Rockets can land themselves. Satellites roll off production lines. The space industry is pushing what's possible every single day — and raising expectations for how quickly we can get there.

But while spacecraft and launch capabilities evolve, the way we develop the software behind them isn’t always keeping pace.

Consider this: Roughly 80% of flight software consists of foundational capabilities shared across missions. Yet much of that infrastructure is still developed from scratch, consuming valuable engineering resources that could be spent advancing your mission

So why are space companies still building flight software from scratch?

Why Space Companies Build Flight Software from Scratch

Engineering teams have legitimate, tangible reasons to develop flight software in-house:

• Control and Flexibility: Full control over architecture, functionality, and implementation. 

• Mission-Specific Requirements: Some missions require unique hardware, performance, operational, or assurance needs that may demand custom development. 

• Existing Expertise: Organizations with experienced flight software teams often have codebases, internal frameworks, and processes they know and trust.

• Long-Term Ownership: Some companies want or require full control over their software roadmap, dependencies, and intellectual property. 

None of these are reasons to abandon custom development. These are valid considerations, and for some capabilities, building in-house is the right call. But they're not necessarily reasons to build an entire flight software stack from scratch, either. 

The question isn’t whether your team can build it. It's which parts actually need to be built from scratch, and which are just being rebuilt out of habit. 

The 80% Every Mission Needs

Think of flight software like an iceberg. Above the waterline is roughly 20% that defines the mission: payload algorithms, imaging pipelines, science data collection, GN&C tuned to a specific vehicle. It’s what the spacecraft is actually for, and it’s different every time.

But beneath the surface is a much larger foundation of capabilities most spacecraft depend on:

• Command and Telemetry: Receiving commands, managing spacecraft data, and communicating with ground systems.

• Health Monitoring and Fault Management: Tracking system health, detecting anomalies, and responding to faults. 

• Data Handling and Storage: Managing onboard data, files, and downlink, plus writing it reliably to memory. 

• Hardware and Operating System Abstraction: Providing consistent interfaces across different hardware and computing environments. 

• Time Management and Scheduling: Coordinating onboard activities and time-dependent operations.

These capabilities are essential, but they're also problems that have been solved before. 

Building that foundation from scratch takes time, budget, and engineering talent. How much of that investment actually advances the mission, and how much could be better spent developing and validating mission-specific capabilities?

The Real Cost of Building Flight Software from Scratch

Building your own flight software gives you control. It also means your team owns every integration issue, every round of software verification and validation, and every update to the underlying framework. Much of that work needs to happen ahead of the mission-specific development it's meant to support. And once the software is flying, it must be maintained as hardware and requirements change. 

The next mission starts, and the cycle begins again. Software developed around one mission's requirements and hardware doesn't always carry forward cleanly, leaving teams to revalidate, rework, or rebuild, absorbing much of the same cost a second time.

So the real cost of building flight software from scratch is that it usually isn’t a one-time investment. For many engineering teams, it’s a cost they pay on every mission. 

What Flight Software Should You Build vs. Reuse?

The alternative to building everything from scratch is not giving up control of your flight software. It’s making a deliberate choice about where custom development adds value, and where an existing foundation can do the job. 

Build What Makes Your Mission Different

Custom development creates the most value where your mission is unique: 

• Mission-specific GN&C algorithms

• Specialized payload functionality

• Vehicle-specific interfaces

• Autonomous behaviors and control logic

That’s where your engineers’ expertise becomes a real competitive advantage, and where it should be concentrated: solving the technical challenges specific to your vehicle, payload, and mission objectives. 

Reuse the Foundation

Most teams want to reuse their flight software. It’s already built, so why not use it again? 

The problem usually isn’t intent; it’s design. A flight software architecture designed for one mission can be tightly coupled to its hardware, tools, and testing environment. And when simulation, flight software, and ground operations rely on disconnected systems, reuse becomes even more complicated. Adapting that foundation for the next mission can involve so much rework and revalidation that starting from scratch begins to look more practical.

Reusability isn't solely a decision about what code to keep. It's enabled, or constrained, by the software architecture and tools you choose.

A reusable software foundation gives teams a head start on each mission. Instead of rebuilding the same infrastructure, they can adapt proven capabilities to new hardware and mission requirements and focus on what makes each mission unique.

And it matters more with every mission you fly. Mission two shouldn’t cost what mission one did. By mission ten, the difference defines your program. 

Build vs. Buy: How to Evaluate Your Flight Software Options

You don’t have to build a reusable flight software foundation to benefit from one. 

An existing framework can eliminate substantial foundational development work. But buying software isn’t automatically a shortcut. A framework that requires extensive customization, integration, or rework can introduce many of the challenges you were trying to solve in the first place. 

Whether you build, buy, or combine both, consider these five questions: 

1. Which capabilities are truly mission-specific? Identify what genuinely requires custom development versus what could be supported by an existing foundation.  

2. Does your team have the capability to build and maintain the foundation? Consider the engineering resources required beyond initial deployment, including ongoing support, updates, and maintenance. 

3. How does each option affect your development schedule? Compare the time required to develop, integrate, test, and validate custom software against the time to adopt and integrate an existing one.  

4. How will the flight software integrate with the rest of your mission environment? Consider how each approach connects with simulation, testing infrastructure, and ground operations, plus what it will take to integrate and validate those connections.

5. Is the foundation designed for reuse across missions and hardware? Evaluate whether the architecture can accommodate different vehicles, hardware configurations, and mission requirements without extensive rework. 

Build vs. buy is not a binary decision. Many teams combine custom development with existing software frameworks and reusable components. What matters is choosing an approach that reduces repeated engineering work without limiting what your team can develop on top of it. 

A Better Approach to Flight Software Development

What if you didn’t have to start every mission by assembling the software infrastructure to support it? 

That’s the idea behind WarpWare: a reusable, integrated mission software platform that seamlessly connects simulation and design (WarpTwin), flight software (WarpOS), and operations (WarpLink). 

And because those capabilities are designed to work together on one shared foundation, the benefits extend well beyond flight software alone.

• Start mission-specific work sooner: WarpOS provides an established, flight-proven foundation, so engineers can focus on developing mission-specific functionality instead of building core services first.

• Develop, test, and operate on one connected foundation: Simulation, flight software, and ground operations share the same foundation, so teams aren’t maintaining separate environments or adapting software between them.

• Carry more into the next mission: WarpWare’s architecture is designed to support different missions, vehicles, and hardware, so reuse extends beyond the flight code to development, simulation, and operations.

For LEAP's Bullfrog rocket program, WarpWare's integrated mission software platform helped the team reach launch readiness in less than six months.

FEATURED CASE STUDY · LEAP

Flight readiness in under six months.

MONTHS

<6

To launch readiness

SAVINGS

$800K+

NRE saved on development