European rocket launch ends seconds after takeoff
But the uncrewed Spectrum test rocket is said to have produced extensive data nonetheless.
This newsletter was brought to you by Sonder London. We like to hear from our readers. So if you have any feedback or story suggestions, get in touch. And thanks for reading.
The Guardian reports that the first attempt at an orbital flight launched from Europe failed when the rocket exploded seconds after takeoff:
‘A test rocket intended to kickstart satellite launches from Europe fell to the ground and exploded less than a minute after takeoff from Norway on Sunday, in what the German startup Isar Aerospace had described as an initial test.
The Spectrum started smoking from its sides and crashed back to Earth in a powerful explosion just after its launch from from the Andøya spaceport in the Arctic. Images were broadcast live on YouTube.
The uncrewed rocket was billed as the first attempt at an orbital flight to originate from Europe, where several countries, including Sweden and Britain, have said they want a share of the growing market for commercial space missions.
Isar Aerospace, which had warned the initial launch could end prematurely, said the test produced extensive data that its team could learn from.’
In Space.com, Andrew Jones reports that the European Space Agency has kicked off its competition to find its next commercial rocket by 2028:
‘ESA and Europe are currently served by the Ariane 6 and Vega rockets, but the agency is opening up launches to competition from new companies in response to the global trend of new and reusable commercial launch vehicles cutting the cost of launch.
"The European Launcher Challenge is a two-stage competitive tender to select a number of European launch services," ESA said in a statement announcing the challenge. The ELC is open to companies based in ESA or European Union member states. …
Europe is set to see its demand for launch services grow. Guillaume de la Brosse, head of the unit in charge of Space Policy at the European Commission, said in November that the European Union will be launching more satellites due to projects like the IRIS² (Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite) communications constellation.’
For Maddyness, Dr. Robert Brüll argues Europe must urgently support its defence startups if it wants to protect itself and achieve strategic autonomy:
‘Unless defence startups are supported, then they’ll be tempted to stick to civilian applications. Take my own area of expertise, advanced materials. These ultra-resilient fibres shield satellites from electronic interference, ensuring secure military communications. They help fighter jets evade detection. They can protect against electromagnetic magnetic pulses which, if detonated in the right place, could cause a blackout across Europe overnight.
The big breakthroughs in this field are not being made by the legacy contractors. They’re coming from young, ambitious companies developing new ways to slash costs, accelerate production and increase modularity without compromising on quality and even increasing it. Europe, with its rich tradition of scientific exploration, cultural transmission and free inquiry, should want to take advantage of these kinds of innovation, rather than reward the complacent, the slow-moving, and the uncreative.
The perception across the continent is that defence startups are risky investments. But this is breathtakingly short-termist. The risk of failing to invest in these startups is far greater than the financial risk, relatively small, of backing them wholeheartedly. If technology is the deciding factor in present and future conflict, then stifling innovation is a huge national and regional security risk. Who will care about a relatively small amount of misspent Euros when the continent boasts world-beating technology and has the muscle to protect itself and its citizens at the most dangerous period in recent world history?’
A number of space tech companies, including Kayrros and ICEYE, are among the 250 companies named in TIME’s World’s Top GreenTech Companies for 2025:
A new analysis of the world’s top greentech companies demonstrates the diversity of organizations fighting climate change, and the positive reactions they’ve received from investors and customers.
The analysis by TIME, in partnership with data firm Statista, considered the positive impact, financial strength, and innovation of more than 8,000 companies developing products, services, or technologies to reverse the impact of human activities on the planet. The 250 top companies hail from over 30 countries on six continents; American firms accounted for 11 of the top 20.
In a guest piece for Space News, Rick Tumlinson argues that policy, not technology, is holding back progress towards returning to the Moon:
‘For decades, U.S. and international space efforts have been choked by a single-pipeline mentality: one central program at a time, dictated and distorted by political cycles, implemented through a bureaucracy that moves at a glacial pace.
This isn’t just inefficient — it’s undemocratic. It explains why the U.S. human space program has moved at tectonic speeds since Apollo. If NASA is the sole entity managing space for the American people, and political realities demand one flagship program at a time, then of course progress is slow. It’s important to get this if you want to understand why we’re now in a so-called race with China to put the next humans on the moon. Had the American space program taken a better approach, there would be no race. We’d be inviting the new arrivals to tea instead.
The American model is not how frontiers work. Yet that is exactly the framing within which U.S. conversations about space have occurred for over 50 years. It’s absurd.’
In Reuters, Anna Kauranen reports that the Finnish satellite operator ICEYE will provide imaging data to NATO:
‘ICEYE's announcement on NATO cooperation comes at a time when Europe is scrambling to boost its autonomy in space-based monitoring and communications, with the European Commission pushing forward delayed plans for a 10.6 billion euro ($11.13 billion) secure European satellite constellation.
Officials say rapid expansion of Elon Musk's Starlink satellite constellation spurred efforts to shore up Europe's so-called "digital sovereignty".
While ICEYE's satellites provide Earth observation, Starlink satellites deliver global internet coverage and enable communications.’
In The Hill, Gregory J. Gagnon argues that space is ‘a war fighting domain because our adversaries have made it so’:
‘Border security is national security, but America’s borders are more expansive than the Rio Grande, ocean coasts or the frontier with Canada. In today’s world, protecting our borders demands that we fully secure American interests in space. Achieving that goal demands investments to build a balanced Space Force capable of deterring aggressors and, if necessary, defeating them.
Whether they realize it or not, every American has a stake in how the Space Force performs and succeeds.
Our nation’s prosperity depends on assured use of space. Financial transactions, critical utilities like water and power, the navigation built into phones, broadband internet on the go, and many more key facets of daily life depend on satellites.
Nor can our nation be safe and secure without fail-safe access to space and the freedom to operate there. U.S. and allied militaries rely on space for communications, remote sensing, early detection of missile launches, weapons guidance and more. Space is the ultimate high ground and the stakes are immense.’
And Earth.com reports that scientists are considering using space tech to track ocean currents and clean the sea of waste more efficiently:
‘Using satellite data and knowledge from years of tracking ocean currents, scientists have identified areas where debris naturally gathers. These hotspots form through specific current patterns and making use of these could help clean the seas more efficiently.
“With this information, we can let the currents do the work. Instead of boats slowly trawling and burning fuel, they can hold their position and keep the nets steady at a location where currents funnel and aggregate drifting objects, which will theoretically save cleanup crews time, money and fuel,” explained Planetary Science Institute research scientist Rodrigo Duran.
Instead of deploying sweeping boats over long distances, crews could position nets at fixed points. The currents, not engines, would collect the waste. This method could reduce fuel usage, lower emissions, and cut down on operational costs.’