I think that's one benefit of I don't want to say delusional is the is the word, but I think there's a certain degree of delusion that is necessary to work on a challenging problem like this. For me personally, I don't think lack of a traditional aerospace education really affected my decision to get into this. I think listening to the passion with which Arvind sold me the idea, I think there was no doubt that I was going to say yes to coming and joining. And interestingly, at that time, you know, on my phone I have an app called Flightradar. You might have heard about it. You track any flight that takes off or lands.

43:37 Any flight you look at you look you look at it in the sky, you can see that it's a Indigo from Chennai to Hyderabad or something like that. And I was always interested in airplanes and rockets and things like that. So, and I also had an app for looking at the planets. You point at a bright star and it tells you it's Jupiter or it's a constellation so Orion's Belt or some other planet or it's the moon.

44:00 So, I want to say that Inbound is kind of like in between this the Flightradar app and the planets app because it's kind of like a space travel flight that is flying back to fly back to the earth. So, I am happy it worked out that way. I mean, it's just a coincidence, but the eventual goal is to track our spacecraft on the Flightradar app as well. So, maybe if someone from Flightradar is listening to this podcast, maybe have our spacecraft being tracked on the app as well one day. That would would definitely be a a nice thing to do.

44:31 Amazing. Yeah. Maybe we are tracking flights and out of nowhere we this period is coming back. And the speed would be most of these flights are like max out at maybe 900 800 km/h. Some of them maybe 1,000 km/h. We want our speed to be tracked at 25,000 km/h on the on the app. So, that would be very nice. Yeah. Yeah. And the Indian defense to be okay with it. Yeah, these are Inbound guys. That's a very very big problem.

45:01 Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Right. but speaking about the Indian space tech ecosystem overall I want to know how do you see it when compared to other space tech startups or ecosystems that are developing in other countries, maybe developed other developed countries. So, do you think about the comparison between different countries in that front?

45:32 Yeah, definitely. I think a good way to compare would be let's say if I take two well-funded Indian space startups. Let's say you might have heard of Agnikul, a launch vehicle company from Chennai. And someone like Skyroot from Hyderabad as well. They're both building launch vehicles. I've been here been in incorporated since 2018, I think the both of them. So, they're at a stage where they've kind of passed the maybe the valley of death and have kind of raised enough money to get to launch. I think Skyroot is launching probably in the first half of 2026.

46:08 And Agnikul if not this year, then probably early next year. So, if I had to compare them with their peers in US and Europe, I think initially there would have probably been a very very different access to the amount of funding for each of these startups. I think their peers or their technological equivalents in the US and Europe would have had access to much higher quantum of money. If they are raising 10 million here, their US and European peers or maybe American peers are raising 100 million. So, that really allows you to do much more in your early days the startup and make that many more mistakes and have much bigger facilities in the very early days. So, that's something, but I think that we have always known that ISRO is the been almost on par with NASA with you know, like with a shoestring budget. We've been forced to be frugal with our plans and our budgets and our timelines. On par with NASA, I think with the budget of space >> Exactly, exactly. Yeah, yeah, that's a that's a that's a good way of a good way of putting it. So, it it I think it's down to ISRO to concentrate on the science missions because you you can't really have a private startup doing something like a Venus orbital mission because there might not be economic returns in that.

47:21 Let ISRO focus on that, but so, what we even though we might lack we might lag western western counterparts in this access to deep tech funding, I would say in the last 7 years that has changed a lot. If you were to tell me that Inbound would exist in 2017 or 16, I would say that's very very unlikely. The space ecosystem was different. The access to funding was different. But maybe you can say the talent is still there was still there because you have so many ISRO scientists who are retiring and so many active ISRO scientists. I think now with the explosion of startups after the formation of Inspace, I think if I'm not wrong, the number is 200 or 250 plus right now.

48:01 there's actually a viable option for somebody a student studying aerospace engineering to go work in a great startup in in many places around the country. I think you have hubs forming in Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad as well. So, I I definitely on in terms of talent, I think we are on par. But my bias would say maybe we are better than our western counterparts. But yeah, it's I don't think it's too long before we see our own space startups able to compete both in terms of funding and the technological ability with their western counterparts. I don't think that's that that is too far away, but it's very very nice to see how much progress they've made in such a short time in terms of space startups like being able to exist and grow in the country as well. But credit to the early startups. You know, your Bellatrix from Bangalore, Dhruva from Hyderabad who set up even before there was even something like a deep tech venture capital firm in the country. So, credit to them for going through the hard times and so to make it easier for someone like us and to come and build a startup. Yeah, that's that's actually quite interesting. And I would say they are the pioneers of the Indian startup ecosystem. That's where we started. And then now we have complete exposure which is also quite important in the general audience, general public in India that okay, space tech ecosystem or the startups is a viable option. And I yes, we can do it.

49:37 I want to know but where do you think did this change start because it does feel quite fast that we started in the private sector and then it just skyrocketed no one's >> >> because it wasn't a gradual thing. So you being an insider do you know what caused this exactly? We're not able to pinpoint the reason but so if if I look at a startup which was they started around in 2012 in 2016 or 2018 when when Agnikul and Skyroot I know their founders also like to say the story but when they were incorporated it was illegal to launch a launch vehicle from the Indian land mass so it it was I'm not surprised.

50:30 Let's say a DRDO doing a ICBM test launch no one really do that type of launch in the country. So imagine incorporating a company whose main product is illegal at that point of time. Really you have you have to convince yourself your parents and your immediate society and investors that it is something that can be tackled but if that that that scene is aside I think maybe probably the formation of in space in 2020 at least for the space sector really broke down the walls in terms of being able to have the confidence to form a space startup and with the explosion of space startups I think it also coincided with the rise of deep tech venture capital in the country. So what I'm saying is specifically for space but it's not that you have investors who are investing only in space tech you that investing in deep tech startups around the country in semiconductors and energy many other fields. I just thought that space startups have become like a poster child of deep tech ecosystem in India. So that's that's how people got exposure to the overall deep tech startup ecosystem and yeah I'm not complaining it's great. I mean I mean credit to probably Musk and other other entrepreneurs for making space cool. I mean if if we are a poster child in space is obviously probably looked at as a cool sector to be in but there are I would say definitely say there are many more ground breaking sectors that are being worked on in the country and when I go to some of these events and when I listen to some of the ideas that founders are working on you never even heard of some of these things before or even heard of the way these sectors that they are working in and you feel kind of feel that you are in your own silo here here in Chennai and you have never heard of any of these things. So really really What I'm saying is okay in space in 2020 changed the trajectory for space startups but I'm trying to understand now that you asked me this where it changed for deep tech startups in the country. Why is student A who is there in their fourth year or student B who is finishing their PhD how are they able to get their confidence to work on their deep tech startup?

52:45 Probably credit to the deep tech venture capital ecosystem changing over the last few years as well and of course the government coming out with some game changing grants in some specific sectors to help push that all of this research out of the lab and into into the open. >> Yeah. Yeah the exposure definitely helps right? Especially in deep tech where you have such a long horizon where you might have the product maybe even 10 years down the line.

53:17 So in that case it really helps where the VCs present in the ecosystem have the empathy towards you know deep tech founders of how the process is going to be or even trusting them when they don't really understand where when this might get implemented. So as you were mentioning we are in silos and you just get surprised of okay this is also getting built when will this get built or how is how are people even thinking about this?

53:48 >> Yeah when we thought our idea was ambitious but then until you see all these ideas you think okay maybe we're not maybe we're not ambitious enough is what you think. That's that's great that's great to hear amazing. So I think we are coming to the last part of the episode. Just for the last question I've kept for you is specifically about In Aerospace's future itself. So according to Vishal's plan everything goes according to the plan for In Aerospace and we are looking at 10 or 15 years after 2026 where is In Aerospace and what has exactly happened in the to India let's say due to In Aerospace.

54:38 So I remember you asked me about the use cases initially of a spacecraft like this right? So even though we want to target this microgravity market microgravity as a service and hardware tech testing as a service or in space manufacturing as a service I think the natural progression for us once we prove our capability once we're able to say that In Aerospace is a company you can trust for regular re-entry. Once we have proved that high cadence on a regular base like high cadence let's say post our first mission in 2028 the natural progression is to eventually become a cargo supply partner to and from future space stations right? So even though the ISS is scheduled to be decommissioned by 2030 NASA is helping fund two commercial private space station.

55:29 There's a US company called Vast and there's a company called Axiom who are pretty far ahead in their development plans to build and launch the the first modules of their space stations. So you not only have these private commercial space stations coming up you also have government space stations like the our ISRO's own Bharatiya Antariksh station which is planning to come up in this decade as well. Both come come up and get assembled. So it is natural for us to think of our spacecraft as platform or a vehicle that goes and docks with these future space stations carries supplies humans down the line one day as well and brings back stuff from the space station as well. So it's a natural progression that we see for our space for our company as well because designing for humans is one of the harder problems in in in in space. So designing for obvious reasons if if if our spacecraft is has a long gestation period and requires patient capital designing for humans it requires even more time and even more patience and much more complexities. So 10 15 now years down the line that's something we'd definitely like to prove or at least have started work on.

56:42 And definitely be a partner to all of these space stations around the world and like I said earlier have multiple In Aerospace spacecraft of multiple sizes small medium and large and excel size as well to cater to different customer demands and we are tracking all of them on our flight radar app. Maybe there are some secret defense versions which are not trackable on the public apps but yeah that's that would be a great place to be 10 15 years down the line.

57:11 Great. Great nice. So In Aerospace brings back stuff from Mars when? Brings stuff back from Mars when the launch vehicle to Mars is ready. So I'll name that timeline for you when when you eventually bring Elon Musk on your podcast. When he does get Starship ready and when he does eventually launch to Mars we'll try to be one of the first customers our spacecraft will try to be one of the first customers on the Starship spacecraft so hopefully Perfect perfect we have we both have the end targets set now.

57:43 >> >> Yeah great. Thanks thanks a lot Vishal. I had a great conversation. I hope everyone learned a lot about In Aerospace the equally important challenge of bringing stuff back not just putting stuff in orbit and I hope you enjoyed >> Yeah yeah definitely thank you Atharva. Really really I think this is only my second ever podcast so when you reached out and when you asked me told me that you are starting a podcast I was very very excited. I really really like talking about what we are building and then and I think generally for the deep tech community it's important to try and educate people and tell more people about what we are trying to build and why it's important not only for the country but for on a global level as well. So always love talking about what we are trying to build and love answering questions about about what we are building. I always I I told my co-founder this as well but I feel the hardest questions are asked by school children. They tend to go deeper and deeper into the problem and then you start thinking about the basics which you you don't tend to answer very well. So I think if you are able to explain to school student very well you are you can explain the hard stuff to anyone. Kids ask the best questions. Yeah. Thanks thanks a lot Vishal.

58:58 >> you so much Atharva for having me. >>