Rewriting Europe's Space Future
Designing rockets for Europe's new space darling
This is Startup Pirate #123, a newsletter about technology, entrepreneurship, and startups every two weeks. Made in Greece. If you’re not a subscriber, hit the button below and come aboard:
Rewriting Europe's Space Future
Isar Aerospace is not just a random name for European space technology. Hailing from Munich, the company recently completed the first test flight of its launch vehicle, Spectrum, an awe-inspiring 30 seconds of engineering marvel that you got to watch:
A few days ago, I sat down with Nikolaos Perakis, the company’s Chief Engineer, to chat about designing rockets and building a reliable launch service provider for small and medium-sized satellites, laying the foundation for a competitive and sovereign European space industry.
This post is an introduction to the world of industrialised rocket production and space access, while Nikolaos also shares his own personal journey from academia to becoming a Chief Engineer at a 400-person team aiming to rewrite Europe’s space future.
Let’s get to it.
Alex: Nikola, I’m a big fan of the work you do and your vision to drive European space sovereignty. Why don’t we start with a brief introduction of Isar Aerospace and your role there?
Nikolaos: Isar Aerospace is a European private space company with its headquarters in Munich. We are a launch provider focused on delivering low-cost, flexible, and reliable launch services for small and medium-sized satellites. What makes us unique is that we design, build, test, and operate our launch vehicles, tailored for the rapidly growing small-satellite market. Our goal is to provide satellite operators with independent access to space, particularly in Europe, where domestic launch options have historically been limited.
I joined Isar Aerospace approximately five years ago, initially as the engineer responsible for designing the upper-stage engine. Later, I led the combustion team, developing the thrust-chamber assembly, ignition system, and gas generator—the heart of the engine. For the past ten months, I’ve been serving as Chief Engineer, essentially the glue between the technical departments, defining interfaces, the technical roadmap, and the architecture. We have completed Flight 1 and are now moving forward to establish ourselves with Flight 2 and beyond.
We have approximately 400 people spread across our Munich headquarters (where we design, develop, and manufacture our vehicles), Sweden (for engine testing), Norway (our launch site), as well as locations in France and the United States. We are the company that launched the first orbital-class vehicle from continental Europe (Andøya, in northern Norway). There have been other sub-orbital or ballistic rocket launches from continental Europe’s soil, but Spectrum, our main product, was the first rocket designed to carry payloads all the way into orbit.
Alex: Can you unpack Spectrum for our readers?
Nikolaos: Spectrum is a launcher for small to medium-class satellites, about a 1,000 kg payload to low-Earth orbit (LEO). It’s a two-stage vehicle: a first stage with nine engines and an upper stage with one engine, both fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid propane, and entirely designed and built in-house.
It’s ~28 m tall, 2 m in diameter, and has a liftoff weight of roughly 55 tons, 90% of which is fuel. It’s powered by nine Aquila engines (75 kN each) in the first stage and one multi-ignition engine in the second stage. We follow a one-engine principle, reusing as much architecture and as many parts as possible between stages. The structures are carbon composites, and our linerless carbon tanks—utilising no aluminium on the inside—provide us with a significant weight advantage. We employ the same manufacturing process in both stages to ensure flexibility and scalability.
For the avionics and GNC (guidance, navigation and control) system, the vehicle’s brain and nervous system or the software that steers us into orbit, all electronic units are developed and produced in-house, giving us complete independence. That’s also very important given the current geopolitical situation.
All of this is tied together by highly automated, vertically integrated manufacturing. Vertical integration is a concept we adhere to, which enables us to operate as a unified system. Furthermore, one often-overlooked piece is Stage 0—the launch pad. It was designed and built in-house in collaboration with Andøya Space (a rocket launch site on the Andøya island in Norway), which has been a very valuable partner.
Alex: Where would you say Spectrum’s main technological advantages lie compared to other launch providers?
Nikolaos: Historically, everyone chased performance: the most performant engine, the most lightweight structures, which often led to higher development costs and less flexibility. This is not necessarily where we pride ourselves. We do have a state-of-the-art vehicle, designed from scratch with a very talented team striving for technological excellence.
But our main advantage is automation and industrialisation. It's less attractive to have the coolest design that takes two months to build and has a very unstable process. The true advantage when seeking high turnaround times and reliability lies in minimising manufacturing time, integration, and testing while ensuring process stability. The philosophy of designing parts and systems with manufacturing in mind from the get-go is one of our biggest pros.
For example, we can go from CAD to a test rig in a couple of weeks. We have brought the manufacturing process to a level where it can iterate quickly by reducing all interfaces simultaneously, as we do everything in-house. At the same time, approximately 80% of the engine parts are 3D-printed, and the linerless carbon tanks provide excellent mass-to-orbit performance.
Alex: What were the main lessons learned from your first test launch?
Nikolaos: The first flight on March 30, 2025, was a major milestone for us. We treated it as a test; the first integrated test of the entire launch system. We had tested individual parts on their own, ranging from subscale to system test, to multiple systems working together, to stage testing. However, putting all these hundreds of thousands of components together for the first time, along with flight and ground software, was a significant milestone.
Our primary goal was data. We executed the countdown, liftoff, and ~30 seconds of flight, testing systems we can’t simulate on the ground, and even got to validate our flight termination system. The flight provided invaluable data on system interactions (structures, software, etc). We will have more public announcements on that soon. I think that's also where a trade-off lies when dealing with such quick turnaround times and aggressive timelines. Do we invest more time? Is it worth it? Would it make sense to analyse for another two or three months, conduct standalone tests for another half a year, or proceed directly to the launchpad and test something, knowing what can be simulated and what cannot?
You need to ensure that the whole company is anchored on the same level of risk. Therefore, you must ensure that you provide this direction and that everyone treats their system similarly. However, maintaining a balance between the timeline and rigorous testing is essential. For us, the most straightforward approach was to proceed with a launch as soon as possible, while acknowledging the risk of failure during the first stage of flight. Obviously, no unnecessary risks were taken in this process, as we had already done qualification tests on both stages on the ground and had verified the performance of all safety-critical components.
However, this fail-fast approach, also adopted by other competitors like SpaceX, is what enables us to improve our design and proceed at a much faster pace for Flight 2. Flight 2’s hardware is already in build with those learnings incorporated, and we aim to see it on the pad very soon.
Apart from the technical aspects, witnessing the first vehicle lift-off after years of hard work designing, simulating, manufacturing, repairing, inspecting, testing was almost a cathartic moment for all of us at Isar Aerospace. It was very emotional and filled us with pride and excitement, as we saw our beloved Spectrum rise above our launch pad. It definitely fueled our motivation even further and served as a visual representation of all the blood, sweat, and tears we put into the development; something we would gladly do all over again.
Alex: You mentioned industrialisation. What are the main pillars for rocket mass production?
Nikolaos: When I joined Isar Aerospace in 2020, I remember stepping into an empty 50 m × 50 m manufacturing hall. Within a few years, it became a line that can produce engines in days and multiple vehicles per year. We also have plans of moving to a larger factory, which will enable us to scale from less than 10 rockets annually to reaching 40 a year. The key pillars are automation, industrialisation, and independence. Our primary goal is to offer the most cost-effective and flexible launch service for our customers, and this is embedded in how we design and build rockets, from CAD design to the final product.
On automation: We place a strong emphasis on the precision, quality, and reproducibility of our results. We want to ensure that if we repeat the same process a thousand times, we will consistently achieve the same outcome each time. That’s how you become a reliable launch partner.
On speed: We're moving to a larger factory to boost our annual rocket production and the speed of each manufacturing step. This doesn't only come from having the best machine or the best machinist. It's also embedding this idea into the minds of our designers. Designers think about minimising the production time and eliminating steps. The perfect system is the one from which you can’t remove any more parts. That mentality, combined with very tight in-house loops of design, production, and testing, underpins everything.
Alex: What are the next critical milestones?
Nikolaos: Flight 1 and its launch data review are behind us. We introduced processes to improve the systems that showed anomalies in Flight 1 and distilled all these learnings into concrete action points and new processes for the entire team. Flight 1 was a test flight.
Next is Flight 2 and shortly after that Flight 3, and it is during these flights that we aim to reach orbit for the first time. Demonstrate access to space and orbital insertion. After that, the goal is to achieve frequent and reliable launches. Very few companies reach orbit on their first or second try (SpaceX needed four with Falcon 1), so we are aware of the technical challenges that we could face in our second flight, as we enter into phases of the mission that we did not experience in Flight 1. “Fail-fast” doesn’t mean fail stupid, but sometimes another iteration is faster and perhaps even more cost-efficient than endless analysis.
Alex: I’d like to unpack the following quote from your company’s website: “Launching is the first step to space. By enabling access to space, we contribute to humanity’s progress and our planet’s sustainable technological and economic development”. What are the applications you’re personally most excited about by enabling space access?
Nikolaos: Our mottos are “launch for life” and “monitoring the world's most urgent issues”. Space is becoming a key platform for many industries worldwide, and many of them are utilising satellite-based technologies, often employing small to medium-sized satellites.
I’d say Earth observation and environmental monitoring are closest to my heart. Whether it's climate change tracking—such as CO2 monitoring or ice-melting and deforestation—or disaster monitoring for wildfires, floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Another vital area is agricultural optimisation, including moisture tracking and crop health.
Many of these applications already exist, but now we’re ramping up in terms of observation frequency and measurement quality. More frequent satellite passes. Higher resolution data. For example, when it comes to disaster monitoring and agricultural optimisation, these issues hit very close to home, especially when discussing Greece and the recurring wildfires we experience in the summer.
I'm pleased to see that, as a nation, we're developing our own satellite constellations for such applications. Earth observation using thermal infrared or synthetic aperture radar, addressing wildfires, floods, maritime safety, and environmental protection. I’m referring here to the National Microsatellite Program, which is part of the Greece 2.0 plan.
Seeing this develop, knowing it’s both a demanding application and one that Greece truly needs, fills me with great pride. We're trying to become the first nation with a sovereign satellite-based wildfire warning system. It will be of tremendous help, especially in the summer.
Alex: Even though we have a long history of aerospace engineering in Europe with the Spitfire, Concorde, Airbus, and more, why do you think we don’t have a reliable European launch provider yet?
Nikolaos: For years, Europe has relied on its main launch provider, Ariane 5, and now Ariane 6 and Vega. The main issues have been delays, cost overruns, and a general lack of flexibility. Although these products are solid from a technical perspective, I’d argue that, because it has been somewhat of a monopoly and very state-driven through European space programs, there was little incentive for improvement. No push to adopt new technologies, reduce costs, or increase performance. Compared to SpaceX, existing European rockets are more expensive and less agile, especially for commercial customers, who are price-sensitive and hence often do not pose a competitive alternative in the market. It is enough to look at the number of orbital launches for last year: Europe launched 3 times, whereas the US did it close to 150, and China almost 70 times.
Therefore, we lack a low-cost, high-cadence launcher, which is something we aim to provide. In short, the state-driven model didn’t reward innovation. Furthermore, the development of these vehicles has been influenced by geo-return policies (this refers to the European Space Agency's practice of ensuring that Member States receive contracts in proportion to their financial contributions to ESA programs). That benefits smaller states, but it creates fragmentation with more interfaces, slower processes, and inefficiency. That’s a key reason why Europe has remained stagnant in launch services for years.
Europe undoubtedly possesses the talent—both in software and hardware—and a robust industrial base. It’s not about a lack of skill. It’s been a lack of structural incentive to innovate due to the monopoly and the funding model.
Alex: I also want to zoom in on your own journey. How does one become a Chief Engineer at a rocket company?
Nikolaos: Space has always been a passion of mine. Since school, I’ve spent countless evenings immersed in astronomy and physics books, learning about space missions. I knew I wanted to work in space, either in space engineering or astrophysics. Eventually, all the dots connected.
Right after high school in Greece, I received a scholarship and moved to Germany for my studies. I began with aerospace engineering and later added physics, completing two degrees: aerospace (rockets and space missions) and physics (astrophysics and plasma physics).
I then pursued a master’s and PhD in aerospace engineering, with a focus on propulsion systems. My research employed both numerical and experimental methods to gain a deeper understanding of the extreme environments encountered in rocket engine combustion. That tied directly into my first role at Isar Aerospace.
I completed my PhD at the Technical University of Munich, where Isar Aerospace was founded (2018). At the time the company started, I was completing my final year of PhD studies at Stanford, so I didn’t join immediately. But as soon as I returned to Germany, I joined the team as a Propulsion Engineer, defining the architecture of the upper-stage engine.
After about a year, I started leading the combustion team. It was a challenging but incredibly rewarding experience, developing an engine from scratch, testing it in Arctic conditions at -35 to -40°C, going through tough iterations, and seeing it work. Knowing that your design is going to fly is an incredible feeling.
Last September, I transitioned into the role of Chief Engineer, defining the technical roadmap and overseeing the overall system architecture to ensure subsystems integrate cleanly and remove technical silos between departments. It's about ensuring the entire tech organisation operates as a cohesive system. You certainly need strong technical experience for this role. That’s non-negotiable. But you also need holistic, system-level thinking, balancing trade-offs between competing technical solutions, and understanding risk. And you need to align that risk with the company’s overall strategy.
Regardless of level (intern to CTO), what we value most is ownership and accountability. We’ve seen that prioritising ownership sometimes matters more than pure technical skill. If you own your system, there should be no one else in the company—or the world—who knows it better than you. From design to manufacturing to testing, you need to understand how your system interacts with upstream and downstream components. That kind of ownership is what makes a great engineer or technician.
Alex: Do you think a PhD is necessary for this line of work and space technology in general?
Nikolaos: As someone with a PhD, I’ve thought about this a lot. The short answer is no, a PhD isn’t necessary. I was very passionate about research, and early on I had to choose between academia and industry. I loved teaching and doing research, but I opted for the startup world. The skills you develop during a PhD, like deep problem-solving and specialisation, are very valuable. But they can also be narrow.
Some PhD holders transfer those skills well and make a big impact. Others are highly specialised and don’t immediately translate into something useful for a startup at its current stage. Meanwhile, we’ve had bachelor’s or master’s graduates with a few years of experience who brought immediate value.
So I’d say a PhD isn’t essential, especially in an early-stage company. It depends more on the person. If you do have a PhD, you need to be able to distil your expertise down to what matters and apply it in a practical, fast-paced environment. The key is finding the right balance between technical rigour and speed. Know what matters and what doesn’t. That’s what makes someone thrive in this industry.
Alex: That was so much fun and inspiring, Nikola! Thank you.
Jobs
Here’s the list of startup jobs in Greece
News
Natech Banking Solutions raised $33m Series B ($26m in equity + $7m debt) ahead of the launch of Greek digital bank.
VODA.ai secured a Series A led by CRH Ventures, with participation from repeat investor L-Stone Capital, to help water utility companies manage and maintain their water pipes more efficiently using AI. To date, VODA.ai has analysed over one million miles of pipe across 26 U.S. states and six countries.
Istios Health raised $5.6m Seed led by BIP Ventures to deliver virtual infectious disease care.
RTDT raised $4m Pre Seed for its wind energy optimisation technology.
Voice agents for healthcare administration, Auxilis AI, secured funding from Genesis Ventures.
Maritime digital firm Vsltec secured €540k in Pre Seed backed by prominent Greek shipping personalities.
Technology solutions Qualco Group acquired majority stake in cybersecurity company Cenobe.
The Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competition, organised by the Archimedes Centre of NKUA, is accepting applications.
The Hellenic Centre for Defense Innovation (HCDI) has issued two new calls for projects.
Greece’s first nanosatellite DUTHsat-2 is now in orbit as part of the “GR Cubesats In Orbit Validation” program.
New coworking space SuiHub Athens by Sui. Some more coverage on why Mysten Labs (the company behind Sui blockchain) is doubling down in Greece: Link1, Link2.
Resources
All about the Greek startup industry w/ Panos Papadopoulos, Partner at Marathon Venture Capital.
The rise of autonomous science w/ Filippos Tourlomousis, founder & CEO at Biological Lattice Industries.
The role of nuclear energy in shipping by the Deon Policy Institute.
How to lead with product intuition, not just data w/ Renia Rigopoulou, Group Product Manager at Orfium.
Local governance meets AI w/ Christos Porios, founder of OpenCouncil and Schema Labs.
Building a fintech startup w/ Alex Christodoulakis, co-founder & CEO at Wealthyhood.
AI and robotics w/ Minas Liarokapis, co-founder & CEO at Acumino.
Reconditioning battery modules from discarded batteries w/ Aimilios Orfanos, founder & CEO at Watt4Ever.
Events
MIT Universal AI Summit by StartSmart South Eastern Europe on Jul 8
L&D Hub meetup #3 on Jul 15
ProductTank Athens meetup #9 on Jul 16
4th Athens Causal Data Science Meetup on Jul 17
That’s all for this week. Tap the heart ❤️ below if you liked this piece—it helps me understand which themes you like best and what I should do more.
Find me on LinkedIn or X. Thank you for reading.
Alex
T mom if