"We achieved within a few years what had taken the European space industry decades before."
See full article...
See full article...
German company becomes first in Europe to launch fully commercial orbital rocket
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Great article & great to see EU companies besides Ariane succeed! But there seems to be a rendering issue with the fonts. I’ve got it configured for large fonts, but it alternates with the middle part of the article shifting to a small font before going back to the large font. See snapshots below from iOS.
Upvote
35
(38
/
-3)
I think you misunderstand the news here. EU has been launching countless missions into commercial Orbit launches from French Guyana. - and then rocket launch vehicles were actually invented in Continental Europe and launched in plenty.
The news is not that EU is launch capable. The news is that this is the first launch from Continental Europe - where the purpose was Orbit - not killing.
Upvote
269
(275
/
-6)
This is great news!
The only way to get a true competitive marketplace in spaceflight is to encourage multiple independent companies, from different countries and with different business models, to try it. Some will fail, some will thrive. But a failure to try is a guarantee of failure.
The only way to get a true competitive marketplace in spaceflight is to encourage multiple independent companies, from different countries and with different business models, to try it. Some will fail, some will thrive. But a failure to try is a guarantee of failure.
Upvote
85
(86
/
-1)
How is the Arianespace model not working? It's been providing Europe and the world with access to space for almost 50 years.
Upvote
129
(147
/
-18)
"Many of the V-2’s engineers, led by Wernher von Braun, emigrated to the United States after World War II to work on rockets for the US military and NASA."
Put a paperclip on that sentence.
But congrats Isar. We're still at a stage (so to speak...) where any competition is good for the industry.
Put a paperclip on that sentence.
But congrats Isar. We're still at a stage (so to speak...) where any competition is good for the industry.
Upvote
54
(56
/
-2)
Great news. Being able to launch consistently and reliably will make the difference between them becoming the next Astra or the next Rocket Lab, so we'll see.
Upvote
52
(54
/
-2)
Europe has landed on a moon of Saturn, on a comet, has a spacecraft about to arrive at Mercury, has its own (and more accurate) GPS constellation, runs the Copernicus observation satellites, has spacecraft enroute to Jupiter, and a gravitational wave observatory planned for launch in the coming years.
Maybe inform yourself before making such idiotic comments.
Upvote
331
(336
/
-5)
???
They had one attached science experiment and a bunch of cubesats, at least one of which has communicated back to ground control. Are you saying that they didn't actually release the cubesats?
Upvote
146
(147
/
-1)
Allies!?
(That should be heard in Dame Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell’s voice.)
Upvote
31
(35
/
-4)
It’s also arguably the most beautiful launch pad location, too bad it was at night. The previous aborted launch was something to behold
Upvote
59
(60
/
-1)
Ooh - good idea - we could develop expendable passanger planes too! Innovation!
Upvote
-18
(18
/
-36)
I didn't realise that the tolerances for rocket parts could be so small that a couple of micrometers could make the difference between success and failure.
Does anyone know for what kind of parts that would be the case?
Does anyone know for what kind of parts that would be the case?
Upvote
14
(17
/
-3)
Happy they did it at last! I live 100 km away, Andøya is a rough spot to launch from, very weather exposed. Like launching from the tip of Newfoundland
Upvote
63
(64
/
-1)
Their first launch site was in Europe. That’s reasonable, they live there. Their second launch is reportedly planned for Canada. Only on their third launch site will they move closer to the equator. Shipping to Canada is probably no easier than shipping to Guiana.
Q1: Is there any technical advantage to launching closer to the poles rather than the equator?
Q2: They were reported to target an underserved launch weight category. Do they also serve an underserved orbital trajectory?
When I see someone do things differently. I always want to know why. Every decision is a trade off. What are the considerations here?
Q1: Is there any technical advantage to launching closer to the poles rather than the equator?
Q2: They were reported to target an underserved launch weight category. Do they also serve an underserved orbital trajectory?
When I see someone do things differently. I always want to know why. Every decision is a trade off. What are the considerations here?
Upvote
34
(36
/
-2)
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Congratulations to Isar and Andøya Space!
And as a Norwegian, feeling a tiny bit of smugness that we beat SaxaVord and Esrange into orbit...
And as a Norwegian, feeling a tiny bit of smugness that we beat SaxaVord and Esrange into orbit...
Upvote
60
(62
/
-2)
This is your regularly scheduled reminder that the European Space Agency is not an EU institution. Yes, the EU does have a space policy, and also funds several space programs (Galileo, Copernicus), but these are usually implemented by ESA.LFG EU!More space access for humankind!
Upvote
92
(92
/
0)
I'm using iOS without these issues on both iPhone and iPads... I use Tahoe v26. whatever, maybe you need to update your OS?
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
Yes, some orbits (polar orbits) are more efficiently reached from high latitude launch sites, and those polar orbits have been historically under-served,
Upvote
69
(69
/
0)
Andøya
Pro: has a clear path for polar orbits.
Con: cannot launch to low-inclination orbits
Pro: is on continental Europe, in a stable friendly county, with road access
Con: is "road access" just in name only? How big of a rocket can you simply truck there from Germany?
Pro: even if you need to load/unload from a ship to get your big rocket there (I have no idea) from Germany, you don't have to cross an ocean.
Upvote
77
(77
/
0)
NASA Spaceflight has a good video here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUc2d_NPBN0
Next time, maybe some telemetry and more info during the initial boost phase, but nice to see. And nice to have an insider on the cast.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUc2d_NPBN0
Next time, maybe some telemetry and more info during the initial boost phase, but nice to see. And nice to have an insider on the cast.
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
My best guess
Pros:
Geographical location may favor certain satellite orbits.
No population centers in the launch direction, just sea.
Nearby military grade airport and harbour.
Mountains shield most of the direction where people live (Andenes with 2000 people is the only nearby).
Rather cool summers
Norway is a stable country, as well as a Nato member.
Cons:
Other satellite orbits not as favorable
Weather exposed, heavy snow showers in winter
Often strong wind
Mountains may generate turbulence at some wind directions
Salt spray during storms
Freezing temperatures during part of the year
Rather cumbersome to reach by road.
Edit: forgot .. sometimes fog for several days in a row during summer
Last edited:
Upvote
88
(88
/
0)
I don't think it's correct to say that high inclinations have been underserved, if anything was underserved it was small-sat launch - it just so happens that most commercial satellites going into SSO were on the smaller end of the spectrum.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
It's working great for Arianespace who was very happy to be the sole-source provider in town backed by powerful political forces. It's working terribly on cost per launch and innovation for Europeans. They're way behind the rest of the world, and i'm not sure how much more clear to make that than to compare them to SpaceX and China.
This is like pointing out that Boeing and the rest of the old-school cabal in the US has been doing this for a long while. Legacy defense/national security/sole-source providers without competition get fat dumb and happy on their monopolies and sometimes political pork, it's a recurring theme that's quite obvious to anyone who looks at such industries with more than a passing glance.
"Nobody got fired for buying IBM" should be a turn of phrase you run away from in modern times, not justify. Customers/the tax payer should almost always be happy when an entrenched and expensive incumbent has their lunch threatened by competition. The only reason to root for those companies keeping their share through continued under-performance is if you're a stockholder/etc.
Last edited:
Upvote
26
(46
/
-20)