On Saturday evening at 22:12, a rocket named Spectrum lifted off from Andøya Spaceport in arctic Norway. Just over seven minutes later, mission control confirmed orbit. It was the first German orbital flight ever, the first commercial orbital launch from the European mainland, and the first flight of this vehicle carrying a real payload. Eighteen months earlier, its predecessor had fallen into the Arctic sea from the same pad.

I consider this the most important European space achievement of the decade, and I say that without qualification. A company of a few hundred people has done what a continent with sixty years of spaceflight history had never managed. The proof is in. Europe can build launch vehicles that fly, and it can build them at a pace that keeps up with the rest of the world.

Three days later, roughly 120 delegations meet at the Grand Palais for the International Space Summit. The timing is a gift. It also invites a mistake, which is to read the achievement as an answer when it poses a question.

The number that describes the gap

Last year, 198 rockets launched from the United States. Eight launched from Europe. That figure does not come from a critic. It comes from Isar Aerospace, the company that has just made the breakthrough.

A ratio of twenty-five to one cannot be answered by one successful flight. It does not describe a technical deficit, because physics is the same everywhere and European engines work. It describes a capacity gap.

That gap is not a matter of prestige. Europe is building its own secure satellite constellation this decade, replacing its earth observation fleet, equipping its armed forces with space-based reconnaissance, and negotiating the future of near-earth space at the same time. Every one of those tasks ends at the same place. It needs launches, predictable, repeatable, and at a price that does not depend on the mood of a foreign provider. Ariane 6 is ramping up to eight flights a year. That is progress, and it remains an order of magnitude below the need.

Capacity requires three things to come together. A vehicle, an order book, a place. Europe has debated the first two for years. Almost nobody talks about the third.

What Europe has actually built

Honesty requires naming the progress. With the European Launcher Challenge, the European Space Agency has created a procurement instrument modelled on the American approach. It no longer dictates technical requirements to companies. It buys launch services and pays against milestones.

At the ministerial council in Bremen, member states subscribed 902 million euros to it. In late August the first contracts were signed, totalling 543.6 million. Isar Aerospace received 197.8 million, Rocket Factory Augsburg 186.9 million, Spain's PLD Space 158.9 million. A fourth contract with MaiaSpace is close. Any company that fails to reach orbit by the end of 2027 forfeits its claim to the launch service component.

This is not paper. It is an instrument with deadlines and consequences. For the first time, Europe is funding several private providers in parallel instead of betting everything on a single state programme. Anyone claiming Europe has failed to grasp the situation has not been paying attention these past two years.

Which makes the unanswered question sharper.

Where those rockets take off

Look at where the funded vehicles are meant to fly from.

Isar Aerospace launches from Norway. Rocket Factory Augsburg is to launch from SaxaVord in the Shetland Islands, so from the United Kingdom. MaiaSpace is aiming for Kourou in French Guiana. So is PLD Space.

That last case is the most revealing. PLD Space is a Spanish company, funded mostly with Spanish money, and it has to launch its Miura 5 from South America because Spain has no orbital launch site. The suborbital Miura 1 still flew from El Arenosillo on the Andalusian Atlantic coast in 2023. For orbit, that facility is not enough.

Kourou lies on European Union territory, which is true. It also lies 7,000 kilometres away on another continent, and every rocket has to travel there by ship. Esrange in Sweden was inaugurated as an orbital launch site in 2023 and has yet to conduct a single orbital launch. On the European continent, no operational orbital launch site exists inside the Union.

Europe's new rocket industry flies from borrowed pads. That works as long as the hosts are willing. Norway and the United Kingdom are reliable partners today, and both operate their facilities under their own law and their own interest. A sovereignty whose final hundred metres sit on foreign territory is a sovereignty held on loan.

What is rising on the Gulf coast

In August, SpaceX announced an investment of roughly 100 billion dollars in a single new facility. It will be built in Vermilion Parish on the Louisiana coast, on some 1,250 square kilometres of marshland. That is more ground than the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg occupies. The plan calls for five launch complexes with two pads each, plus its own propellant production, its own power generation, a deepwater port, an airport, and housing for the workforce. The target is thousands of launches per year.

The southward orientation over the Gulf serves polar orbits. From there, the satellites carrying computing power into orbit are meant to go up, on the order of up to a million of them.

Two figures from this project belong side by side. The site search took seven years. Construction is meant to take three, from 2027 to the first launch in 2029.

The American advantage therefore lies neither in the technology nor in the build time. It lies in the fact that a company may find, acquire and develop 1,250 square kilometres of coastline without the project dying on the question of land.

Fifteen years are a decision, not a law of nature

A launch vehicle takes five to eight years to build. For a launch site, Europe usually assumes longer. You have to acquire the land, clear flight corridors over inhabited territory, build port access, reinforce the grid, complete environmental review, and persuade the people who live there. Under the customary procedures, fifteen years is a realistic assumption.

We do not have fifteen years.

Nor do we have to accept them, because they are written in no law of nature. They are written in procedural rules that we drafted ourselves and can change ourselves. The concrete takes three years, as in Louisiana. Everything beyond that is administration.

Germany has already proved this once. When the gas supply collapsed, a dedicated acceleration law was passed, and a liquefied natural gas terminal rose on the North Sea coast in under a year. The same authorities, the same country, the same environmental law. The only difference was that the political level classified the project as overriding and bundled the procedures accordingly.

That is precisely what I am calling for. Not faster construction, but faster decisions. A European launch site must be granted the same rank as an energy facility in a crisis, because it serves the same function. It secures access to an infrastructure without which this continent will not be able to act fifteen years from now.

Whoever secures the ground once the rocket flies has secured it too late. European vehicles reach serial maturity in the early thirties. The place they will launch from would have to be decided now.

What belongs on the table in Paris

Europe needs a launch site on its own continent, designed for several providers at once and for growth across decades.

The Spanish Atlantic coast in the southwest is the only serious candidate. The launch direction runs southwest over open water, opening polar and sun-synchronous orbits, which is exactly where the coming constellations sit. The region is sparsely populated and economically weak. El Arenosillo already exists there as a state facility that knows rockets and has put a private European vehicle into the air once before. And Spain hosts a funded provider, PLD Space, that today has to launch from South America.

What Paris would have to decide is not construction. It is three things that cost no concrete.

The ground gets secured, in a footprint scaled for decades rather than for the first pad. Anyone planning a single launch pad is planning the next bottleneck. Second, the project receives the rank of an overriding European interest, with bundled permitting and a hard deadline. And third, the facility stays open to every European provider on equal terms, because a launch site owned by one company is not a contribution to sovereignty but a relocation of dependency.

Part of the money is already sitting there. After the insolvency of Orbex, 34.9 million euros of the British contribution remain unassigned, and a further 117.8 million were never allocated to any company at all. For a decision about ground and procedure, that is more than enough.

The empty chair

Four American companies cancelled their participation in the summit after a White House official suggested on a call that attending could be read as endorsing European positions. The American government is sending its own representatives. Industry stays away.

You can read that as an affront. I read it as information about the balance of power. Whoever operates the largest share of active satellites gains nothing from common rules and loses nothing by staying away. The empty chairs are a precise statement about who believes the future can be had without negotiation.

That is exactly why the ground is not a side issue. Order in orbit will be written by those who arrive there regularly. Europe is currently negotiating the rules of a domain it reaches eight times a year. Anyone who wants a voice has to be able to launch. Anyone who wants to launch needs ground. Ground is the slowest link in that chain, and it is the only one that cannot be procured after the fact.

This week, the people who could designate such a site are sitting in the same room in Paris. They will speak about cooperation, about climate, about the rules of orbit. I would like one of them to stand up and name a coastline.

Which project under your responsibility would finish sooner today, not if you shortened the build, but if you shortened the procedure that comes before it?

Homepage: https://planet-futures.org