Following the successful inaugural flight, Arianespace is now focused on ramping up the launch cadence for Ariane 6. The goal is to clear the backlog of institutional and commercial missions that accumulated during the transition from Ariane 5. This increase in frequency is essential for Europe to maintain independent access to space while competing with low-cost private launchers from the United States.The transition has been challenging, but the focus is now on industrializing the production process to meet the demand. With several launches planned for the coming year, the European space industry is watching closely to see if the new rocket can deliver the reliability and cost-efficiency needed to stay relevant in a rapidly changing global market.

The Math Proves the Reality that Musk doesn't want you to see. On Oct 13-14, SpaceX restricted Starshield/Starlink during a 39-missile Russian attack, cutting Ukrainian drone intercepts by 23% and stranding U.S. personnel in Kyiv. Forty-eight hours later (Oct 15), SpaceX blocked U.S.-licensed NRO, Space Force, and NATO radar satellite ICEYE-X36 in orbit so Russia's COSMOS 2612 weapon could intercept it (99.89%-99.98% posterior)

Our Model Demonstrates that the Russian intercept of the US/NATO ICEYE X-36 satellite (contemporaneous with the throttling of Starlink) would not have been possible, and almost certainly not been attempted, without SpaceX resources. At a material opportunity cost, Russia sprinted its COSMOS satellite to intercept ICEYE X36. Based on a previous attempt in June during which X36 maneuvered to evade COSMOS, Russia knew that this would be successful only if X36 could not maneuver. On October 15, SpaceX fixed X36 in place by issuing a collision alert for a sub-kilometer approach with its Starlink 35856 when SpaceX's own data shows that the actual distance was 4.8-5.0x as great. SpaceX issued no warning to COSMOS despite the fact that its sprint was far more threatening than the stable X36 orbit. SpaceX did not maneuver its Starlink 35856 satellite to clear the supposed collision risk. How, absent coordination with SpaceX, could Russia have known that SpaceX would take actions that (a) misrepresented the danger posed by X36, and (b) resulted in the fixing of X36 thereby enabling COSMOS's successful intercept? Thus, SpaceX was directly involved in simultaneously compromising Ukraine’s defensive and offensive capabilities. The conjunction of these two events makes innocent explanations untenable.

The Pentagon Capture & Iran Round Two Trap: Pentagon CTO Emil Michael who cashed out $7M–$35M from Musk’s inner-circle SpaceX vehicles (M8/Gigafund 0.1 and M6/Valor M33 II) and KQ Partners / xAI (selling xAIfor $5M–$25M three days before taking over CDAO/OSCand 21 days before SpaceX bought xAI, while keeping M8, M6, M9, M10 & Nomadic open) and Pete Hegseth purged rival Anthropic in two hours, surrendered combat command over US drones used to attack Iran to Starlink’s "Terms of Service," and on October 2 named Musk Co-Director of Project Meridian to design the Pentagon's "Future of Warfighting" just as America enters Iran Round Twowith depleted Patriot/THAAD magazines and Russia feeding U.S. warship/aircraft locations to Tehran.

SpaceX’s actions in Ukraine raise serious questions about its alignment with US security interests and its reliability as a cornerstone of US defense. These questions are particularly troubling given the effectively irreplaceable position SpaceX has been granted by the Hegseth/Emil Michael Pentagon.

Source: https://x.com/LibertyLynx/status/2114506120970858922

More information: https://streetwiseprofessor.com/nice-little-satellite-you-got-here-shame-if-anything-were-to-happen-to-it/

The $578 million mission, known as MMX for Martian Moon Exploration, centres on a 5-tonne spacecraft expected to reach Mars by late next summer. It will match Phobos’ tight orbit before releasing Idefix, a French-German rover named after the white terrier in the Asterix comics.

Onboard the Idefix Rover, built by Germany and France.

From the article:

The United Kingdom is committing £2.3 billion to military satellite communications between 2026/27 and 2029/30 as part of a wider effort to strengthen resilient connectivity for defence, government and emergency services. The commitment forms part of the UK's new space strategy.

The UK also intends to use international partnerships and its position as an Eutelsat shareholder to strengthen access to emerging satellite communications capabilities.which outlines a broader £2.8 billion satellite communications package.

Source: https://bsky.app/profile/frontex.bsky.social/post/3mxranj2lbc2u

We have a small European team building reusable capsules that take experiments to space and bring them back. Earlier vehicles were simple rideshare capsules. The next one is not: it flies free, has its own propulsion and RCS, has to reenter and be recovered on its own, and has to navigate when GNSS cannot be trusted.

Remote-first. You’ll need to come on-site for hardware, test, and campaigns — not a full-time office job. Moving is welcome, not required. Permanent. EU work authorisation preferred.

Avionics & GNC (senior)
You own the avionics. Flight computer, redundant internal navigation, GNC, RCS control, architecture through HIL and flight test. Two juniors already do the boards — this is not a PCB seat. Need someone who has delivered avionics or GNC on something that actually flew (launcher, satellite, CubeSat, sounding rocket, aircraft, UAV). Automotive or robotics only won’t work. Reentry heritage is not required.

Reentry simulation (senior)
You own the aerothermodynamics. High-fidelity reentry, convective and radiative heating, CFD, Monte Carlo, ballistic coefficient, then turn that into TPS and vehicle requirements. Trajectory analysis is already covered. A university module on capsules is not enough.

Vehicle technical lead
You own the system. Architecture, budgets, interfaces, V-model, getting propulsion, avionics, structures, TPS and recovery to close as one vehicle. ECSS / compliance at company level sits here. This is engineering authority, not a hands-on designer seat. Need someone who has already led a complex flight system.

Comment or DM with which role, where you are, and a CV or LinkedIn.

Happy to talk through the work!