A tale of two statements
Issue 36. Subscribers: 806.
Firstly, a huge thank you to Share My Space for being the first to sponsor an issue of the Europe in Space newsletter. Share My Space is a French space situational awareness startup focused on tracking, cataloging, and predicting the collision risk of artificial satellites and space debris. This data is then used for orbital tracking and launch planning and development. With the proliferation of megaconstellations these services have never been more important for ensuring the sustainable use of space.
To my 22 new subscribers, enjoy your first issue and, as always, if you have any comments, suggestions, or tips, please reply to this email. And if you would like to sponsor an issue of the Europe in Space newsletter, please email andrewp@europeanspacelight.com.
A tale of two statements
Last week, two statements were published discussing the need to allow European launch startups to bid for European institutional missions on a level playing field. The first came from a group of European NewSpace companies that included Isar Aerospace, HyImpulse, Rocket Factory Augsburg, and Latitude. The second was a joint statement published by the governments of Italy, France, and Germany, which are the three largest contributors to ESA-developed launch vehicles.
At first glance, the statements appear to be in agreement that launch startups should be able to compete with Arianespace to launch institutional missions. However, on closer inspection, there is a clear difference between the two statements.
NewSpace companies speak out
The statement from the European NewSpace companies was short and straightforward. The key element of the statement is a request to allow launch startups to compete for institutional missions without restriction or delay.
“In order to strengthen the fragile access to space capability in Europe, we request that launches for all institutional missions are procured in an open competition as of immediately, with restrictions of any kind.”
Interestingly, this key element of the statement was later updated to ensure it was clear that these NewSpace companies were not advocating opening up these missions to the world. This would, of course, put European launch companies up against stiff competition from the US and Asia.
"In order to strengthen the fragile access to space capacity in Europe, we request that launches for all institutional missions are procured in an open competition as of immediately, considering all European Launch Service Providers, without restrictions of any kind."
Another key element of the statement is the omission of ESA. The NewSpace companies are looking for significantly more access than just ESA missions. The companies hope to compete for any and all institutional missions which likely include those from the EU like Galileo and, possibly, more importantly, the new European communications megaconstellation that has recently received €2.4 billion in funding.
As an advocate of competitive bidding for launch services for institutional payloads, the statement definitely appealed to me. However, it can’t only be taken at face value. These companies are not completely altruistic. There are motivations behind supporting a statement of this kind. This could be a need to secure institutional payloads to be economically viable or to be more attractive to increasingly skeptical investors.
However, I do firmly believe that even if their motivations aren’t entirely pure, a competitive launch services market for institutional payloads will be beneficial in the long term.
Who’s missing?
There were a few notable absences from the NewSpace statement. While Isar Aerospace, HyImpulse, Rocket Factory Augsburg, and Latitude did sign onto the statement, PLD Space, Skyrora, Orbex, and HyPrSpace were among the companies who chose not to add their stamp of approval.
Among the launch startups that did sign on, there is a bias towards larger vehicles. The vehicles being developed by Isar and RFA are both capable of carrying one tonne or more to low Earth orbit. HyImpulse is also more capable than most, with a capacity of 500 kg to low Earth orbit. Latitude is the odd man out, with Zephyr having a payload capacity of just 100 kg to low Earth orbit. Apart from Zephyr, the other three vehicles have a broader application when it comes to institutional payloads, meaning they are more likely to benefit from such an agreement.
The vehicle’s being developed by Orbex, Skyrora and HyPrSpace have more modest payload capacities, meaning they’re less likely to benefit from the proposed agreement. PLD Space was approached to sign onto the statement but chose to wait until the company’s Miura 5 launch vehicle was operational before pushing for the right to launch institutional payloads.
“Just to be clear, PLD Space has been noticed and asked to be part of this great message to ESA. However, [the] company point of view, focus, and ambition is being operational to ask ESA for [the] same treatment than other institutional launchers,” stated CEO Raúl Torres on Twitter.
Orbex and Skyrora are also notable because they’re both based in the UK. The UK is an interesting exception since although the country is a member of ESA, it is no longer part of the EU. As a result, launch companies from the UK would be unlikely to be considered for EU launch services contracts. This in addition to the fact that they’re unlikely to have the payload capacity to compete for many if any ESA launch contracts means that signing onto the agreement would have been of little to no benefit to them. Both Skyrora and Orbex will likely instead be advocating for as many UK institutional payloads to be launched aboard their vehicles as possible, avoiding the need to bring in US-based launch providers like Virgin Orbit.
Governments speak out
Before discussing the joint statement itself, I think it’s important to first examine the summary that was published along with the statement. The summary outlines the three main elements of the statement, with the third being “the opening of ESA launches to micro and mini-launchers.” However, does the statement in fact advocate for this? Not exactly, no.
The statement outlines the need to discuss an evolution of ESA’s launch procurement policy, referred to in the ESA Council Resolution adopted in 2005. The statement is not clear on which of the six resolutions adopted in 2005 it is referring to, which makes things a little more difficult. Luckily, with some searching, I happened across the "Launch Service Procurement Policy for ESA Missions" section in the Resolution 3 document. Why the statement couldn’t have referred to the specific resolution is a bit of a red flag, but I digress.
The Launch Service Procurement Policy for ESA Missions describes an order of priority that should be granted to launchers. The order is ESA-developed launchers, Soyuz launched from CSG (which obviously isn’t an element of the list anymore), and finally "other launchers."
In 2005 “other launchers” would not have meant European launch startups since there weren’t any. As a result, the resolution does attempt to muddy the waters when it comes to how cost affects procurement decisions by stating that the cost of launch services should not present an "unreasonable disadvantage." This language is vague leaving a lot of room for the interpretation of the word "unreasonable." This can clearly be seen in the fact that ESA has continued to utilize Ariane 5 despite it being all but priced out of the market by the SpaceX Falcon 9. The assessment has undoubtedly been that the cost difference is not unreasonable when it protects the European launch industry. This kind of logic could easily be applied to support ESA-developed launchers to protect the billions that have been invested in these vehicles by member states.
Now, the statement from the three governments does advocate for an evolution of this policy. However, with over €5 billion invested in Ariane 6 alone, I have a hard time believing that Italy, France, and Germany would be advocating for the elimination of a competitive advantage for Ariane 6 and Vega C. And if this was what these governments were advocating for, why not explicitly say that? In fact, the document does not once state that the three governments support opening up institutional launches to mico and mini launchers despite what the summary would have you believe.
It’s also important to note that the governments’ statement does explicitly reference ESA launches, seemingly making it clear that they have no intention of opening all institutional payloads for competitive procurement.
The timeline
Whereas the statement from the NewSpace companies requests the immediate opening up of competitive bidding, the statement from the three governments employs a more lethargic approach. The latter sets out a series of benchmarks, concluding with a June 2024 implementation date.
This will certainly be a point of contention for the NewSpace companies. However, it will be a difficult argument to make considering the fact that the earliest a European launch startup will debut a new launch vehicle is late 2023. This may very well slip into 2024 meaning that once these vehicles do eventually become operational, it will be in the region of the June 2024 deadline.
There is another factor, however. As of April 2023 when the final Ariane 5 flight is expected to be flown, ArianeGroup will no longer have an operational launch vehicle either as it awaits the introduction of Ariane 6 no earlier than Q4 2023. That begs the question: should Arianespace be barred from competing for institutional payloads to be launched aboard Ariane 6 until it becomes operational? I don’t think the French, Italian or German governments would appreciate that kind of restriction being placed on the activities of Arianespace.
Launch startups have a say
Following the publishing of the joint statement from the Italian, French, and German governments, I asked the launch startups that had signed onto the NewSpace statement for their reactions. They were surprisingly positive for the most part.
Latitude CEO Stanislas Maximin was by far the most cryptic. When asked for a statement, Maximin said that Latitude is "looking forward to a more open and competitive space industry."
"The joint statement by France, Germany, and Italy on the future of launch exploitation in Europe is essential for Europe's progress in space. It was finally understood how critical and beneficial it is for the ecosystem to include launch service providers such as Isar Aerospace in the procurement of launch contracts for ESA satellites,” said Isar Aerospace CEO Daniel Metzler. “It has been decided to procure these launches in an open competition to bring in the most competitive conditions and prices. However, in all globally commercialized areas, ESA should always prioritize service contracts over development contracts – launch services are only the beginning!"
"We welcome the joint statement and the points it addresses,” said RFA CCO Jörn Spurmann. “In particular, the further development of the procurement policy and its inclusion of microlaunchers as well as the revision of GeoReturn open the market for commercial providers. This is an important step towards commercializing space transportation services and ensuring affordable, flexible, and globally competitive access to space for Europe. On the other hand, the statement remains quite vague in areas: At what point is a launch system considered "operational"? And what are concrete intermediate steps to implementation, and when should it be completed? The statement as well as the entire outcome of the ESA Ministerial Council meeting are a clear signal and a start, which now has to be followed by targeted and joint action."
A note on presentation
The two statements could not have been more different in the way they were presented, in both the design and the language that was used. The statement from the European NewSpace companies was stated plainly and created to be read by the widest possible audience.
The statement from the trio of European governments was ladened was badly cited sources, written in a convoluted manner that required careful reading, and received no design elements. Speaking as a communicator within the same field, I can tell you that the only reason I would go about creating a document in this manner would be to conceal and/or deceive. This is, however, speculative. Governments and their associated agencies are notorious for publishing incomprehensible public statements, so I do allow for the possibility that it was a product of this tradition and not one of deception.
ESA ministerial meeting resolutions
As far as I can see, the only mention of opening up ESA missions to micro and mini launchers in the resolutions following the 2022 ministerial meeting can be found in the Resolution 1 document. The document states that ESA “acknowledges that also privately developed, operational European micro- and mini-launch systems shall have the possibility to compete for ESA satellite launch service procurement in accordance with the Convention, in particular its Article VII.1 and VIII.1.”
Reviewing ESA convention Article VIII.1 we’re presented with some familiar concepts that were also present in that 2005 resolution. Mainly that preference will be given to launch vehicles developed within an ESA framework or by a Member State or with a significant Agency contribution. As far as I understand it, no commercial launch startup would qualify for any of those categories. The Boost! programme has offered some agency contribution, but I definitely don’t think any funding award from that ESA programme can be considered “significant.” That leaves only the “unreasonable disadvantage” clause that is also present in VIII.1 which again leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
There are no easy answers here. I think that European launch startups should be allowed to compete for all European institutional launch contracts. However, I do also think that until these companies have an operational vehicle to offer up, it will be an uphill battle.
Show me the Money! - ESA has secured €16.923 billion euros from member states for the next three years. The amount represents a 16.6% increase. The amount, however, falls short of the €18.5 billion the agency had sought going into the meeting. The largest contribution increase was made to human and robotic exploration, which received approximately €700 million more than in 2019 at the last ministerial meeting. France, Germany, and Italy were the largest contributors, accounting for €9.797 billion of the total contributions.
One of the biggest winners of the meeting was the Rosalind Franklin Mars rover. The initial plan for the rover was for it to be launched aboard a Russian lander. However, following the country's invasion of Ukraine, ESA pulled out of the agreement, leaving the future of the Mars rover unclear. ESA member states have now agreed to build a European lander for the rover, with assistance for the mission being provided by NASA.
Introducing your ESA astronaut class for 2022 - ESA director general Josef Aschbacher announced the newest class of European astronauts. The new class was split into three groups: career astronauts, reserve astronauts, and parastronauts. The five career astronauts are Sophie Adenot (France), Pablo Álvarez Fernández (Spain), Rosemary Coogan (UK), Raphaël Liégeois (Belgium), and Marco Sieber (Switzerland). The eleven reserve astronauts are from the Czech Republic, Poland, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Austria, France, Spain, the UK, and Italy. John McFall from the UK was the only parastronauts selected. This is only the third time ESA has selected a new class of astronauts since its inception. It is also the most diverse class in the agency’s history in terms of country of origin and gender.
Hybrid gets a boost - German launch startup HyImpulse and its partners have received €2.6 million in funding from the State of Baden-Württemberg as part of its invest-BW programme. The funding will be utilized for the HyGo - Hybrid, Green Upper Stage project that will be featured aboard the three-stage SR1 launch vehicle that will be powered by hybrid rocket motors. HyImpulse has partnered with Astos Solutions, enGits, and the Institute of Aircraft Systems at the University of Stuttgart for the project.
One small step for cubesats - UK-based space tech company Smallspark Space Systems announced its cislunar payload transport bus. The S4-SLV is expected to offer transportation capabilities for low-mass satellites from 2024. The vehicle will be capable of carrying up to six 1U cubesat payloads. The online booking portal offers several mission profiles from low Earth orbit to lunar orbit and even a lunar return to low Earth orbit. The new service is backed by ESA and the UK Space Agency.
SaxaVord goes solar - UK-based launch facility SaxaVord Spaceport announced the completion of phase one of its solar panel project. Once the project is complete, the small solar farm will generate 4.9 kW of renewable power that will be used to power the Baltasound Antenna. Depending on solar irradiance, the solar panels could provide power to the antenna for half the year.
Put it on my credit card! - Danish satellite manufacturer GomSpace has announced that it has signed an €18 million credit facility agreement with the European Investment Bank. The credit facility will be utilized for a “research and development project relating to an enlarged satellite platform.” The announcement comes just weeks after Gomspace delayed the publication of its interim report for Q3 2022 following the suspension of a large customer project.
Up, up and away - The Thales Alenia Space-built EUTELSAT 10B was launched aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 on 23 November. The launch saw a rare use of an expendable Falcon 9 that was used to send the satellite into a high-energy supersynchronous transfer orbit, reducing the time it will take the all-electric satellite to reach its final geostationary orbit under its own power. According to estimates, the mission profile will eliminate 10 days from the satellite’s five-to-six-month journey. Eutelsat 10B will deliver Ku-band services for aviation and maritime customers across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Mediterranean Basin, the Indian Ocean, and the Atlantic Ocean.
Hitching a ride to space - India’s ISRO launched a PSLV-XL rocket on November 26 carrying the EOS-06 Earth Observation satellite along with a number of nanosatellites. Among the secondary payloads were four 3U cubesats for the Swiss IoT startup Astrocast. The company has now launched 14 of its 100-cubesat constellation to establish a global IoT network.
It’s bikini time! - Franco-German space startup The Exploration Company revealed that its Bikini tech demonstrator had been completed and packed in its shipping container, ready to be transported to the launch site. The small capsule will be flown aboard the maiden Ariane 6 flight along with several other payloads in late 2023. The demonstrator mission is the company’s first step to developing its reusable Nyx spacecraft.
A domino effect - Arianespace announced that it has delayed the launch of Vega C mission VV22 due to “defective equipment that needs to be replaced.” The mission will be the first commercial flight of Vega C and is set to carry a pair of Pléiades Neo satellites to orbit for Airbus Defence and Space. According to Arianespace, in order to replace the defective equipment, the upper composite of the launcher will be taken back to the payload preparation facilities and the payload fairing will be opened. The new launch date for VV22 has been scheduled for December 20. The new launch date required Arianespace to shift its Ariane 5 VA259 flight from December 14 to December 13 to allow time for the launch facility to be reconfigured.