This Polish startup has cosmic plans. It has gained an advantage over even large companies

• Spaceform is a startup working on 3D printing technology that is useful in space. Its solutions also make it easier to print on the ground - they will be useful in healthcare or the tool industry.
• Krzysztof Fryzowicz, the company's founder, tells WNP what this innovative technology is all about and why it beats large, international companies.
• He also talks about the realities of establishing a deep tech startup in Polish conditions. - Right now, there is a huge problem with formalities - he admits. He adds that it is about VAT, for example.
• - If Poland really wants to be a significant player in the space market, it should invest in new areas related to space, and not in those that are already developed in other countries - says our interlocutor.
• Spaceform won the EEC Startup Challenge 2025 in the "Modern Economy" category.

What does Spaceform do?

- We are a startup that wants to solve the problem of producing spare parts for space stations. We knew from media reports that the international space station was having problems with repairs, we heard that this was one of the topics that space agencies - both European and American - were discussing. We decided to approach this problem and create a technology that would allow 3D printing of parts already in orbit. It turned out that our solution is also able to overcome several limitations of 3D printing technology on Earth.

Microgravity vs. Metal Powder 0:1

Have you had any experience with space technologies before? For example, during your studies?

- The team consists of scientists working at the university. We studied in fields such as materials engineering, which often discusses materials for space and their problems, so it was very interesting for each of us to study the applications of 3D metal printing technology in this particular topic. As we learned about this technology and the challenges, we came across the problem of production in orbit.

Where is the innovation in your product?

- I can't reveal everything, of course, because we are in the process of preparing patent applications. Our innovation, generally speaking, is a method of feeding and applying metal powder. It allows us to apply layers in microgravity conditions, which is a barrier to the use of other powder technologies in space.

Is the technology ready for commercialization?

- In our opinion, yes. We have proven that we can effectively print elements in our technology, which means we are actually solving the problem. Microgravity is a really big challenge.

Who are the target customers for this solution?

- The operator of the International Space Station is NASA with the support of individual space agencies. However, today it is already known that the ISS will be deorbited in the coming years. New space stations will take its place. This time, such stations will no longer be built by government agencies, but their place will be taken by commercial stations.

One such operator is Axiom Space, which already operates flights to the ISS – it will allow a Polish astronaut to get there. In the future, Axiom Space wants to launch its own station into orbit. There are more such companies, and all of them will need spare parts and maintaining the operability of the station in orbit.

Does Spaceform have market competition?

- From what we know, we have two competitors in the world. They are very large companies, but we have a significant technological advantage over them.

They are trying to solve the same problem using metal wire printing. In our opinion, the quality, problems and precision of this printing are much worse. Because we use powder, we can offer higher printing precision. This gives us the ability to produce a much larger number of parts directly in orbit, which can be functional after printing and will not require additional finishing.

Have you already conducted the first tests in space?

- So far, we have had very promising results from testing the stability of layers applied with our technology in opposite gravity. Such a scenario is worse than the real microgravity environment, so we are optimistic. In the next step, we also plan to test our prototype in parabolic flights - they are organized either in Europe or in the United States.

Collaboration? "Even providing a lab for a startup can be problematic"

What are your long-term goals? Where would you like to be in 5 years?

- This is the time for us to develop rapidly on the ground market. I have already mentioned that while working on printing for space applications, it turned out that our technology can also have advantages on Earth, such as printing without support structures combined with the possibility of producing multi-material elements. These advantages will allow us to implement our technology in the aviation, medical, tool and automotive industries, among others.

As for printing in space, by the end of the decade we would also like to conduct a pilot mission of the printer directly in orbit.

How did your idea turn into a functioning startup?

- I completed my implementation doctorate with one of our current shareholders, Progresja. Thanks to the opportunities offered by the company, we were able to build a prototype and verify the idea, as well as obtain key funding for technology development at the European Space Agency. Our shareholder is also INNOAGH. Thanks to this, we have the opportunity to use the university's infrastructure and experience.

Additional support, which is actually crucial in terms of financing, is also provided by the ESA BIC Poland incubator, which allows us to develop our technology and activities related to the protection of intellectual property, which are necessary to gain a lasting competitive advantage.

This is a great support, because as a deep tech startup, we develop technologies from scratch. This requires long-term work with devices, refining them. The proximity of the university makes it easier for us to access specialists in fields such as materials engineering, automation, laser technologies or powder techniques.

Today, there is a lot of talk about commercialization of scientific research, creating spin-offs from universities. Does the university system support this? What would entrepreneurs need?

- Every startup needs money, it would be ideal if universities had the ability to provide seed funding. The rules for sharing university resources should also be simplified, which is not easy. At the moment, there is a huge problem with formalities. But thanks to entities such as INNOAGH, it is possible.

What do you mean?

- Even providing a lab for a startup can be problematic from the university's perspective. Similarly, issues related to intellectual property rights between the startup and the university. These are the two main threads that absolutely require discussion in order to adapt them to the conditions in which startups must operate, especially before obtaining large financing.

In development projects, it is the effect that counts and that is what should be accounted for.

While working on the project, did you use any grants from the National Centre for Research and Development or other government agencies?

- No, and we don't plan to do that for now, at most we'll try to get a VC fund. Unfortunately, projects financed from European funds require a lot of administration and usually an equity contribution with security, so it's a big burden. They are not adapted to the capabilities of deep tech startups in the early stages of development, if only because of the required levels of technological readiness or the equity contribution. In addition, you have to deal with rigorous requirements regarding cost administration, which causes the need to watch yourself at every step. And this makes development difficult.

If you could suggest any simplifications from the state for startups, what would they be?

- In the area of ​​projects and subsidies, it is certainly a reduction in formalities related to cost administration. In development projects, the effect counts and this is what such projects should be settled on. Not on whether the planned expenses were incurred in full and on excessively detailed declared expenses. This would allow for faster development of new technologies, because it would provide greater freedom in the implementation of development work. When something completely new is being developed, it is impossible to predict in detail what exactly will be needed.

In the area of ​​entrepreneurship, however, it is certainly the now famous deregulation , for example in the area of ​​accounting. One such aspect could be a much faster VAT refund without the need to obtain revenues, this is the first proposal that comes to my mind. Today, it takes about half a year, something that can make it difficult to spend grants. And from the point of view of the budget, these are not large amounts.

And what about innovation support policy? There is a lot of talk about it today, for example the Ministry of Finance is to present an idea for a deep tech fund.

- I am very happy, it is a good direction. But of course we will see how it will look in practice. Unfortunately, the funds still lack expert knowledge that would allow for a realistic assessment of the chances of developing technologies in the area of ​​deep tech. I can say about my own backyard - in 3D metal printing I have not yet met a person on the assessment side who would be a real expert in this field. And this is visible through the questions asked and unjustified criticism. It would be worth using academic resources for such purposes.

Experts are important because scientists thinking about founding a startup developing a new technology are not always good at communicating their advantage or potential. This can block the development of some technologies that could actually work if someone took the time to thoroughly understand the topic and assess its potential. Especially if it is said that startups should look for a market niche. Another issue is risk acceptance. If we want to achieve success, we have to finance projects that are more risky but provide a chance for real technological progress.

Poland's role should be to look for new areas of space use.

Many Polish startups start abroad, mainly in the United States. Is this also the direction for Spaceform?

- It all depends on the conditions. If such a possibility were to arise, of course we do not rule out such a path. However, we are not particularly striving for it. It is known that in the US there is a different access to funds, especially at an early stage, where the risk is the highest.

It seems that in Poland, funds often invest when a startup can scale. Technology development, especially deep tech, requires significant investment at an early stage and for a longer period than, for example, software startups.

What role do you see for Poland in the development of the space industry?

- This may sound like an advertisement for our company, but I believe that if Poland really wants to be a significant player in the space market, it should invest in new areas related to space, not in those that are already developed in other countries. Otherwise, we will constantly be focused on chasing the pace, not gaining a leadership position.

Because does Poland have a chance to send reusable rockets, like the United States, which does it thanks to private funds? I doubt it. Is it able to build satellites? Yes, but the question is what market sense does it make, since there are already many countries and many companies around that already have vast experience in this field. It seems to me that Poland's role, when it comes to the space industry, should be to look for new areas of space use.

One of these areas is an activity like ours. But there are others, such as space mining, mapping or geological analysis of planets. These are examples of areas that actually give Poland a chance to become a leader.

Scientists working in artificial intelligence also have similar recommendations.

- A better proportion in the allocation of funds is needed. The point is that if new, groundbreaking technologies appear, such as quantum computers, the funds should be more easily accessible to companies and specialists who want to develop them. The point is not to completely abandon previous topics, because microchips, for example, are still a strategic field that is also worth investing in.

The only question is: do we want to buy a ready-made factory from abroad, or rather invest in the development of our own, innovative technologies for their production?

- Just because the US and Asia dominate the industry doesn't mean there's no room for competition. There's always room for innovation.

The key is to build these innovations from scratch, here in Poland. So that it is possible to develop real technological advantages. Instead of copying someone else's solutions, let's try to find our own, better ones. Only then do we have a chance not only to catch up, but also to overtake the competition. That is why we should invest in deep tech technologies that really change the rules of the game.

This requires financing at an early stage of development and access to experts who can reliably assess the potential of such ventures.