Tag: bankruptcy

NASA admits mismanagement and human errors caused 2025 Goldstone antenna damage

4:53 pm

NASA today released its completed investigation into the November 2025 incident that severely damaged its Goldstone antenna in California when workers allowed the antenna to “over rotate” beyond its acceptable limits, putting it out of commission.

In its final report, the board found the mishap primarily stemmed from software weaknesses, human error, and an undetected failure in the antenna’s hydraulic limit system. Investigators determined an electrical issue at the antenna the previous day caused the control system to misreport the antenna’s rotation state, an issue that went unnoticed and triggered multiple limit-stops during the Juno track on Sept. 16. While working to identify the limit-stop problem, operators performed several troubleshooting steps that inadvertently bypassed software and hardware safeguards, which ultimately led to the over-rotation incident. After flooding in the antenna base was observed, operators attempted to stow the antenna as a safety precaution, however, because the system had already passed the rotation limits, this action drove the antenna further into over‑rotation, causing additional damage.

Additionally, the investigation found the antenna’s hydraulic limit system, its final mechanical safeguard, was inoperable on Sept. 16 after being damaged in an undocumented prior incident. The system also had not been adequately tested for an undetermined period of time.

Investigators also concluded workplace culture pressured operators to work as expeditiously as possible, often stretching beyond their usual roles, expertise, and training, to keep the antenna operating. The board states the cultural conditions observed at Goldstone were not present at the network’s other sites, where roles and responsibilities are followed more consistently. Other contributing factors outlined in the report include inadequate procedures, reliance on undocumented practices and tacit knowledge, and gaps in the antenna’s control logic. [emphasis mine]

You can read that report here [pdf], but be warned that large sections are redacted, apparently in an effort to protect the identities of those responsible.

Nonetheless, it is very clear from the highlighted text above that the management and work situation at Goldstone was a mess, and that the mishap was caused not by faulty engineering but by faulty work practices and bad management. Unfortunately, nowhere in the report is it said that there will be any management changes. This fact might have been redacted, but I suspect not. It is typical of government agencies like NASA after incidents like this to whitewash the investigation, concluding simply that “we should have done better and we now we will!”

The repairs will cost NASA about $4.6 million, and will likely not be completed until 2028.

2 comments

Hundreds of NASA-funded researchers violated the law that bans working with China

7:45 am

ASU, apparently one of many universities filled with people now hostile to America
ASU, apparently one of many universities filled
with people now hostile to America

According to a just completed House investigation, hundreds of academics and universities have routinely violated the law by taking NASA funding for their research but then working hand-in-glove with Chinese individuals or institutions.

A House investigation has identified hundreds of scientific publications in which NASA-funded U.S. researchers appear to have conducted joint work with Chinese institutions, potential violations of a federal law that has barred such collaboration for more than a decade.

The report, released on Wednesday by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, also found that, in several instances, some of that research involved collaboration between National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists and institutions that are part of “China’s defense research and industrial base.”

You can read the full report here [pdf]. Among its numerous findings for example it notes that Arizona State University and Stanford University both filed false certifications, stating that they were not working with Chinese individuals, agencies, or institutes, even though their later published papers blandly listed such individuals, agencies, and institutes. The report lists numerous other similar examples.

During Trump’s first administration the Justice Department made a concerted effort to enforce this law. Under Biden that effort ended (with many prosecutions abandoned), to be replaced with a zealous effort to ignore it, an effort enthusiastically supported by the partisan leftist academic community. This new report essential outlines the violations that began during the Biden era.

China is aggressively working on all levels to steal technology from the west. Sadly, it is more and more aided by America’s university system and the administrators, professors, and researchers based there, a large majority of whom are now outright hostile to our country and wish to sabotage it.

9 comments

More opposition to the EU’s new space law, this time from European companies

8:39 am

The European Union
This label would be more accurate if it read
“NOT made in the European Union”

At a conference this week officials from a number of European aerospace companies expressed strong opposition to the European Union’s (EU) space law, adding their voice to the opposition that already exists from a number of European nations, at least one left-leaning think tank, and the U.S.

Speaking at SmallSat Europe, panelists said they did not oppose regulation itself or the idea behind a common European framework. However, the words most frequently used to describe the first and second drafts of the EU Space Act were “monopoly,” “slow,” “rigid” and “micromanaging.”

Chiara Manfletti, CEO of Neuraspace, argued the current draft misunderstands how fast-moving commercial space operates. “The idea of having an EU Space Act is absolutely good. The problem is the proposal currently on the table,” Manfletti said during a panel. “If it takes 12 months to get a license, that is ancient history for the commercial space sector.”

A recurring concern among panelists was that Europe already moves more slowly than the United States and that the proposed legislation could institutionalize additional delays.

My sense of the situation is that there is enough opposition that in a rational world the EU would scrape the present draft of this law and start over. Sadly, European governments — especially the EU — no longer function rationally. There is no way to predict what its bureaucrats and power-seeking political leaders will do.

1 comment

NASA practically eliminates any Starliner flights before ISS retires

10:11 am

Starliner docked to ISS
Starliner docked to ISS in 2024.

In a procurement announcement on May 18, 2026, NASA added another three to six crewed flights to ISS to its contract with SpaceX, covering all missions possible through 2030, which in turn practically eliminates the possibility it will buy any manned flights on Boeing’s Starliner capsule.

In a May 18 procurement filing, NASA announced its intent to add six post-certification missions, or PCMs, to SpaceX’s commercial crew contract on a sole-source basis. The agency would order up to three of those missions at the time it added them, formally starting preparations for them.

…Adding six missions to the contract would cover three years of ISS operations, at a rate of one mission every six months. With the currently contracted missions, running through Crew-14, flying through the fall of 2027, the extension would provide coverage through late 2030, when the ISS is slated for retirement. NASA has previously stated the last crewed mission would likely spend a year at the station.

Though it is not stated yet exactly how much SpaceX will earn with these additional missions, based on previous contracts the revenue will likely range from $1 to $2 billion. Overall, SpaceX has probably received somewhere between $4 to $6 billion additional earnings that was supposed to go to Boeing.

Instead, Boeing is now out of the picture entirely, though NASA is being very coy about saying so. It will earn nothing from Starliner, at least in connection with hauling crews or cargo to ISS. And because its contract with NASA was fixed price and the company could not meet its final milestones to get the bulk of its payments, it will have cost the company about $2 billion beyond what NASA had paid it.

It remains unknown whether Boeing wishes to continue the project. NASA officials had suggested earlier this year that it would buy an unmanned cargo mission to ISS to give the company a chance to prove the capsule and get it certified for manned missions. They have since backed off from that plan, scheduling no Boeing missions through the rest of this year.

Though things could still change, it appears Starliner is dead. In history books this Boeing project I think will become the poster boy for the failures of the older big space companies that used to dominate America’s aerospace industry. By the 21st century they didn’t know how to budget, had poor quality control resulting in unreliable products, and designed things that were badly conceived. The result was a bankrupt space industry that was only saved when new companies appeared willing to fill a need these older companies could not.

25 comments

Isaacman rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic of NASA

12:50 pm

NASA logo

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman today announced major bureaucratic changes at NASA designed to make the agency’s work more “mission centric”, to use his words.

To improve our operational efficiency, we must evolve the organization to be more ‘mission centric’, with specialized centers properly resourced to support current and future requirements. To do this, we will separate lines of authority between preparing and supporting the workforce and executing the mission.

Center Directors will continue reporting to the Associate Administrator, focused on empowering the workforce and maintaining the facilities and critical capabilities at their Centers. Mission Directorates will now report to the Administrator with the primary focus on leveraging Center resources, industry, and international contributions to execute on the mission as urgently and efficiently as possible. We will also take this opportunity, where appropriate, to consolidate departments, flatten org structure and enhance HQ by rotating operational expertise into critical functions.

Isaacman’s memo is long, and involves a lot of reshaping, including an attempt to give specific research focus to each of NASA’s existing centers, while consolidating several departments at NASA headquarters to make operations more efficient. A good summary can also be found here.

Overall, Isaacman’s changes seem logical and smart. At the same time, I’ve seen new NASA administrators do the same time after time, without actually accomplishing any real change. In a sense this is no different than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks. You aren’t really fixing the problem, you are making believe you are doing so.

To really fix NASA will require major cuts, with whole centers and bureaucracies eliminated. If NASA is going to depend on the private sector to get things done — which is very clearly doing at this point — it doesn’t need its present large labor force. All it needs is a trim small bureaucracy in Washington to manage the contracts it hands out as it lets the commercial industry develop and build the rockets, spacecraft, and interplanetary bases the U.S. requires.

Isaacman is not willing or able to do this, however. He might want to (though nothing he has said suggests he does) but even if he did Congress will not let him. It wants NASA funded to keep those pork-laden unproductive jobs alive in their numerous congressional districts.

And so, the deck chairs get rearranged.

5 comments

Space Force study says it needs a third spaceport besides Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg

9:06 am

According to the head of Air Force at a House hearing yesterday, the Space Force is about to complete a study that concluded the military will need a third spaceport besides Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg to accomplish its future space goals.

Air Force Secretary Troy Meink highlighted the finding during a May 20 House Armed Services Committee hearing, noting that the study is still moving through the approval process. The Space Force operates the nation’s busiest spaceports at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Fla., and Vandenberg Space Force Station, Calif.—both of which are running out of room. “At a high level, what it says is we probably need another site that’s capable of heavy and super heavy launch capability, both from a resiliency perspective and just, even at the Cape, limitations on how much space we’ve got,” Meink said.

He didn’t expand any further on the findings of the study, which was mandated by Congress in the Fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, and it’s not clear what locations the service is considering.

It is expected that both the Florida and California spaceports will be able to handle as many as 700 launches per year by the mid-2030s — based on all projections by all the private launch providers — but Meink indicated this will not meet the expected needs of the military, which expects to launch far more than that as part of its Golden Dome implementation. Though it hopes to meet some of this additional demand from other state- and privately-run spaceports, he implied even that will be insufficient.

Pecan Island SpaceX facility?

I think Meink is looking at this issue backwards. Rather than proposing the Pentagon establish its own third spaceport, it should be partnering with the private and state launch providers to meet its needs. For one, if the rumors turn out to be true and SpaceX is buying that 200+ square mile plot of land at Pecan Island in Louisiana, it would make great sense for the Pentagon to demand SpaceX allow other launch providers to lease launchpads there. Not only will there be ample land for such additional launchpads, it will be the fastest and cheapest way to get what the military needs. Finding and buying its own facility will take more time and cost more.

I am of course assuming it is SpaceX that plans to buy that Louisiana land. Right now nothing is confirmed. It is even possible that it is the military itself that has been in discussions there, or if not, is about to insert itself into the mix.

6 comments

New cost estimate for Trump’s Golden Dome exceeds $1 trillion over 20 years

10:15 am

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) new estimates, the cost to build Trump’s proposed Golden Dome defense plan will be about $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years, double what the CBO predicted last year and more than six times what the program’s head has predicted.

The Congressional Budget Office issued an updated estimate today of the cost of President Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense system. Lacking detailed data from the Administration, CBO based its analysis on the capabilities called for in Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order and concluded the total cost over 20 years is $1.2 trillion, about twice its estimate last year, with the bulk of it for Space-Based Interceptors.

Trump issued the Iron Dome for America Executive Order on January 27, 2025, seven days after his second term began. He soon renamed it Golden Dome in part to distinguish it from Israel’s Iron Dome system which has more limited capabilities. Trump appointed Gen. Michael Guetlein to lead the project and in an Oval Office meeting on May 20, 2025, said it would cost $175 billion and be completed in three years, before he leaves office.

By then CBO had estimated the cost at $524 billion based on information available at the time.

Guetlein has since raised his estimate to $185 billion, but it is widely viewed as far too low.

Several important points: First, the CBO’s cost estimates are usually wrong, in either direction, which means the cost could be a lot less, or a lot more. Odds are that in this case its estimate is trending in the right direction. Guetlein’s cost estimate is absurdly too low.

Second, the high cost helps explain why a lot of investment money is pouring into a lot of new space startups, for both rocket and satellite companies. Wall Street sees the federal government spending a lot of money on Golden Dome, and wants to get into the action. For the same reason this is why a lot of space companies have shifted their focus from civilian projects to the military.

Finally, the idea of Golden Dome is perfectly reasonable, as its concept has already been proven both by the U.S.’s Patriot missile system and Israel’s Iron Dome. The implementation however is going to be bad, because the people in Washington being asked to do it have a terrible track record. They routinely waste money and manage projects badly.

8 comments

Russia arrests Angara contractor for fraud

9:17 am

Fraud is a given when it comes to government operations, whether in the U.S. or Russia. A contractor doing work on the production facilities for Russia’s new Angara rocket has now been arrested for stealing more than $7 million.

In May 2026, Gazeta.ru, citing regional courts, reported an arrest of Dmitry Zolotarev, the Director General at OOO RST Genpodryad, which was involved in renovations and upgrades of facilities for serial production of Angara rockets at PO Polyot under a contract with GKNPTs Khrunichev.

Zolotarev and his accomplices were accused of stealing 545 million rubles (approximately $7.3 million) during a period from 2022 to 2025, by submitting the Federal treasury agency in Moscow forged documents with an inflated purchase price of overhead cranes and pocketing the difference. According to Gazeta.ru, Zolotarev was suspected of other similar schemes and faced 10 years in prison if convicted.

Government routinely does a bad job in monitoring its spending, which thus creates an easy temptation for others to put their hands in the cookie jar and take what’s not theirs. We can see this same thing occurring now in the U.S. with many so-called “safety net” programs. Since Russia’s entire aerospace industry is government controlled, this kind of corruption therefore happens frequently within it.

8 comments

Lockheed Martin fights request to ease 2018 restrictions on Northrop Grumman’s solid rocket business

8:58 am

A legal fight between Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman has broken out over Northrop Grumman’s recent request to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ease a 2018 consent order that restricts Northrop Grumman’s ability to market its solid rocket motors (SRM).

On April 2, Northrop petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to drop a 2018 consent order helmed when Northrop acquired solid rocket motor maker Orbital ATK. The consent agreement requires Northrop to supply SRMs to its competitors in the missile market on a non-discriminatory basis and to firewall its SRM business away from its other operations.

At the time, the FTC believed the measure was necessary due to Northrop’s status as a prime contractor and Orbital ATK’s position as one of only two American makers of solid rocket motors.

Northrop is not a major manufacturer in the American missile space, which is dominated by Raytheon and Lockheed. However, if the order is dropped, Northrop will be able to vertically integrate its solid rocket motor business with any munitions the company designs in the future — including potentially prioritizing SRM supplies for Northrop over competitors, Lockheed stated in a response to the petition.

This consent order has prevented Northrop from marketing its solid-fueled rockets openly. Instead, it appears it forces the company to sell to its competitors, such as Lockheed, who then garners the big profits in marketing them. That order I think has also limited Northrop’s ability to use its boosters for other purposes, such as launching satellites.

Overall it appears this consent order has been very counter-productive, in hindering competition in the American solid-fueled rocket industry. At present there is a shortage of production capacity in the U.S., so much so that the Italian rocket company has moved in to market its own solid-fueled rockets here. In fact, it is selling its rockets to Lockheed and Raytheon, which suggests Northrop is entirely justified in asking to be released from this order.

1 comment

The UK’s Sutherland spaceport now appears dead

9:45 am

Proposed or active spaceports in North Europe
Proposed or active spaceports in North Europe

In a news report yesterday about the failure of the United Kingdom’s rocket startup Orbex in February 2026, the following details about the Sutherland spaceport in Scotland suggests that spaceport is now defunct, with little chance of being revived.

Administrators say that one of Orbex’s key remaining assets is the Sutherland Spaceport site near Melness – although the only construction work undertaken at the site is some 600m of access road. The company responsible for it, Sutherland Spaceport Ltd (SSL), remains financially stable, according to administrators. This means the site could still be sold or potentially restarted, even though no launch activity is currently taking place.

The spaceport sits on land leased from local crofters under a long-term arrangement managed through Highlands and Islands Enterprise. SSL holds a 50-year sublease, with an option to extend for 25 years, and a break clause in 2027.

Orbex had originally intended to launch from Sutherland — close to the rocket factory it had built — but local opposition by billionaire Anders Holch Povlsen (who is a major owner in the competing Saxavord spaceport on the Shetland Islands) as well as endless bureaucratic delays from the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority made that impossible. The company attempted to switch its launches to Saxavord, but the cost and new licensing requirements were too much.

No other launch company has expressed any interest in using Sutherland, and it appears none will be forthcoming in the near future. The red tape in the UK, combined with that powerful local opposition, has made Sutherland a pariah to the smallsat rocket companies looking for launch sites.

Though the spaceport might say it is “financially stable”, without any customers I guarantee it is going to disappear at some point.

2 comments

Two lawsuits against SpaceX, claiming company operations damage local homes

9:26 am

Starship and Superheavy during ascent
Starship and Superheavy ascending during October test flight.

SEE UPDATE BELOW for info on 2nd lawsuit.
—————————-
In what appears to be another frivolous lawsuit aimed at SpaceX, about 80 homeowners located from five to ten miles away from SpaceX’s Starbase launch site at Boca Chica have now sued the company, claiming Starship launches have damaged their homes.

The 53 homes are in small towns between 5 and 10 miles from SpaceX’s launch complex near Boca Chica Beach outside Brownsville with 43 in Port Isabel and the others in Laguna Vista, Laguna Heights and South Padre Island.

The lawsuit doesn’t describe the specific damage incurred by each homeowner, but there have been reports of houses shaking, items falling off shelves and broken windows after previous launches and landings of Starship, the world’s largest and most powerful rocket.

“SpaceX has repeatedly subjected the surrounding areas to extraordinary amounts of acoustic energy including noise, vibrations, and sonic booms,” it said of the flights, which can produce multiple sonic booms in addition to the sustained noise of launch, depending on the mission. Starship operations have subjected the plaintiffs’ homes “to repeated intense and damaging acoustic events,” the lawsuit said. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the launches are noisy, and might have caused some things to fall off shelves and might have broken windows. Note too that in Florida the safety zone around launches is three miles, and comparable rockets to Superheavy/Starship (Saturn-1B, Saturn-5, the Space Shuttle and SLS) have repeatedly launched there without causing any noticeable damage. I myself watched a shuttle launch from five miles away and found the sound of the launch actually disappointing. It certainly wasn’t going to cause damage to anything at that distance.

This lawsuit therefore appears simply to be a case of some lawyer trying to blackmail a big company for some ready cash. Its origin might also stem from the insane leftwing hate of Musk because he had to gall to support the election of Donald Trump in 2024. Note too that the author of the article at the link, Brandon Lingle, seems to be one of those insane anti-Musk haters, as he never has anything good to say about SpaceX, and treats all environmentalists like saints.

UPDATE: It appears the same law firm behind the lawsuit above has filed a second lawsuit for 80 other landowners in the vicinity of SpaceX’s MacGregor test site near Waco, claiming the static fire engine tests there are causing them unspecified problems as well. As with the lawsuit above, it appears the claims are mostly an attempt to squeeze money from SpaceX, with some of that effort fueled by anti-Musk hatred.

12 comments

China imposes extensive regulations on its pseudo-commercial space industry

8:01 am

China's communists to its citizens
China’s communists to its citizens “Nice business you got here.
Shame if something happened to it.”

As I predicted when China announced in the fall 2025 that it was creating a special agency to supervise the pseudo-companies in its faux commercial space industry, the Chinese government last week announced the release of what it calls its “Commercial spaceflight standards system,” covering all aspects of the operations its pseudo-private companies.

The standards cover six different areas, but the first best expresses the government’s overall goal:

‘Industry Governance Standards’ focuses on the sector’s characteristics of rapid development, agile response, and short delivery times, alongside space safety concerns such as debris mitigation and protection. With subcategories including market access, safety supervision, space environment governance, certification, energy conservation, and occupational health, it is intended to establish hard regulatory constraints as the compliance foundation for orderly commercial space development. [emphasis mine]

The screen capture from a Monty Python skit to the right says it all. The communists running China apparently did not like the chaotic free nature of this pseudo-industry, with the different companies coming up with many wild and innovative ideas, some of which were bound to fail. The communists also saw that some of these pseudo-companies were also making a lot of money that the communists weren’t getting.

And so, the government formed this agency, and it called the companies together to lay down the law.
» Read more

4 comments

No Starliner mission to ISS this year

3:07 pm

Though in February 2026 NASA officials suggested there might be a Starliner cargo mission to ISS sometime in April 2026, the new schedule released today for ISS manned and cargo missions for the rest of this year shows no Starliner missions at all.

The press release hinted an extra Starliner mission could be added, but don’t but too much faith in this:

Launch opportunities for NASA’s uncrewed Boeing Starliner-1 cargo mission remain under review as teams continue working through technical issues discovered during the Crew Flight Test in 2024, as well as final actions from the Program Investigation Team report. The agency is assessing operational readiness and space station traffic to determine the earliest feasible launch window.

What I think is happening in NASA is that the agency under Isaacman wants a better assurance from Boeing that the problems with Starliner have been fixed, and Boeing is having trouble satisfying them. If so, it seems he is doing what I suggested in February, demand from Boeing the highest quality work or don’t buy anything from it at all. If so kudos to Isaacman.

It is also possible Isaacman doesn’t want to spend extra money paying Boeing for this extra cargo mission to prove out Starliner’s systems. Boeing’s contract for Starliner is fixed price, and the capsule’s multiple problems has now cost the company more than a billion dollars. It is unlikely it will have make a profit on it, which is why it wants NASA to pay for that cargo flight.

Either way, the first operational manned mission using Starliner continues to recede into the future, to the point where ISS might be gone before the capsule is finally okayed for manned flights.

14 comments

Next Artemis mission will be later than promised

9:20 am

Artemis logo

It appears that NASA has already recognized that the next Artemis mission, dubbed Artemis-3 and changed from a lunar landing to an Earth orbit test flight, will not happen on the schedule as first proposed by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman.

During the hearing on Monday, Congressman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman emeritus of the committee, asked Isaacman about his confidence that Artemis 3 would remain on schedule, given the amount of money allocated for the mission’s landers.

“I’ve received responses from both vendors [SpaceX and Blue Origin],” Isaacman said, “to meet our needs for a late 2027 rendezvous, docking and test [of] the interoperability of both landers in advance of a landing attempt in 2028.”

That’s a shift from Isaacman’s statements during his Feb. 27 Artemis strategy presentation, during which he said, “Artemis 3 will have its opportunity, if we can, by mid-2027, which sets us up for an early ’28 and a late ’28 opportunity [for Artemis 4 and 5].” [emphasis mine]

In other words, Artemis-3 has already shifted from mid-’27 to late-’27. Though Isaacman is pushing hard to speed up the launch cadence of the entire Artemis program, reality is once again proving stronger. We should fully expect Artemis-3 to shift into 2028, partly because the lunar landers — especially Blue Origin’s Blue Moon — might not be ready but mostly because SLS is simply too cumbersome a rocket to stack quickly. Isaacman wants to speed up its launch cadence to once a year. The best we should expect is 18 months to two years.

As for getting two manned lunar landings in 2028, Isaacman might want it but the odds are slim to none. If Artemis-3 flies in late ’27 it will be almost impossible to get SLS ready for a landing mission before the end of ’28.

In the end, these delays will illustrate the need to replace SLS with private commercial launchers.

26 comments

Propaganda vs reporting in describing the battle over NASA’s budget

10:49 am

Jared Isaacman before the Senate
Jared Isaacman before the Senate

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman yesterday appeared before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations committee, and as happened last week when Isaacman appeared before a House committee, the reality of what happened at the hearing differed greatly from what most new sources reported.

The main topic of both hearings were the proposed $5.6 billion cut in NASA’s budget, proposed by President Trump. Isaacman has made it clear he does not oppose this cut, stating repeatedly in public that he has plenty of money to do what he wants, that there is much waste and needless spending at NASA that needs reform, and by trimming that out he will find the cash he needs.

As I noted in reporting about that House hearing, I was struck by the lack of hard opposition to those cuts. The Republicans generally made little of the issue, though they seemed generally opposed to the cuts. And though the Democrats as expected blasted the cuts, they did so in a generally subdued manner, only showing passion in noting the elimination to NASA STEM education office. Isaacman’s willingness to push back hard against more spending took the wind out of their demands for more money, and so they muted their protests.

Unfortunately, if you relied on our propaganda press for an honest report of this House hearing, you would have been misinformed. As shown below, that propaganda press distorted this reality to back big government spending without question.

The Senate hearing yesterday followed the exact same pattern. The questioning was generally friendly, and Isaacman aggressively pushed back at the demands for more spending by Democrats. This made their push for more spending more difficult, because Isaacman knows what he is talking about, supports an ambitious space program at NASA, and if he says he doesn’t need the extra money, they look foolish throwing it at him.

Yet, the propaganda press once again tried to spin the hearing to promote more spending. Though this hearing got less coverage, the following two stories were typical:

Only one news source (outside of my reporting here), R&D World, reporting this hearing accurately: Senate largely hearing splits on party lines over proposed $5.6 billion NASA cut

Now, I am not naive. I fully expect Congress to restore most of the proposed cuts to NASA’s budget. At the same time, both hearings suggest that Congress will also afford Isaacman more leeway on how he uses the money. He will be able to cut or reshape major projects. He will be able to shut down some offices that he considers wasteful or redundant. And above all, he will be given the freedom to reform NASA in ways no Congress has allowed in decades.

10 comments

Canada cancels $72 million contract to build constellation to track wildfires

9:48 am

In what appears to be an unexpected decision, the Canadian government this past week suddenly terminated a $72 million contract with the company Spire Global Canada to build a constellation of satellites designed to locate and track wildfires.

According to a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Spire Global received a written notice on April 23, 2026, from the Minister of Public Works and Government Services (PWGS) terminating the agreement “for convenience,” effective immediately. The Phase B and C contract would have had an aggregate value of $71.8 million, including harmonized sales tax, if all contractual milestones had been achieved. The value of the overall WildFireSat satellite constellation including Phase D for manufacturing, system assembly, and integration is $106 million.
WildFireSat mission setback

This represents a serious setback for the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and other government departments who are participating in the mission. Only a month ago the project was being touted as high return-on-investment climate mission in the annual Canadian Space Agency 2026–27 Departmental Plan.

The plan had called for a constellation of nine smallsats, with one back-up ready for launch on the ground.

No reason has been given for the cancellation. The Canadian Space Agency merely stated that “The Government of Canada will soon be engaging with industry and begin working closely with stakeholders on how best to advance the continued development of this important mission.” Spire Global meanwhile has until May 7th to apply for settlement costs.

12 comments

Rocket Factory Augsburg submits license application for a Saxavord launch window opening on July 1, 2026

8:30 am

Proposed or active spaceports in North Europe
Proposed or active spaceports in North Europe

The German rocket startup Rocket Factory Augsburg has now submitted a new marine license application to allow it to attempt the first launch of its RFA-1 rocket from the Saxavord spaceport on the Shetland Islands in Scotland, with a launch window opening on July 1, 2026.

Rocket Factory had hoped to do this launch in 2024, but lost the first stage mere weeks before launch when it exploded during a final static fire test on the launchpad. Since then the company has undergone a management shake-up and made major changes to operations and its rocket.

To do this launch, however, it needs a new launch license, and that is a major problem. The company’s announcement is filled with numerous vague qualifiers, as it knows getting the bureaucracies in the United Kingdom to move quickly in this matter is nigh on impossible.

This is a legally required step for planning, and a good sign of how far we’ve come – but it’s not a launch date just yet. We applied for this window because we’re working hard to be ready – and we’re getting closer every day.

So: the application means we’re entering a new phase of preparation. Still, as with any first-ever launch, there are uncertainties, and the schedule may evolve. Further specific details around launch timing will be released through the appropriate channels closer to the time. We’ll keep you posted!

In other words, the company will not be surprised if it doesn’t get its license in time for July, and is prepared for delays.

Another German rocket startup, Isar Aerospace, has been trying to launch its Spectrum rocket from Norway’s Andoya spaceport since January, with the launch scrubbed several times due to technical issues. Right now the launch its tentatively scheduled for May, which means the race to achieve the first orbital launch from Europe is tightening considerably.

If I had to place a bet, my money would be on Isar, not Rocket Factory, and the reason would be because I truly doubt the British bureaucracy will issue a license on time. Its track record has been abysmal, sometimes taking years to give an okay. In this case it might not take that long, since Saxavord has gotten all its own permits already (after years of waiting) but no one should be confident it will act with speed. And it is clear that the people at Rocket Factory are not.

0 comments

California Coastal Commission settles SpaceX lawsuit by apologizing and conceding all points

8:01 am

Wants to be a dictator
Wanted to be a dictator; ended up being
a patsy.

SpaceX yesterday settled its lawsuit [pdf] with the California Coastal Commission when the commission agreed to apologize to the company and agree it has no authority to regulate any SpaceX launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base.

The Commission agrees that it may not consider irrelevant factors in performing its function and specifically agrees that it will not take into account the perceived political beliefs, political speech, or labor practices of SpaceX or its officers in considering any regulatory action concerning SpaceX. The Commission acknowledges that Commissioners made statements, including during their October 10, 2024, hearing on the Base’s Falcon 9 launch program, that showed political bias against SpaceX and its CEO and were improper. The Commission apologizes for those statements, as set forth in the signed letter attached as Exhibit C.

The commission also agreed that it has no authority to regulate SpaceX’s launch rate at its launchpads at Vandenberg, and will never again attempt to interfere with these operations.

The SpaceX lawsuit stemmed from the comments made by the commissioners at a meeting in October 2024 when then voted against the military’s plan to allow SpaceX to increase its launch rate at Vandenberg spaceport to up to 50 launches per year. In those comments, the commissioners made it clear that the main reason they were voting against the motion was because they were offended by Elon Musk and his political positions, not because the company was doing anything wrong.

While the settlement does not restrict the commission’s right to regulate off-base actions, or other aspects under its statutory authority, this settlement is a complete victory for SpaceX. The commission members were probably made aware that if they didn’t back down completely, they would be personally liable for a great deal of damages. As a result of this settlement, they are absolved of all liabilities.

11 comments

Starlink returns to Papua New Guinea after court ruling

9:22 am

SpaceX’s Starlink internet service will once again be available in Papua New Guinea after its court this week overturned a ban that had been imposed by a government bureaucracy.

In early 2024, the [Ombudsman] Commission blocked licensing efforts for Starlink, arguing that existing regulations may not be adequate to manage potential risks to public interest and safety.

But in her National Court ruling last week, Judge Susan Purdon-Sully strongly criticised the Ombudsman Commission for its move to halt Starlink’s license process. Finding no breach of PNG’s leadership code, nor evidence of corruption, the judge said the Ombudsman’s concerns were more administrative, meaning its directive to NICTA had been “an unconstitutional exercise of power”.

Meanwhile, the prime minister again urged Starlink to work collaboratively with state-owned Telikom PNG to “ensure a coordinated rollout that complements national infrastructure priorities”.

The article describes in detail several recent natural disasters where the lack of Starlink was a critical component in rescue and repair operations. The country also has large rural areas where Starlink is the only method for reaching the rest of the world quickly. There was thus apparently great political pressure to end this ban.

4 comments

Trump fires the entire governing board of the National Science Foundation

2:38 pm

In a move that should surprise no one at this point in Trump’s second term, yesterday President Trump informed all 24 members of the National Science Board, the committee that runs the National Science Foundation (NSF), that they have been fired.

“On behalf of President Donald J Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately,” reads a 24 April email from Mary Sprowls of the presidential personnel office to each NSB member. “Thank you for your service.”

The article at the link, from the journal Science, takes the typical one-sided propaganda press anti-Trump view, interviewing only those who oppose Trump and spending most of its time screaming “He’s destroying science!”

A wider view would ask this: Is there a reason that the president of the United States, elected by the American people, might have reasons to question the management of this board? At the moment the federal government is running a deficit that is back-breaking, and this board publicly criticized Trump’s effort to rein in spending when he proposed a 55% cut in NSF’s budget. If they are not going to cooperate with their boss, then maybe they should leave, and not let the door hit them as they head out.

The Science article also included this howler: “the mass firing is the latest indication that the White House is ignoring the board’s authority and dictating policies at NSF.” Um, who elected them? No one. In fact, they were appointed by the president himself, and he is the only one with the constitutional authority to decide these matters.

Expect court suits of course, with some lower level unelected judge somewhere attempting to take over running the executive branch by demanding these board members remain in power, defying the elected president of the U.S.

20 comments
1 2 3 … 144