By Ivan Yatskov,
Published by Orbital Today, 13 March 2025
The SaxaVord Spaceport, under active construction on the picturesque shores of the Shetland Islands, promises to become an essential centre for launching small satellites into space. Construction is incomplete, but the facility is already positioned as a key centre for developing Europe’s space industry.
The project’s developers proclaim its economic and technological advantages and prospects. They say it is about creating jobs, attracting investments, and developing local infrastructure.
However, some aspects are rarely publicly mentioned behind the bright promises and optimistic statements. Among them are factors that could jeopardise the region’s ecosystem and residents’ health.
Introduction
With investor backing and ambitious plans for space infrastructure development, this project is highly anticipated by space enthusiasts and locals alike.
One of the main arguments in favour of SaxaVord is the intended use of relatively ‘clean’ rocket fuels such as propane, which companies say causes minimal environmental damage.
In recent years, startups using propane fuel for rocket launches have been actively promoting the idea that the fuel is a ‘green’ alternative to traditional hydrocarbons.
However, is this the case?
While companies from Germany and Denmark are lining up to launch rockets from SaxaVord spaceport, a closer look at the plans reveals many worrying problems. Critics warn that the project could be little more than a testing ground for the Continent’s launch vehicles.
Hidden beneath a layer of marketing promises, the environmental concerns associated with frequent rocket launches and the use of propane fuel require careful analysis.
What is the actual environmental impact of these launches? How safe are frequent launches using this fuel for the Shetland Islands ecosystem and its inhabitants, and why should residents be wary?
What are the actual consequences of operating a spaceport on nature, air, soil and water?
In this article, we will try to answer these questions and shed light on those aspects that remain in the shadows. While carefully constructed PR campaigns are shaping public opinion, we offer a different perspective based on facts, research and the views of independent experts.
How environmentally friendly is SaxaVord? Let’s explore this together.
Propane as a ‘clean’ rocket fuel for SaxaVord: truth and myths
Propane is increasingly being advertised as an environmentally friendly rocket fuel, but there are many nuances behind this claim.
The use of propane fuel in rocket launches from SaxaVord Spaceport raises serious environmental concerns that must be carefully considered.
Virtually all official company statements tout its low CO₂ emissions and lack of particulate matter. However, according to independent studies, propane combustion also produces nitrogen oxides that contribute to ozone depletion and acid rain.
Of course, compared to traditional fuels like hydrazine and RP-1, which are known for their toxicity and high emissions, propane appears less harmful, but that doesn’t mean it’s safe. Its combustion products still enter the atmosphere and can accumulate in ecosystems.
Regular propane launches can negatively impact local ecosystems. They can change the atmosphere’s chemical composition in regions near launch sites. Combustion products, including fine particles and chemical compounds, can settle on the ground or in bodies of water, leading to soil and water contamination. This can threaten local flora and fauna, including rare plant and animal species native to the Shetland Islands.
While propane propellants may offer some advantages over traditional rocket propellants, their use at SaxaVord Spaceport requires careful analysis of the potential environmental impacts.
The need for a balanced approach to space infrastructure development and environmental protection is becoming increasingly important in light of the growing number of launches and their ecological impact.
Political and economic interests around SaxaVord
The SaxaVord project receives notable support from the British government, including the UK Space Agency and the Ministry of Defence. They see it as a strategic site for developing the national space programme.
Companies operating on the site also receive funding from private investors and international foundations.
Lobby groups in the UK Parliament promote the project using arguments about job creation and technological development, but there is little mention of possible environmental impacts.
At the same time, the project is vital to Iceland because the proposed launch trajectories from SaxaVord are directed northwards, over the North Atlantic Ocean, and the rocket stages are likely to fall into offshore areas close to Iceland’s exclusive economic zone.
Iceland’s nature and economy are closely linked to the North Atlantic, primarily through fisheries and marine ecosystems. Any missile debris, emissions or operational disturbances could affect Iceland’s waters and airspace.
The recent SpaceX Starship test failures are a vivid example, highlighting escalating space debris risks. The March 6, 2025, explosion of Starship Flight 8 scattered debris over the Caribbean and Florida, disrupting 240 flights — including 171 delayed departures and 28 diversions — due to FAA-mandated ground stops at Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, and Palm Beach airports. Earlier, January 16, 2025, Flight 7 explosion showered debris across Turks and Caicos, with hexagonal heat shield tiles and cables littering beaches and roads, though no injuries were reported.
Environmental analyses of these incidents reveal alarming impacts:
- Flight 7’s disintegration released an estimated 45.5 metric tons of metal oxides and 40 metric tons of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, potentially harming the ozone layer.
- Methane combustion from Starship launches contributes to radiative forcing, with each launch emitting 76,000 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent—nearly triple the footprint of a Falcon 9 launch.
These precedents underscore urgent ecological and regulatory challenges for SaxaVord, whose launch trajectories risk depositing debris in Iceland’s marine-rich waters. The FAA’s investigation into property damage claims in South Caicos (still unverified) and SpaceX’s reliance on “designated debris response areas” highlight gaps in mitigating transnational fallout.
For SaxaVord, whose launch trajectories risk depositing debris in Iceland’s fishing-rich waters, such precedents underscore the need for stringent mitigation strategies to prevent similar ecological and economic fallout.
Although Iceland is not directly involved in the UK space programme, it may experience indirect effects ranging from changes in atmospheric composition (due to rocket emissions) affecting the climate to possible threats to marine life and fisheries from falling debris.
Alternative Views: opinions of environmentalists and independent experts
Despite the assurances of the developers, environmental organisations and independent experts express concerns about the consequences of using propane in rocket launches:
- Greenpeace UK points to the lack of research into the long-term effects of propane on the atmosphere and possible hidden risks.
- The Environmental Defence Fund emphasises that even ‘clean’ fuels still contribute to pollution and require closer monitoring.
- Local activists in the Shetland Islands have expressed concern that the spaceport launch could affect the region’s biodiversity, particularly seabird and fish populations.
Amid growing criticism of the space industry’s environmental impact, more scientists and engineers are developing alternative technologies that could reduce the negative environmental impact of launches.
SaxaVord and other propane-based launch sites are positioning their propellants to be more environmentally friendly, but other options may be even safer and more efficient.
Development of cleaner rocket fuels
Some aerospace companies and research institutes are actively working on new fuels that can replace propane and other hydrocarbon components:
- Methane (CH₄) is considered a promising alternative to propane. When burned, it emits less soot, and its production can be adapted to synthetic technologies, reducing its carbon footprint. SpaceX is already using methane in the Raptor engines for the Starship rocket.
- Hydrogen (H₂) and oxygen (LOX) are the traditional fuels for many space programmes, emitting only water vapour when burned. However, hydrogen fuel requires difficult storage conditions and has a low density, making its use costly.
- Electric and hybrid propulsion. Ion and plasma propulsion technology is not yet sufficiently advanced for launch from the Earth’s surface but could be an alternative for interplanetary missions.
Prospects for Rocket Reuse
One major contributor to lightening the environmental burden is the production and disposal of rocket stages. Companies like SpaceX and Rocket Lab have already implemented reuse technologies, but not all operators have followed suit.
An essential question for SaxaVord is what measures the companies operating at the site will take to minimise the generation of space debris and waste from launches. So far, their statements do not include a clear plan to reuse stages or reduce emissions.
International initiatives to regulate the environmental impact of space
Discussions are already underway internationally to regulate the environmental impacts of space launches. Among the key initiatives are:
- The European Green Deal requires EU countries to consider the climate and ecological impacts of aerospace activities.
- UN Sustainable Space Directives, which recommend minimising pollution and developing new technologies for ‘clean’ launches.
- NASA’s clean propulsion programmes to reduce launch emissions and switch to new fuels.
So far, the UK and the SaxaVord companies have not made strict environmental commitments, but if the global space industry moves towards sustainability, they may face new restrictions in the future.
Conclusion
The SaxaVord Spaceport in the Shetland Islands represents an important step in developing the space industry in the UK and Europe. With planned rocket launches by Rocket Factory Augsburg and HyImpulse Technologies, it promises to become a key player in the commercial spaceflight market.
However, severe environmental risks exist along with the economic opportunities the spaceport offers. Using propane fuel and frequent rocket launches could negatively impact the local ecosystem and public health. Residents have expressed concerns about air and water pollution and possible damage to the region’s flora and fauna.
Public opinion about the SaxaVord spaceport remains contradictory: On the one hand, residents hope for job creation and economic development, but on the other hand, they are concerned about environmental impacts. Companies and authorities must consider these views and provide transparency on safety and environmental issues.
Alternative options for reducing environmental damage that could be implemented in the project include using hydrogen fuel, electromagnetic boosters, and developing reusable rocket technology. However, their application requires significant investment and industry changes.
Thus, the future of SaxaVord Spaceport depends not only on successful rocket launches and economic benefits but also on providing a sustainable and safe environment.
See: Original Article
