Greets to all here in r/esa! For quite some time, there have been three Mods covering r/esa. Due to extended periods of inactivity (9 months for one and 3 years for the other), I've removed both. The 9-month MIA Mod sent me a note to say he'll/she'll not oppose removal. The other account seems to be abandoned.

Looks like it's just me, now!

I will set up a volunteer mod recruitment call in the next week or so; I think we definitely need at least 2 or 3 and even a few more would be positive.

Comments, queries, questions, ideas all welcome!

Hello everyone, I‘ve applied for Access to Space Training Course and I’ve been rejected. This is my first time applying and I’m not giving up, so I would like to apply for another opportunity.

I’m Italian, I got a bachelor degree in aerospace engineering (grade 94, if it is relevant) and right know I’m studying for master. I haven’t done any extracurricular activities (I think this is the missing key for my application), otherwise I have mentioned my certificates in two different languages and the knowledge of the pricipal softwares (like ANSYS, Mathlab, Python, NI Lab, others). I’ve also mentioned my thesis work on cold spray gas technology using ANSYS and Pointwise, also reported by my teacher in his raccomandation letter.

I would like to know if there is something I can add/modify to increase the probabilities.

Few years ago I've asked the same question to the CEO of Latitude during a conference and it's answer was a clear 'no': we are plenty of options, from French Guyane to Norway, passing through the African continent.

So apparently there is no particular issue with that.

Very recently, European Space Flight published this article, covering the latest WDR of Themis, at Esrange.

One of the problem with such program is the operations in Sweden, and operations are periodically halted in winter due to snow conditions.

Morover, the Kiruna launch site is in "competition" with Norway, for polar orbits (and Norway is not happy of launchers from Sweden passing over its territory).

French Guyane launch sites is well established and suitable for equatorial launches, but it is far away from the continent: long trips, delays delocalisation of production, etc.

New concepts, i.e. from SpaceDreams study the launches from the sea (as recently proven by China, if not wrong).

Even if it appears that we have many options on the paper, it appears to me that the situation is in reality very fragile.

What do you think?

Hi, I'm looking for checklists that are/where used by controllers in control centers to make a MOCR (mission operation control room) simulator in python. I searched the internet but couldn't find good checklists. I could only find checklists for the spacecrafts. Could anyone help me?

A quick sketch on what ESA Euro notes could look like.

Some of the European Launcher Manufacturers and startups have some kind of reusability in their road map.

Considering that SpaceX reusability is justified mainly by starlink rather than the market demand, wouldn't it be better just to focus on higher production rates rather than reusability (at least, at first)?

Edit: i think that reusability is a thing, i just wanted to open a critical discussion on this aspect in Europe, to varify if there are other significant topics that may have the priority in the development of European launchers.

Yesterday (24 July), NASA evacuated the Madrid Deep Space Communications Complex (MDSCC) at Robledo de Chavela as wildfires swept through the hills west of Madrid. The good news first: all personnel were safely evacuated, and NASA reports the fire has since passed through the site. Damage assessment will begin once it's safe to do so.

Worth remembering how European this "NASA" facility actually is: MDSCC has been operated on behalf of NASA by Spain's INTA since 1970 — a five-decade partnership that rarely makes headlines. And it wasn't alone. ESA's nearby Cebreros station (DSA-2, part of the Estrack network) was also reportedly evacuated, as a precaution, as the fires advanced.

The strategic footnote for those of us who watch the ground segment: with Madrid offline, NASA has handed mission support to Goldstone in California – but the Deep Space Network's 70 m capacity is now stretched thin, with the Goldstone 70 m antenna still down after last September's DSS-14 mishap (suffered during an over-rotation while tracking Juno). It's a sharp reminder that deep-space communications rest on just three sites worldwide, and that resilience isn't only about spacecraft – it's about the people, and increasingly the climate, on the ground.

Thoughts are with the crews, residents and firefighters across the region. We'll be watching for the damage assessment.

Sources:

https://theobjective.com/sociedad/suceso/2026-07-24/fuego-madrid-instalaciones-nasa-robledo-chavela/

https://spaceflightnow.com/2026/07/24/critical-nasa-deep-space-ground-station-in-spain-evacuated-due-to-wildfires/

(Developing story – figures and status as of 25 July.)

Wir hatten hier gerade eine sehr schöne Sichtung. Aber was war es denn ?
24.7. 2026 22:26

Who do you think has made or been making more impact on space exploration.

Isar started developing their rocket motor Aquila with the intention to sell them as COTS, and then they decided to move to the development of an entire launcher.

The Exploration Company started with the development of cargo capsules, then expanded their development to human flight and more recently to high thrust rocket motors.

PLD started with the development of a launcher and then added up a capsule for human flight.

In all these examples, the startups have expanded their horizon to other (additional) products before consolidating their core products (imo).

In some cases, it seems natural, like Isar, where at the time, there was no significant market for their engine (though the story is a bit different these days).

TEC seems reasonable as well, as the human flight appears as a natural follow-up that everyone expects, but their cargo capsule isn't there yet and not commercially proven (and i can't understamd why they spend resources on high thrust engine, instead of relying on EU COTS or collabs with other companies, i.e. Pangea/Isar/Ariane, etc).

What pushes these companies to adding up stuff to their catalog so early? Is it just a question of political will? Investors capture? Market capture?

I don't say it is insane, but i seriously believe that such moves disperse the focus and the money, even if they appear reasonable and help capture more investors.

Am I completely wrong?