It is unfortunate to see Pixxelâs founder Awais being targeted by online trolls for his religious beliefs.
I had to delete several a few such terrible comments on yesterdayâs Breakdown video.
Even more terrible given that our History tells us contributions from multiple religions have supported our DeepTech ambitions; Nuclear was spearheaded by Dr. Homi Bhabha who was a Zoroastrian; Missiles were sprearheaded by Dr Kalam who was a follower of Islam etc. Let me put Religion aside now that it should be addressed.
There is a LOT of misinformation surrounding Pixxel; please find below some of these concerns addressed:
1ď¸âŁWhy does Pixxel have a US entity?
Well, back in 2019 when it was founded, Pixxel was admitted to the Q3 2019 batch of Techstars Starburst Space accelerator which requires a Delaware holding company structure. This is why Pixxelâs holding company is Delaware incorporated Pixxel Space Technologies, Inc. Remember that in 2019, IN-SPACe didnât exist & the future of Indiaâs pvt Space industry was unclear until the 2023 Indian Space Policy was released. Having a foreign holding structure was quite the norm e.g. Groww, Meesho, Pine Labs etc have all flipped back to India before going public. Lots has changed in the intervening 7 years. Therefore, back in 2019, it was perfectly rational for Pixxel to flip to the Delaware holding structure.
2ď¸âŁIs Pixxel an American company?
This requires a nuanced understanding of history (which I shared above). So yes, the Pixxel âholding companyâ is US. But, if you look at the Principle of Materiality, Pixxel is very much Indian - Pixxelâs founders are Indian nationals (own ~25% of the US holding company), LinkedIn shows ~310 India based employees against 35 US based ones (latter includes their investors as well). Most US roles are front office (Govt liaison, Sales, Operations) whereas most Indian roles are R&D focused.
This same Materiality test can be applied to Indian IT Services companies and you will reach the same conclusion: Just because your front office & revenue comes from the US, doesnât make you a US company.
Of course, you are welcome to your own interpretation of âAmericanâ in this context. As more Indian companies pursue global ambitions, not all of them will have the same entity structure but all of them will have large Indian R&D teams like Pixxel.
3ď¸âŁâGovt of India has given Pixxel a âš1,200 cr project awardâ
NOT true. A consortium of Indian SpaceTech companies led by Pixxel won the tender process for a EO satellite constellation (estimated to cost âš1.2k cr to build). Pixxel & its peers won because they bid at NIL value (this was confirmed by IN-SPACe chairman Pawan Goenka in Aug â25).
In fact, Pixxel & its peers turned down the up to âš350 cr of Govt support offered for this project. The L2 (losing) bid was led by another party that bid for âš97 cr (Google the name, would explain a LOT about why todayâs drama is taking place đ)
4ď¸âŁHas Govt of India given major grants to Pixxel?
Once again, NOT true. Pixxel got its 1st iDEX grant on 25th July 2023; over 4 years after it was founded. The cumulative Govt funding support would be < âš100 cr across a few iDEX SPARK, PRIME & DISC grants. This is would be < 5% of the total capital raised (even as far back as 2023 when the 1st grant was received). The early capital for Pixxel came from private Indian & US investors; the late stage money has come from overseas.
5ď¸âŁâPixxel has created the US entity to funnel IP from India to USâ
This misunderstanding is related to Pixxel Federal LLC. Under §117.9, only a US entity can engage in sensitive Govt contracts (technically, even Pixxelâs holding company could have met this criteria). However, to have a better chance at building a long term commercial relationship, it makes more sense to create a ring fenced entity with only US staff.
Therefore, Pixxel Federal LLC is that ring fenced entity to cater to demand from US Govt entites e.g. the NRO which signed a contract with Pixxel. So, this required? Technically no. But, is it advisable? Of course!
FYI, almost all major non-US Govt contractors follow such a structure e.g. BAE Systems of UK, Tales of France etc.
FWIW, even US owned Capella Space created Capella Federal when it got a Govt contract
Remember: In DeepTech, IP is never static & takes multiple forms. IP is built through novel ideas (easy to transfer), process understanding (hard to transfer) and personnel level tactic knowledge (impossible to transfer).
As long as the R&D teams in India continue to chip away at hardware & system design, the ârealâ IP will always remain in India (BTW, this is also why it is so hard to beat global Aerospace giants despite them having local JVs)
The sad part here is that the same clowns who cry about lack of Defense & Space exports fail to realize that Pixxel is exactly what DeepTech exports to foreign Govts are going to look like: Our IP first companies will have to hire local staff, create a ring fenced local entity and potentially co-build additional IP for the buyer.
For me, Pixxel is a celebration of the fact that 2 young BITS graduates could (with a small amount of capital) create globally optimal technology from India (with a local R&D team comprising young talent including their own BITS batchmates). The NRO contract is the best global validation we could get.
Our DeepTech IP export opportunity will look exactly like this. This is the only way we will be able to build global Aerospace & Defense (A&D) prime contractors from India for the world. The last mile always requires local JVs, some IP transfer & doing a bit extra to make your customer feel comfortable.