Looking back, many of the most difficult challenges we faced were not technical. They were organisational.

We began with a single focus, but as the organisation grew and more talented people joined, the scope expanded. What started as one ambitious goal grew to include education platforms, outreach, advocacy, and sustainability initiatives. While each addition was well intentioned, the cumulative scope became difficult to manage. The satellite should have remained the main focus, but instead it became one priority among many. As focus diluted, execution slowed and direction became less clear.

After recognising that our scope had grown too wide, we attempted to refocus the organisation. In practice, this meant leaning heavily into education and outreach, which were more immediately achievable and helped establish a foundation. Satellite development was gradually placed on hold. As a result, the original engineering momentum faded. Key contributors moved on as students graduated and entered the workforce, and the specialist knowledge they carried was difficult to replace. Once that momentum was lost, re-establishing it proved painstaking.

Operating as a volunteer, student-led organisation added further constraints. Contributors were balancing school, university, work, and life alongside AYCI. Motivation varied, and coordinating across time zones increased friction and burnout.

We also underestimated how fragile specialist knowledge can be. Some of the most critical systems depended on a small number of individuals with highly specialised skills, particularly in hardware development and manufacturing. When those contributors moved on, continuity suffered. In hindsight, redundancy, documentation, and knowledge transfer should have been treated as essential from the outset.

There were, however, areas where the work gained traction. Education and outreach proved resilient. Through partnerships and grants, we delivered workshops that introduced students to orbits, rocketry, and spacecraft design using accessible tools. On the technical side, while the cubesat did not progress beyond development, there were meaningful milestones. Alongside early discussions with launch providers and hardware manufacturers, completing a preliminary design review with a former NASA engineer marked an important learning moment.

Another key lesson was the cost of not building in public. We felt pressure for everything to be finished and polished before sharing progress, and without short-term feedback or visible wins, momentum suffered. If we were starting again today, we would stay smaller for longer, prioritise clarity over scale, keep the satellite firmly at the centre, and invest earlier in leadership, mentorship, and resilience.

AYCI’s chapter has come to a close, but the responsibility it pointed toward does not. The students involved carry forward skills, perspective, and a clearer understanding of what it takes to turn ambition into something real.

Australia now stands at an inflection point. The capability is here. Student interest is strong. Industry momentum is growing. At the same time, public investment has contracted. Funding for the Australian Space Agency has been reduced, and its role narrowed at a time when sustained commitment is needed. Many engineering degrees also remain disconnected from industry, particularly in emerging fields like space, leaving students with limited exposure to real systems and operational complexity.

With thoughtful investment, stronger links between education and industry, and a willingness to trust young people with meaningful responsibility early, Australia has the opportunity to play a more active role in shaping the future of the space sector.