Tag: bankruptcy

Texas Supreme Court rejects beach closure lawsuit against SpaceX

9:35 am

The Texas Supreme Court today unanimously rejected the lawsuit by fringe activist groups against SpaceX and the closure of beaches near Boca Chica for Starship/Superheavy launches.

Siding with SpaceX and the attorney general’s office, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday ruled that environmental groups did not have a right to sue to preserve public access to a beach that has been closed during rocket launches. The unanimous ruling said a trial judge properly dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning the groups could not refile it with changes.

The lawsuit was brought by SaveRGV, a very small group of leftist anti-Musk activists who have tried to use lawfare for the past five years to shut down Boca Chica. Later, the Sierra Club and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas joined in. The latter is a fake Indian tribe, as this tribe never existed in Texas at all, and is presently non-existent.

This decision essentially ends the lawfare campaign of these groups. I am sure they will try again, but their options continue to shrink, especially because they have practically no support in the southern Texas region. Everyone else is enthusiastically enjoying the prosperity and wealth SpaceX is bringing to the area.

7 comments

Problems during first drop tests of Europe’s Space Rider prototype

8:23 am

Artist rendering of Space Rider in orbit
Artist rendering of Space Rider in orbit. Click for original.

It appears that there was an undisclosed problem in May that prevented the first drop tests from a helicopter of a prototype of Europe’s Space Rider mini-reusable shuttle.

During a June 17 press briefing following the 347th ESA Council meeting, weeks after the aborted attempt occurred, ESA’s head of strategy and institutional launches for space transportation, Lucía Linares, explained that the agency could not provide a concrete date for the final drop test, stating only that it would take place after the summer and before the end of the year.

When asked what had prompted the several-month-long delay, an ESA spokesperson confirmed that the previously unannounced test campaign had taken place. According to the agency, the two-week campaign had concluded on 8 May, when the anomaly forced teams to abort the final test sequence. According to the spokesperson, the anomaly occurred during the captive ascent phase. During this phase, the mock-up was raised to drop height by a CH-47 Chinook helicopter. The agency did not, however, provide details about the nature of the anomaly.

This reusable capsule concept by the European Space Agency (ESA) is essentially a variation of either Varda’s returnable capsule or Boeing’s X-37B, but its development has been ridiculously slow. It was first tested by ESA in 2015. By 2017 the agency was promising it would be flying commercially by 2025. A decade later and they have not yet begun testing a full scale spacecraft.

Last summer ESA did helicopter drop tests of just the “brain” and parafoil. Now the drop tests this year of a full scale model — not the real thing — has been delayed until the end of this year because of an undisclosed “anomaly.”

When ESA finally does helicopter drop tests of the actual flight model remains completely unknown. Based on its pace of development, this reusable capsule won’t fly for another five to ten years. By then, a dozen companies will be flying their own private reusable capsules and spacecraft, as well as offering similar services on private space stations.

At that point ESA will likely cancel the program, after wasting two decades and more than a $100 million.

4 comments

Anthony Fauci: Not only a liar from day one, evidence now proves he financed the creation of Covid

11:05 pm

Fauci: Washington's top liar
Anthony Fauci: a liar, crook, and most important,
the man who financed the Covid epidemic.

At the end of her final day in office as director of national intelligence, former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard today released a slew of formerly classified papers, documents, and email communications that prove that Anthony Fauci had not only approved extensive funding to the Wuhan lab in China that was the source of the Covid virus, he lied about his actions to Congress and to the public.

For years during the Covid panic Fauci repeatedly claimed under oath and publicly that the agency he headed, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), had never funded any “gain of function” research — research that specifically produces dangerous new pathogens like Covid. Moreover, he repeatedly denied under oath and publicly sending any funds to China’s Wuhan lab for that research.

The document dump by Gabbard proves without a shadow of a doubt Fauci was lying in every case. He is a duplicitous, deceitful, and dishonest man. This quote from press release alone should put him in prison for perjury:

Throughout the pandemic, Fauci and politicized leaders within the IC [intelligence community] created a self-serving circular reporting loop. He provided hand-picked NIAID-funded scientists to advise the IC. This input shaped official intelligence assessments, which were then publicly cited as scientific consensus to refute the lab-leak theory.

According to hundreds of reviewed emails, the IC almost always incorporated his recommendations. Fauci promoted a fraudulent paper, whose publication he helped prompt, as legitimate information for Intelligence Community consideration. Senior analysts praised Fauci not as a “policymaker,” but as an unbiased guide to “the real coronavirus experts”—while ignoring experts who might dissent from Fauci’s narratives.

The correspondence released today directly contradicts Fauci’s 2024 testimony to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. In that hearing, while under oath, Fauci was repeatedly asked whether he spoke to “FBI, CIA, DIA or any U.S. intelligence agency concerning viral research” before, during, or after the pandemic. Fauci repeatedly dodged the questions, before falsely stating, “not to my knowledge about COVID.”

He lied. But then, he also lied about masks, about the jab, about natural immunity, all of which was patently obvious during and after the panic if you exerted the slightest effort to question his statements or positions.

Now, evidence in black and white has been released that shows without doubt that he lied about funding the Wuhan research that actually led to the epidemic. He used American funds to finance research at a Chinese laboratory — controlled by a hostile power — that ended up sloppily (or maybe on purpose) leaking the pathogen and causing the epidemic, and then lied about it for years, taking actions against whistle-blowers or anyone in the medical community that dared to raise question about his actions.

Will Fauci go to jail? Probably not. For decades our corrupt leaders in Washington have been increasingly playing these kinds of games, and getting away with it. I expect the same to happen now.

18 comments

Airplane crash that killed four blamed on Pentagon test of GPS jamming

11:09 am

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has concluded that a New Mexico crash that killed four of a medical ambulance airplane on an emergency flight to pick up a sick patient occurred because of a Pentagon test of its GPS jamming capability.

On May 14, an airplane ambulance based out of Roswell, New Mexico, was called to the Sierra Blanca Regional Airport in Ruidoso to pick up a patient. Before they arrived in Ruidoso, the plane went down shortly after midnight. The victims included two pilots and two flight nurses.

According to the preliminary NTSB report, investigators stated the crew reported losing GPS at midnight, minutes after departure. The report said they had to request assistance from air traffic control. “GPS jamming activities that encompassed the area around the accident flight were being conducted by the United States military during the time of the flight,” the report stated.

The report said air traffic control called their operation supervisor and requested the military to stop the GPS jamming. Air traffic control tried to guide the aircraft with radar headings and later cleared it for an instrument approach, then switched to a ground-based landing system. Several minutes later, the crew reported having a visual on Ruidoso. There were no other transmissions from the aircraft.

The report said flight tracking data showed the aircraft descending, approaching the Capitan mountains, which rise above 10,000 feet. The plane ultimately struck the side of the mountain at about 9,950 feet in elevation.

For the War Department to do this test in public areas where commercial flights occur is bad enough. Such tests should always be restricted to military bases in isolated areas, of which the Pentagon has many. If this isn’t satisfactory to the Pentagon than at a minimum it should be prepared to cancel the test instantly when notified a plane is in trouble because of it.

In this case it clearly was not prepared to cancel quickly, and thus four people died unnecessarily.

The NTSB notes this this report is still preliminary and that its investigation is on-going.

15 comments

Mitsubishi gets subsidy from Japan to develop its own orbital tug

9:52 am

The Japanese aerospace company Mitsubishi today announced that Japan’s Space Strategic Fund has awarded it a subsidy of an undisclosed amount to its develop its own orbital tug.

The goal is to develop an OTV [orbital transfer vehicle] that can respond flexibly to user needs, navigate between orbits, and load and release payloads in space without being limited to specific applications or transport routes. The company also aims to verify the feasibility of autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking (RPOD) using physical AI and robotics for the safe and effective capture, handling and release of payloads in space.

The Space Strategic Fund was created by the Japanese government in 2023 as a ten year $6.6 billion program to encourage the growth of a private Japanese space sector, to essentially transition Japan from a government space program run and owned by its space agency JAXA to a independent and competing private sector, following the capitalism model.

That fund however was given to JAXA to manage, and so far it appears it has not moved aggressively to promote an independent sector. Inside, the awards it has given out so far have mostly been to either fund its own programs, or help its big space partners, such as Mitsubishi. This could change of course as privately-owned spacecraft begin garnering customers outside of JAXA. It is however taking a long time, and meanwhile Japan’s space industry continues to trail badly both China and India, and even South Korea. While these Asian companies are developing multiple rockets and spacecraft, Japan presently has no operational rockets, and its commercial space sector is barely alive.

1 comment

NASA’s X-59 completes first no-boom supersonic flight, more than a year after a private company did it

10:28 am

NASA yesterday made a big deal about the first successful supersonic test flight of its X-59 test plane, built by Lockheed Martin for $247.5 million to demonstrate quiet no-boom supersonic flight.

And as usual, our uneducated propaganda press played along, touting the wonders of this new NASA achievement. A few examples:

Poppycock. Not one of these news articles made mention of the fact that the private commercial company Boom Supersonic accomplished the same feat eighteen months earlier, its XB-1 supersonic airplane breaking the sound barrier with no boom three separate times. And it did so using private funds for significantly less and getting the job done faster and in a manner that it can quickly convert into its planned commercial supersonic planes.

The X-59 is a typical NASA test project, designed to test a technology in a manner that is generally too specific and expensive for commercial use. Without doubt the engineering and the data from these flights will be helpful to companies like Boom, but to use it will require major changes and revisions to bring the cost down. It is for this reason Boom did its own engineering and test.

That I appear to be the only news outlet aware of this important background information — that puts a significantly different light on this government project — illustrates the bankruptcy of our modern media. They don’t know anything, and can only rewrite press releases.

20 comments

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.

14 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
1 2 3 … 144