Back to research
By Drew DeJarnette and Jesse Nuese
On 5 September a two-stage rocket lifted off from the Andøya spaceport in northern Norway and placed five small satellites into a 500-kilometre orbit. Isar Aerospace's Spectrum became the first privately developed launcher to reach orbit from continental Europe. The first attempt, 18 months earlier, fell into the sea shortly after liftoff.
German Chancellor Merz called it the beginning of a new era, and the EU's defence commissioner said Europe's independent access to space had received a major boost. They are overstating it. Europe has had orbital access for years, through the state-backed heavy-lift Ariane 6. What Andøya added was a privately built small launcher from continental Europe, once, carrying five university cubesats. Sovereign orbit is a stack of three layers: launch, constellation and control, and one flight does not settle the first.
The other two layers hold the dependency, and different governments and companies are building them simultaneously, because the war in Ukraine has laid bare the cost of relying on a single commercial provider. Germany is funding launch vehicles and a national constellation. France and the UK bought into Eutelsat, and Luxembourg engineered a share class to hold SES, its national satellite operator. Brussels is building IRIS², the EU's 348-satellite answer to Starlink, closed to non-European suppliers. Taipei tried regulation and reversed. Kyiv's contribution is arriving from a cruise missile manufacturer. None of this is one European programme with stages. Each is a separate wager on what sovereignty in orbit requires, and none delivers before 2029.
Scale is usually left out. Since 2015 Russia has flown 220 orbital launches to Europe's 89, and 104 from Russian soil alone.
SpaceX and the control layer
For four years, whether Ukraine kept its communications depended on reading one man's intentions. Since June it depends on a document. SpaceX listed on Nasdaq on 12 June at a $1.75 trillion valuation, and the prospectus recorded the structure: Musk holds roughly 42% of the equity and 85% of the votes through dual-class shares.
The votes are the point. France took just under 30% of Eutelsat in June 2025 and the UK holds about 11%. At SES, Luxembourg went further: the state and two entities it owns hold a third of the votes on a sixth of the equity through a second share class. That is Musk's instrument pointed the other way, dual-class stock used to keep an operator in sovereign reach. That route is closed at SpaceX, where equity carries almost no voting weight: a stake buys a dividend and nothing else. No board seat, no regulator with standing. If service were restricted tomorrow, the remedy available to Berlin or Brussels would be a phone call.
The risk is not hypothetical. In February 2025 Reuters reported that US negotiators had raised Starlink access with Kyiv during minerals-deal talks, citing three sources; Musk called the account false. Whatever the detail, it showed that commercial connectivity can be put on the table in a state-to-state negotiation. European capitals have been building alternatives since.
Being listed makes an abrupt cutoff costlier and more visible. The decision still belongs to one person.
Ukraine has received more than 50,000 Starlink terminals since 2022, with Poland funding about 29,500. A terminal is only the ground dish; what it delivers depends on the satellites overhead. Nothing in Europe's inventory is close.
Starlink has 11,080 satellites on orbit against OneWeb's 651, a factor of 17. On the counts that measure momentum the gap is wider. Starlink put up 5,812 satellites over 24 months to OneWeb's 20, across 229 launches to OneWeb's one. Ookla measured Starlink's median download across 27 European markets at 166 Mbps in Q1 2026, up 45% year on year.
Show Image
Europe's one fielded alternative was carried up by everyone except Europe. Of OneWeb's 651 satellites, 423 flew on Russian Soyuz, 156 on Falcon 9 and 72 on Indian LVM3. None flew on Ariane or Vega.
The forward programmes sit further out.
That is Europe's position for the rest of the decade: Starlink works, no European government can tell it what to do, and there is nothing large enough to switch to. Analysts already flag slippage past 2030.
Taiwan is the only government to have run this experiment to a conclusion. It tested the regulatory route and abandoned it. Taipei capped foreign ownership of network operators at 40% and required a local chairperson; Starlink refused and Taiwan licensed OneWeb instead. In July 2026 the legislature dropped both, after the science minister said OneWeb's bandwidth was too small. Taipei held that condition for three years, then traded it for capacity. European governments are deferring that choice rather than escaping it.
Fire Point, a Ukrainian drone and missile maker, is launching satellites
Fire Point was founded in 2022 by people with no weapons background. It makes the FP-1 and FP-2 one-way attack drones, which the company says fly around 60% of Ukrainian deep-strike missions at $55,000 to $75,000, and the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile, in serial production by mid-2026 at roughly 100 airframes a month across Ukrainian and Danish sites.
In May 2026 chief designer Denys Shtilerman said the company had launched two satellites and planned dozens more in 2027. The stated purpose was to cut reliance on the United States and private Western firms. At Farnborough in July, chief executive Iryna Terekh said the constellation gives the company independent connectivity for its drones.
Fire Point is building a constellation because its weapons need a link no external party can withdraw, and because the guidance loop degrades when that layer is contested. Vertical integration ran upward from the munition to orbit.
A Gulf defence group has offered $758 million for 30%, valuing the company near $2.5 billion, including a launch facility abroad.
A four-year-old Ukrainian firm is assembling a strike complex, an air defence programme, Gulf capital and an orbital layer in parallel. That used to require a state, a prime contractor and a decade.
Why Ukraine's wartime engineering transfers to orbit
Ukraine's development environment has three properties that rarely coexist. Temporal compression, where operational need overrides design completeness. Supply uncertainty, forcing architectural flexibility over optimisation. Adversarial pressure, where every fielded system is countered and redesign is continuous rather than incremental.
Systems built under those conditions are designed for survivability under iteration, producing a consistent set of behaviours: autonomy pushed to the edge because links are intermittent; navigation fusing inertial, visual and terrain-relative inputs because satellite positioning is jammed as routine; attritable platforms treated as consumable components; and contested spectrum assumed as baseline rather than infrastructure.
Those are the same properties a sovereign constellation needs to survive contact. A commercial network optimises for throughput under benign conditions. A military one has to degrade gracefully under jamming, hold position when positioning is denied, and keep working when part of the fleet is lost. Ukrainian teams have spent four years solving that problem on the ground, under an adversary that adapts weekly.
Barriers to Ukraine as a space power
Three things cut against the optimistic case.
The advantage is perishable. Innovation systems built under extreme constraint fragment when the constraint lifts, unless the advantage is captured deliberately. The risk runs to coherence rather than talent: firms persist while the feedback loop that drove the iteration dissipates. That is a problem for Ukraine's postwar industrial base, and no one has published a plan for the transition.
Almost every space claim here is announced rather than verified. The two 2026 satellites are company-reported. The dozens planned for 2027, the spaceport and the Gulf transaction are forward statements, with no independent confirmation of orbital parameters, payload class or performance.
The state has nothing to fall back on. Ukraine's last domestic satellite reentered in October 2025, and the space agency has had no permanent head since 2022. Sovereign launch, constellation-scale capital and orbital filings stay out of reach this decade.
Where this leaves Ukraine
Ukraine holds the raw inputs. Ukrainian institutions bind the sovereign route and European budgets bind the supplier one. On present conditions, sovereign space power this decade is very unlikely. What it has built is an engineering practice rather than a platform, and the design driver is the constraint environment rather than the domain. A constellation under jamming, a rover beyond the light-speed delay, and a drone with its link cut pose one design problem. Space is a continuation of that work rather than a separate sector.
Sovereign LEO is the nearest buyer. The layers where European programmes are weakest, contested-environment operations, electronic warfare, ground segment and terminals, are the ones Ukraine already staffs. The knowledge of how to keep satellites useful while someone is trying to break them sits in one country, and it is for sale.
The obstacle is procurement law rather than capability. Ukraine is not in the EU. Any Ukrainian contribution routes through a member-state supplier, a joint venture on allied soil, or accession. Airlogix, a Ukrainian drone maker, took the joint-venture route to an assembly line in Bavaria. Poland is the precedent: it entered European programmes as a supplier and built a sector from there, receiving the first agency centre outside the founding states in 2026.
Closing IRIS² to non-European suppliers also fixes where the value sits. A constellation is satellites plus the onboard electronics, ground stations, user terminals and the software that tasks them, and the first €1bn platform order gives suppliers a schedule to plan against. Missile defence and interceptors showed a similar pattern this year, where the binding constraint sat with the parts suppliers underneath rather than final assembly. Platforms get replaced. The subsystem and ground-segment suppliers stay. European domicile is the entry ticket to those positions, so the routing question is commercial as well as legal.
Postwar reconstruction decides what happens to the wartime system. One path fragments it into conventional manufacturing and isolated clusters. The other captures the engineering process and redirects it into markets that pay for the same behaviours, which needs institutional design and investors treating dual-use as primary output. Neither happens by default.
Four indicators would move our confidence, and none has arrived.
The September Norway launch bought Europe a rocket. The harder problems are what flies on it, who can command it when the signal is contested, and whether Ukraine still knows how to build for those conditions in five years. Europe has until 2030 on the second and less on the third. On present plans it answers neither, and European security in orbit stays as it is: working, and in someone else's hands.
Provided for general informational and evaluation purposes only. Not legal, regulatory, tax, procurement or military advice, and not a recommendation regarding any security or transaction. Assessments are our interpretation, distinguished from the underlying record. Figures described as reported or company-reported are unverified at the date of publication. © 2026 Palisade Bergschrund Corporation.