## 6 Conduct  
In the analytical framework, Conduct refers to a firm's behavioral patterns and strategic choices. These strategies are influenced by the Structure of the industry, but also, in turn, shape that Structure through a feedback loop. Strategies of the sector firms subsequently affect the industry Performance (Figure 2). The strategic orientation of space companies has shifted significantly in response to the structural transformation outlined in the \"Structure\" chapter, commonly referred to as the emergence of New Space. To illustrate these changes in a more detailed manner, the strategy canvases were used. The strategy canvas is a diagnostic framework that captures  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  
the market's state of play, allowing one to understand the factors the sector currently competes on and what customers receive from the existing competitive offerings. The strategy canvas captures all this information in graphic form, where the horizontal axis covers the range of factors the industry competes on. The vertical axis relates to the offering level that customers receive across these competing factors. A high score means a company offers buyers more in any particular factor. In the case of cost, however, the interpretation is the opposite; a higher score indicates a higher cost, which translates into a higher price. Using the horizontal and vertical axes, the strategic profile (also known as the value curve) is plotted, namely a graphic depiction of a firm's or a category of firms' relative achievement across competition factors [109]. The strategy canvas approach is particularly useful for illustrating how new market entrants differentiate themselves from incumbent firms. In the space launch sector, Traditional Space is typically characterized by well-established government contractors focusing on large, customized missions. At the same time, New Space comprises private entities aiming to reduce costs and shorten development timelines. While still relying to a smaller or bigger extent on the government as a customer, they have widened the door opening access to space for commercial and academic clients. Plotting both segments on the same graph allows one to easily observe core differences in their conduct. In the case of Traditional Space launchers, they could be profiled across six factors (Figure 10). They offer highly reliable, highly customized rockets for the particular mission, but at a high price (by direct and indirect meaning). The costs of launching are high, which translates to a high direct price for the customer. Moreover, there is also an indirect 'price' of this launching model. Traditional Space secures only a low cadence (frequency) of rocket launches, and the lead time for developing rockets is very long. Traditional Space has a fleet of small rockets dedicated to smaller payloads (e.g., SmallSats), but their cadence is even lower and the costs even higher. While the launch cost of Traditional Space scores high, New Space, by contrast, rates low, indicating a strong emphasis on cost reduction through simpler designs, commercial off-the-shelf components, and, in some cases, reusable hardware. In the most iconic example of SpaceX, their launch costs are far below those of competitors. The reliability factor, a hallmark of spaceflight, is generally high for both segments. However, while Traditional Space rates very high, as mission assurance and testing are central to its legacy model, New  
Figure 10: The strategy canvas for launching: New Space versus Traditional Space. Source: Own. Space scores only relatively high, reflecting extensive, iterative testing but also incorporating faster design cycles that, while generally robust, may introduce incremental risks. Cadence (frequency of launches) contrasts sharply. While Traditional Space rates low, New Space scores very high. Consider Atlas V (Lockheed Martin/ULA) and Delta IV (Boeing/ULA) versus Falcon 9 (SpaceX). Atlas had 101 launches in 2002-2024, and Delta IV had 45 launches in 2004-2024.