Preparations are under way for a rocket test flight in Norway that could make history and give Europe greater independence from the market leader in orbital launches, the United States.
Isar Aerospace says it is planning to launch on 24 March between 12.30pm and 3.30pm CET, weather permitting.
Some background info on the company:
Isar Aerospace was founded by former students of the Technical University of Munich, who already participated in the WARR group which also won Elon Musk’s Hyperloop competition several times.
They received fundings from (among others) Airbus, NATO and a former SpaceX executive Bulent Altan (who studied at TUM as well).
Very impressive achievement already and a real hope for European space programs and independence!
I am so excited. It feels like my country is finally moving and doing something. After being dormant for decades. Yay!
The sleeper (Europe as a whole) must awaken!
I think it finally has. For the first time ever, I feel like Europe is actually doing something. It’s awesome.
*For the first time in 80 years…
We know how to do stuff, it’s just that we thought the world a friendlier place.
I think we are on the same page tho. Let’s not get pedantic about the wording. :) You’re right tho. It’s not like Europe hasn’t been doing anything EVER. But it certainly hasn’t during my lifetime. So that’s my reference.
True!
Every post mustn’t always be a rebuttal :-)
I’m not quite that optimistic.
Yes, things are happening, but imo these are still mostly reactions to external pressures. There is no structural change or politicians that have the quality to properly lead.
As an example here in Germany we recently approved a huge amount of new debt for investments in infrastructure and weapons. But the leaked contract negotiations for the coalition of our next government includes tax gifts in the form of lower tax rates for eating out, ev subsidies for the car industry, and higher pension benefits for mothers payed out of the regular budget (while we already have a unsustainable pension system).
Also in the above mentioned decision to take on new debt we decided that defense spending above 1% of GDP doesn’t count towards the regular budget, but can be financed through debt separately. Which on the one hand might be nice, since right now we might invest more. But imo setting the limit at 1% kind of shows how much we actually value it. We could have set it higher and committed to sustained change, but this way leaves more room open in the regular budget for the gifts mentioned above.
The threshold was renegotiated to 1.5% by the Greens
I was under the impression that this was one of their demands at some point, but it didn’t make it into the final compromise.
Von den zu berücksichtigenden Einnahmen aus Krediten ist der Betrag abzuziehen, um den die Verteidigungsausgaben, die Ausgaben des Bundes für den Zivil- und Bevölkerungsschutz sowie für die Nachrichtendienste, für den Schutz der informationstechnischen Systeme und für die Hilfe für völkerrechtswidrig angegriffene Staaten 1 vom Hundert im Verhältnis zum nominalen Bruttoinlandsprodukt übersteigen [emphasis mine]
Source (german), pdf warning. This is the official text.
Additionally it’s not even purely defense spending that they can exclude, but also some related costs. Making even more space in the regular budget for unrelated expenses.
I‘m also in Germany so I know. But still things are moving and it’s a good thing. How effective that will be? That’s another story. We can’t predict the future. But I’m tired of our stagnation so at this point, I see things happening and I’m happy. Better than doing nothing at all, isn’t it?
But I agree that the welfare state stuff is getting annoying. I will probably get hate for saying this, but I think that parents already get more than enough free money just for having children. To the point where some only have children to collect said money and spend it on themselves (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.) and neglecting their kids.
Not all of course. But certainly some.
Polluting the planet for money. You country has been doing it for quite a while.
I agree with you but for different reasons. The rockets can be considered as pollution. But they have a purpose.
We should focus on how we abandoned nuclear energy and instead still use coal and even expand our coal mines. That is far worse in my opinion. We are literally coloured black on pollution maps, together with Poland. Meanwhile, France, the undisputed nuclear endorser in Europe, is the exact opposite.
Our „Atomkraft, nein danke!“ attitude stinks.
This whole “expanding coal mines” meme is a bit of a joke. Germany is now using a similar amount of coal as in the 60s, i.e. coal usage has dropped massively in recent years. If people hadn’t voted for CxU this year, it probably would have dropped to (near) zero until 2030. We’ll see what we get with the new coalition that is probably eager to keep coal usage stable, so those highly-subsidized coal jobs can remain. [Notably though, the same people who whine the most about the death of nuclear also whine the most about the impending death of coal.]
And you can criticize the (CxU!) decision to phase out nuclear first, rather than coal, but coal does have advantages in that it is both cheaper to operate than nuclear and it is possible to regulate the amount of energy produced within days, [so using coal to avert the effects of the dreaded dunkelflaute is actually possible with coal but not with nuclear.]
The old nuclear plants didn’t have their major checkup for 13 years either, which is essentially the entire time since the regulations were strengthened post-Fukushima. Getting them up to par would have necessitated major investments. In addition, the nuclear plants were dependent on fuel rods produced by a Russian-owned supply chain.
Commercial/private spaceflights are dumb and shouldn’t exist. Just more trash that flies at bullet speed in our orbit.
I mean you do need satellites if you want to have satellite internet.
Critical infrastructure shouldn’t be in private hands. As Musk perfectly demonstrates right now.
I mean true, but putting it in state hands encourages stagnation and will eventually leave you unable to compete globally. Also if someone tries to do stupid shit like Elon you can just nationalize the company or enforce some other harsh consequence. He does shit like this because he knows nobody can punish him.
but putting it in state hands encourages stagnation and will eventually leave you unable to compete globally.
NASA sent people to the moon in the seventies. SpaceX must be happy if their rocket gets into low earth orbit without falling apart.
It’s a widespread myth that capitalism is best at innovation. Quite the contrary is true. Most (real) innovations get developed with public resources in public institutions and private companies then take it and commercialize on it.
The internet, the touchscreen, computers, heck even AI, all developed with public money.
Also if someone tries to do stupid shit like Elon you can just nationalize the company or enforce some other harsh consequence.
And as we see it doesn’t and will never happen in our current system.
He does shit like this because he knows nobody can punish him.
And that’s the reason why no unelected individual should have control over so many resources which usually only countries have.
NASA sent people to the moon in the seventies. SpaceX must be happy if their rocket gets into low earth orbit without falling apart.
Okay I’m all for Musk hate but there’s a reason SpaceX came to prominence and it’s not because their rockets are always falling apart. Hell, the whole reason we’re now talking about a European space industry is because of Starlink, so clearly capitalism was able to innovate that. Europe is now realizing it’s falling behind because they have nothing to compete with SpaceX.
It’s a widespread myth that capitalism is best at innovation. Quite the contrary is true. Most (real) innovations get developed with public resources in public institutions and private companies then take it and commercialize on it.
It’s a myth that capitalism has a monopoly on innovation, but it’s also a myth that capitalism can’t innovate. Public institutions and universities usually make the big breakthroughs, but the commercialization is also important. Taking something from a proof of concept in a lab into factories all over the world and then continuously improving it is innovation. Governments around the world made the computer, but it was Steve Jobs who put it in people’s homes.
And as we see it doesn’t and will never happen in our current system.
That seems more of a problem with lack of spine than anything else.
SpaceX came to prominence and it’s not because their rockets are always falling apart.
Ok, please tell me one thing they did to advance space exploration. And please don’t say reusable rockets that bring down costs, because this is still a pipe dream.
Hell, the whole reason we’re now talking about a European space industry is because of Starlink, so clearly capitalism was able to innovate that.
We already had satellite internet long before Starlink. In fact, Starlink is a bad idea if you consider astronomy and space exploration.
https://www.space.com/satellite-megaconstellations-spacex-starlink-interference-astronomy
The only reason Starlink was created is that Elon wanted to play online games while on some island and didn’t get the latency down for it to work well. (Source: my dog)
Jokes aside, why do you need ultra-high-speed internet always and everywhere? For emergencies or normal usage, it definitely doesn’t matter if a request takes 10ms or 250ms.
Taking something from a proof of concept in a lab into factories all over the world and then continuously improving it is innovation.
But does it need private institutions for that? Innovation, at least in my opinion, means making possible something we previously thought was impossible. Production and distribution aren’t.
If something is truly wanted or needed, people will manufacture and distribute it easily without the need for private corporations to tell us what we need.
continuously improving
If you think that money is the driving factor, how would you explain the entire open-source ecosystem?
That seems more of a problem with lack of spine than anything else.
Huh? Of whom? The billionaire-sponsored politicians?
Ok, please tell me one thing they did to advance space exploration. And please don’t say reusable rockets that bring down costs, because this is still a pipe dream.
Since its founding in 2002, the company has made numerous advancements in rocket propulsion, reusable launch vehicles, human spaceflight and satellite constellation technology.
-Wikipedia. I don’t know nearly enough about space exploration to explain these advances, but again if they weren’t good at what they do they wouldn’t be the biggest space launch provider in the world (even counting national programs).
Jokes aside, why do you need ultra-high-speed internet always and everywhere? For emergencies or normal usage, it definitely doesn’t matter if a request takes 10ms or 250ms.
I don’t know why but Ukraine was using it so clearly it’s good for something. It’s also useful for people in remote places where there’s no good internet otherwise, or to avoid government censorship.
But does it need private institutions for that? Innovation, at least in my opinion, means making possible something we previously thought was impossible. Production and distribution aren’t.
I don’t think anyone in the 80s thought a smartphone was possible, nor did anyone in the 50s think the Macintosh possible. Maybe it didn’t have to be private institutions making them, but it was.
If something is truly wanted or needed, people will manufacture and distribute it easily without the need for private corporations to tell us what we need.
No? For a lot of modern technology decades’ worth of infrastructure and know-how are needed to even think about making the stuff, and most of that is the product of private investment and development. I, as someone from the Middle East, don’t have access to that infrastructure and know-how and therefore am forced to pay through the nose for an American phone or a Japanese car. You can make the argument that private innovation is nonexistent or unnecessary only by using the results of decades upon decades of private innovation. You only need to look to the Global South to see what happens when you don’t have that.
If you think that money is the driving factor, how would you explain the entire open-source ecosystem?
A lot of it (but not all) is in fact developed by developers in companies. Also there are many applications where the best option is closed source, one example being Excel.
satellite internet is already a thing and there are already thousands satellites in space
None of them European.
Eutelsat?
I stand corrected.
There’s no need for every country in the world to have their own starlink
Yes, but it sure helps when your internet connection can’t be turned off by foreign powers on a whim.
So does every country need a satellite army in case someone decide to attack their starlink?
Unless there’s some kind of treaty preventing satellite warfare and that treaty is respected, the answer will be yes.
I want Star Trek but we’re heading towards Alien instead.
What about private bakeries?
This is an absolute basic necessity for a European Starlink, isn’t it?
Well, to be able to independently launch it: yes. But once the satellites are up, who cares about the car dealers-in-chief?
& There’s already Eutelsat; their satellites already seem to be providing internet much like Starlink: https://www.eutelsat.com/de/satelliten-dienste/satelliten-internet-breitbanddienst.html
Eutelsat has geosynchronous orbits, which allows them to provide service over a much larger area per satellite and doesn’t require very many satellites to serve a consistent geographical area as the earth rotates and the satellites orbit the earth.
Problem is, though, geosynchronous orbit is 35,786 km altitude. Light travels at 3.0 x 10^8 m/s. So any signal takes 120ms to get to the satellite, and 120 ms to return. Any signal is going to have a 240ms latency at a minimum, and that’s just physics.
Starlink satellites have an altitude closer to 600 km. Light only takes about 2ms to get to that altitude, and 2ms to return. So the satellites add only about 4ms, which makes for easier and more seamless communication.
In order to compete with starlink for most typical Internet applications, it’ll require a bunch more satellites orbiting at much lower altitudes.
Eutelsat merged with OneWeb in 2022, which has satellites orbiting in LEO at 1,200 km.
So I suppose they also have access to that.
I don’t know much about this but I think these low earth orbit satellites bump into ozone molecules occasionally so their orbits will deteriorate after 5 years or so. That is to say, you need to replenish regularly.
You are right that low orbit satellites aren’t in a stable orbit and eventually fail in a matter of years. I think it very much depends on what the intended useage would be for a european constellation:
-
How much coverage do we want? Global or just the continent+ a bit more?
-
Would it just be for critical systems or are we also looking for economic independence?
-
What about bandwith and latency, how much do those matter?
All that would influence how many satellites are neccesarry and which orbits would be suitable. And also to what degree cost efficiency would play a role.
How much coverage do we want? Global or just the continent+ a bit more?
I admit I don’t know much about orbital physics, but I don’t see how you can have consistent coverage of Europe 24 hours per day and low pings comparable to Starlink without also covering the entire globe. Geosynchronous or sun synchronous orbits require a minimum ping of 240ms, round trip.
If you want to be effective, you need to drift south as much as you drift north to get adequate coverage - still a circular orbit, just tilted off the equator. This causes a real problem, because northern Europe is far enough north that you have to pretty much cover the whole world, anyway. Also, the more you move from the equator, the more bands of satellites you will need to have coverage at all times. The other part in the Starlink system is the requirement for some number of base stations to connect to the internet backbones. Further iterations are reducing this need, but it will never be 0.
What this means is, it would be cheaper for Brazil or the Middle East to have local satellite internet than it is for Europe, China, or Australia. In fact, if Europe had a low-orbit satellite internet offering, it would be more cost effective to sell it worldwide because they would be close to that just covering their own needs. Which is also the position Starlink has chosen to be in.
-
Ooh, that’s a fascinating point, thank you
I suppose it could be done launching those satellites from French Guyana still
Will there be a live feed of the attempted launch?
Unfortunately not.
Weren’t we already launching rockets from the French Guiana?
We do, but this is about continental Europe.
Okay but why do we need that? As I read it Europa had a spaceport, now we have a second one, now what? I mean there was a reason to launch from SA and not Europe, right?
Mhm I guess it would reduce transport cost of the equipment you want to launch as you don’t have to ferry it down to French Guiana first.
Launching from Norway over the ocean means launching due north or slightly west (the spaceport website says 90 to 110° inclination). West is the “wrong” way for fuel efficiency (probably not so important at these high inclination). These polar orbit are more useful for low earth orbit (earth observation mainly), a satellite can change its inclination but that’s more fuel and less useful payload mass. With inclination change, the site could be used to launch constellations.
Big communication satellite need to launch at lower inclination (closer to the equator and due east).
So it makes sense only for some use case, but it’s great to see redundancies. And if it works well, maybe some day they could get a pas in french Guyana.
Yes, but the news is that they are now launching from the European continent, making everything much cheaper because you don’t have to transport rockets and payloads around the world.
@tristipasta I thought it was more effective to launch the rockets from as close to the Equator as possible, as the gravitational field is less strong and so you need less fuel to take off.
That’s why US also launches rockets from Florida and the USSR and later Russia used/uses the Baikonur facility in Kazahstan.
True, but the primary advantage comes from the Earth’s rotational speed rather than a significantly weaker gravitational field. The Earth’s rotation provides an additional velocity boost to rockets, which helps reduce the fuel needed to reach orbit.
However, your remark is valid and is also addressed in the article (in the part behind the paywall):
Rockets launching close to the equator get a boost. Thanks to the planet’s spin, they start out travelling much faster relative to the centre of Earth than rockets launching near the poles.
Andøya Space Center is located at 69° north, so Earth’s rotational speed is considerably weaker there than in French Guiana. But this isn’t important for high-inclination orbits: those that make a bigger angle with the equator.
Isar Aerospace says it will be able to put 1500-kilogram payloads into orbit up to 30 times a year, in orbital inclinations from 90° to 110.6º. This would include sun-synchronous orbits - those that always pass over a given point at the same local time - which are ideal for spy and weather satellites. Isar already has a contract to put Arctic Ocean surveillance satellites into just such an orbit for the Norwegian Space Agency.
The launch site is also reasonably free of air and marine traffic, and it benefits from all the infrastructure needed for small launch vehicles. “It will be more limited in terms of what you can achieve, but it’s still, I think, reasonable,” says Amato.
@tristipasta@feddit.org wrote:
True, but the primary advantage comes from the Earth’s rotational speed rather than a significantly weaker gravitational field. The Earth’s rotation provides an additional velocity boost to rockets, which helps reduce the fuel needed to reach orbit.
Right, that was it!
So this means that they will only do launches during a specific time of the year?
You can launch to sun-synchronous orbits at all parts of the year. The satellite will orbit around once per 24 hours and so return to the same place at the same time everyday. So you just have to match when you launch with the time of day.
I got it now. Thanks!
While 2 man-babies are screeching into our devices 24/7 things are happening here in Europe.
Not only Isar but also the other, bigger company Ariane something.
Let’s shoot our own internet satellites into space!
