Germany is striding forcefully towards outer space: it has a dedicated for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic. CSU politician Dorothee Bär is assuming responsibility for this topic within the coalition between the Union and SPD. alumnus Dr Daniel Angerhausen reports on current developments in aerospace around the world. After many years of working for the US space agency , this astrophysicist is now working at .

Dr Angerhausen, celebrities like Katy Perry are flying into space, entrepreneurs like Elon Musk are investing in satellite programmes and China is preparing for a moon landing: What is the current state of global aerospace?

Angerhausen: I think aerospace is now in a distinct transitional phase that’s heading towards commercialisation. The technology has advanced rapidly over the last 50, 60 years, but especially in the last ten years. There's ultimately also much more that has been privatised. We’re now seeing the start of a phase for which transformation is perhaps too grand a word, although it is a significant transitional phase: Investing in outer space is now worthwhile. Both financially and commercially, since there are simply deals to be done there.

We’re at the start of a time where military advantages can be leveraged from a presence in outer space, where a satellite network like Elon Musk’s Starlink is profitable, where each country now has its own satellites. And there are quite a few potential uses of outer space, even for private individuals, including observing your own orchard via satellites.

What is the driving force for such costly expansion?

Angerhausen: Current investment in outer space by participating states and the companies involved is presumed to be mainly for strategic purposes and prestige. Albeit each has of course an idea at the back of their mind that there’s bound to be a commercial advantage at some point. Let’s compare it with AI where there’s currently substantial competition – outer space is something similar. Here it involves the future, such as the project for a moon station that’s already under way. Because whoever controls the moon controls outer space. But whoever controls outer space controls planet Earth – so strategic motivation is of course involved.

Is it therefore mostly about political interest, basically power?

Angerhausen: Yes, but there are of course also the commercial considerations. When there’s as much money being invested in infrastructure as at present, there will come a time when that is exploited. Just like at the start of the internet. Initially, that was also merely a military research network conceived to provide universal networking. And in the case of fibre optic cables, everyone at first thought they were totally unnecessary – and today we can’t imagine life without them. We can think of the moon in a similar light. While at first there may be billions spent for potential military purposes to stake a claim there, yet at some point there will be others who have different uses in mind. The opportunities are very wide-ranging. I personally have a small start-up that we can use to explore the moon. This could for instance involve finding cave entrances where bases could be established. But there are also opportunities for tourism, building hotels on the moon, filming a Netflix reality series there, or similar.

That then makes the moon a mere backdrop, don’t you think?

Angerhausen: There will also be options for mining on the moon. Helium 3 is just such an aspect that’s generating a lot of discussion, since it’s potentially a fuel for fusion energy on Earth. There could also be areas on the moon that contain rare earths. There may moreover be a fuel on the moon for expeditions into deep space, which would represent tremendous progress. It would also make the moon our base for further journeys – the steppingstone to Mars. Even if such intensified aerospace were not to represent profitable business in the next ten years, it is now that funds are being invested – thus charting a course. The establishment and maintenance of infrastructure that’s occurring now is stimulating all the projects that may currently sound futuristic.

Now the new German government wants to join in with an Aerospace Ministry. Is that expedient?

Angerhausen: I don’t think it’s a bad idea to form a federal Aerospace Ministry. The question is though how it’s implemented. Is it merely symbolic, is it only activism? Or is it really substantive for investing in the future? This is how the success of such a new ministry will be decided. And the issue remains as to the structure within Europe, whether it supports European space initiatives. It could be a major advantage to make ourselves more self-reliant and independent from other powers, such as the USA and Russia. Research associated with greater commitment to aerospace is also significant. It would be excellent if the consequence of such a new ministry were to be greater investment in education and research.

How should the ministry proceed?

Angerhausen: I would advise the government to reflect on its strengths. We certainly won’t in the foreseeable future be able to compete with the entire American aerospace complex. It’s all about finding a niche. What is it that Germany can do really well? What is perhaps also the expertise in Germany, what are good procedures here? The tasks of this new ministry would be to analyse the nation’s strengths and weaknesses. That would be the first step, almost like an inventory of the situation. There should then perhaps be an alignment with the European context, the aspect of where the German strengths could best be incorporated. It wouldn’t just involve copying SpaceX or creating a German Starlink. It would rather be about saying, for instance, we’re good at building platforms or producing special chips and then seeing how these compare with the other nations’ capabilities.