Tag: bankruptcy

Russia launches the smallest version of its Angara rocket

9:34 am

Russia today successfully launched the smallest version of its Angara rocket, dubbed Angara-1.2, from its Plesetsk spaceport in northeast Russia, placing a number of classified payloads into orbit.

Russia’s state-run press released almost no information about this launch, partly because of its military nature but also because it has discovered recently that the Plesetsk spaceport is within range of Ukrainian drones, with one attack causing a launch to be scrubbed.

The leaders in the 2026 launch race:

49 SpaceX
21 China
7 Russia
6 Rocket Lab

For the third straight year SpaceX continues to lead the entire world combined in total launches, 49 to 39.

3 comments

EU releases revised Space Act proposal, and it is as odious as the earlier drafts

11:24 am

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

The Council of the European Union (EU) in Brussels at the end of March released [pdf] a revised draft of its proposed Space Act that would impose a single regulatory framework for all space activities across the entire EU.

I have just finished reading this odious 157-page monstrosity, and I can say without question if passed it will not only isolate Europe from all international space commercial activity, it will squelch any possibility that Europe will develop its own space industry.

The first draft of the law, first put forth in 2025, was routinely blasted by American officials, by think tanks in and out of Europe, and by industry representatives. It imposed byzantine regulations on Europe’s space industry while also demanding that non-European companies be required to follow these rules as well, national sovereignty be damned.

The newly released draft does the same, but now does so in a manner that is somewhat vague and unclear.

That lack of clarity includes what is required to comply with the regulations. “There are a lot of things where it says you need to do X. What counts as X? Who knows,” said Gabriel Swiney, director of the Office of Space Commerce’s policy, advocacy and international division. “It will probably be determined at some point by some European committee or standards body.”

“Without regulatory clarity with what the regulatory picture should be, it’s really going to have a stifling effect on what industry is striving to do,” said Janna Lewis, senior vice president of policy and general counsel for Astroscale U.S.

The first draft was delayed and apparently rejected because the member nations of the EU opposed it. It appears this new version, having done nothing to ease their concerns, might already be on its way to the dead letter office.

We shall see. If there is anything dear to the hearts of the EU bureaucrats in Brussels, it is imposing insane regulations on others. It appears those bureaucrats haven’t given up — despite opposition by numerous European governments — and are working hard to win that right in space.

20 comments

The space agencies of Canada and Europe agree to exchange classified information

1:51 pm

Canada:
Canada: “We let our government do it all!”

In what appears to be the increasing policy of the Canadian Liberal government to align its space program with Europe, the Canadian Space Agency this week signed an agreement with the European Space Agency that will make it possible for them to freely exchange classified information.

The European Space Agency (ESA) and Canada have signed a General Security of Information Agreement (GSOIA), which will establish a legally binding framework for the exchange of classified information. The agreement was signed on 14 April at the 41st Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, USA, by ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher and President of the Canadian Space Agency Lisa Campbell, on behalf of the Government of Canada.

The GSOIA will ensure that both parties uphold the highest standards of security while enabling the secure exchange of sensitive information entrusted to authorised institutions and industrial partners. It provides a robust foundation for cooperation in areas where the protection of classified information is essential. In particular, the agreement will facilitate closer collaboration in strategic domains such as space-based surveillance, disaster response and security-related technologies. It will also support the development of dual-use capabilities, including advanced sensing systems, secure communications and emerging space technologies.

Canada is the only country not in Europe that is a partner in ESA. This deal, plus Canada’s recent commitment to provide a half billion dollars of funding to ESA projects, illustrates the Liberal government’s policy to look to Europe more for its space effort, rather than the United States.

This appears also to be part of the Liberal government’s shift away from capitalism and towards a government-based space effort, a decision that is certain to produce few results while wasting a lot of money.

20 comments

Saxavord spaceport faces new regulatory and financial issues

9:19 am

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

The long-delayed Saxavord spaceport on the Shetland Islands in Great Britain appears to now face two new problems that could block future launches, one regulatory and the second financial.

First the financial issue: The spaceport, which has lost about $7 million in both ’23 and ’24, appears to be in technical default of a loan of a bit more than $14.3 million. In this case, the lender is willing to ignore the technical issue, assuming the spaceport meets certain conditions presently being negotiated.

The regulatory issue however is more serious, and could block the spaceport’s expected first launch later this year by the rocket startup Rocket Factory Augsburg.

Despite claiming to be ready for launch, the spaceport has also been subject of a formal complaint to the SIC [Shetland Islands Council] over allegations that the facility has not yet been granted a completion certificate or approval for occupation. The complaint alleges that the fire detection and alarm systems appear not to have been installed and that the premises may be in use without adequate fire precautions. It asks the council to confirm whether the premises has been subject to regulatory oversight and whether it has undertaken an inspection of the site.

The SIC said in response: “Concerns have been raised with the council and these are being looked at by our building standards service. A site inspection is scheduled this week as part of the live building warrant process, including to establish the current position in relation to the building on the site that falls within the council’s building standards remit. Any further action will be considered in light of the findings of that inspection.”

In other words, if the local council finds the fire detection and alarm systems not installed and within its regulatory responsibility, it will deny Saxavord its launch permit.

Meanwhile, the spaceport has been trying for years to get other rocket companies interested in using Saxavord, to no avail. Rocket startups have enough difficulties. They quite rightly don’t need the added delays caused by the UK’s red tape, delays that contributed to the bankruptcy of two different rocket startups. For example, most of the regulatory delays — lasting years — have initially come from a variety of national agencies, with Great Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority leading the way. This new issue is local, an additional bureaucratic layer that must be satisfied.

0 comments

European Union to restructure its space bureaucracy

10:38 am

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

The European Commission of the European Union (EU) announced earlier this week that it is renaming its “European Union Agency for the Space Programme” to the “European Union Space Services Agency (EUSPA)”, with the new agency aimed at running the EU’s various satellite projects, including its Galileo GPS-type constellation, its proposed communications constellations, and its various European security satellite projects.

The proposed regulatory document can be read here [pdf]. More details can be found here:

In the text of the draft regulation, the Commission says the agency is expected to play a crucial role in implementing Union space systems and wider space policy from 2028 to 2034 as part of the European Competitiveness Fund. That places the agency firmly inside the next generation of EU planning for satellite navigation, Earth observation, secure connectivity, space situational awareness and related civil and defence applications.

One of the clearest elements in the proposal is the agency’s planned renaming. The draft regulation states that the current European Union Agency for the Space Programme would become the European Union Space Services Agency. The Commission says this is meant to reflect more accurately the body’s current and future role as an operational actor supporting the delivery of Union space systems rather than simply administering a programme framework. That change in title is therefore intended to signal a broader institutional shift rather than a cosmetic rebranding.

The language above as well as the actual regulation itself I think illustrates well why the European Union is increasingly falling behind the rest of the world in space. The wording is obtuse, complex, and jargon-filled, often aimed at making things seem more significant than they really are.

The number of different bureaucracies involved is also a bad sign. On top is the EU. Under that is the European Commission. Below that is this new agency EUSPA. On the side is the European Space Agency, which though it will have a representative at all EUSPA meetings the division of responsibilities between it and EUSPA is very unclear.

All told, everything about this document and the government bureaucracies involved seems designed to do things slowly and in a manner guaranteed to cost more.

No wonder many member nations of the EU and ESA have decided to go their own way, even as they politely maintain membership in these organizations. Germany, France, Spain, and Italy are all now pushing the development of new commercial independent space companies within their borders, all attempting to launch similar space assets, but with the ability to eventually do it faster and cheaper.

I would expect those new private companies will soon eclipse anything proposed by EUSPA in the coming decade.

5 comments

Orion completes short 15-second burn to refine its return-to-Earth

8:10 pm

The Earth as seen from behind the Moon
The Earth as seen from Orion just before the capsule swung behind
the Moon yesterday. Click for this and other Artemis-2 lunar images.

The Orion capsule today completed a 15-second engine burn in order to fine-tune its return path for splashdown in the Pacific Ocean on April 10th.

At 8:03 p.m. EDT, the Orion spacecraft, named Integrity, ignited its thrusters for 15 seconds, producing a change in velocity of 1.6 feet-per-second and guiding the Artemis II crew toward Earth. NASA astronaut Christina Koch and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen reviewed procedures and monitored the spacecraft’s configuration and navigation data.

During today’s mission status briefing, NASA officials shared the first images received from the crew during the lunar flyby and confirmed that the USS John P. Murtha has left port and is headed to the midway point toward the recovery site in the Pacific Ocean.

This was Orion’s second small engine burn since it left Earth orbit on April 2, 2026. Unlike the Apollo missions to the Moon in the 1960s-1970s, which involved entering and leaving lunar orbit and doing complex maneuvers while there, the Artemis-2 mission around the Moon has largely been a passive one. The capsule was sent on this course at the start, and has been coasting since. Today’s burn was merely a small adjustment, not a major burn.

The re-entry on April 10, 2026 remains the key moment of the flight, as it has always been. Will that questionable heat shield do as NASA’s engineers predict and work to protect the four astronauts during re-entry? Or will it do things unexpected, because those engineers really don’t understand the engineering issues involved?

I am hopeful and optimistic. I also know that even if everything turns out fine, this flight will simply be a demonstration that NASA has learned nothing from the Challenger and Columbia accidents, and is still willing to risk human lives in order to win some political kudos and get some good PR. And for that reason I am not confident of the agency’s ability to truly do what it says, safely and competently.

One more note: Though the images being sent back are quite beautiful, they are hardly ground-breaking. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has mapped the entire surface of the Moon at much great resolution, far better than anything seen on this mission. NASA might claim the astronauts are doing science, but most of it is minor and not very significant. When you get down to it, this is simply a very expensive tourist trip for four government employees, paid for at an ungodly cost by the American taxpayer.

25 comments

The space station part of Isaacman’s new program is facing push back, from industry and Congress

10:37 am

The American space stations under construction
Four of the American space stations under development.
The fifth, Max Space, is a late comer and not shown.

At a hearing yesterday before the space subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, both the trade organization representing the five commercial space station projects as well as some members of Congress expressed strong reservations about NASA’s new plan to build a core module as a basis for helping these companies develop their space stations.

Dave Cavossa, President of the Commercial Space Federation (CSF) that represents these companies, outlined in his statement [pdf] to the committee the industry’s dissatisfaction, not so much because of the specifics of NASA’s plan but because it follows other sudden changes last year by the previous NASA administrator Sean Duffy, and is still uncertain in its outline.

Given the delays and possible shifts in strategy, industry has been left to continue spending resources to develop private space stations without a full understanding of what NASA will require from a private station, how the agency will structure the rest of the procurement and program, and when industry may see a return on investment. This uncertainty challenges the public-private partnership business model and puts the agency at risk of deorbiting ISS before private stations are operational.

The trade group proposed that NASA stick with its previous plan to fund two or more station projects, dropping Isaacman’s core module proposal. It also wanted Congress give the agency the funds to do so.

Cavossa also strongly disputed NASA’s claim that the market at present doesn’t support these commercial stations.
» Read more

18 comments

Canada cancels small lunar rover that was to fly on Firefly’s Blue Ghost lander in ’29

2:13 pm

Even as Canada has increased its government space spending in Europe and in Canada — mostly it appears to prop up bureaucracies or failing businesses — its space agency has at the same time cancelled its first lunar rover project, scheduled to brought to the south pole of the Moon by a Firefly Blue Ghost lander in 2029.

As part of its 2026-2027 departmental plan, the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has cancelled its ambitious lunar rover mission. The lunar rover was announced in 2022. It would have been Canada’s first rover, built by Canadensys, and hitching a ride to the moon on a commercial launch vehicle built by a private U.S. company, Firefly Aerospace.

…The principal investigator of the mission, Gordon Osinski, a planetary geologist from Western University, said that he found out about a month ago, and that he was “devastated” by the news.

Note that this rover was hardly “ambitious.” It was a small unmanned rover comparable to similar rovers deployed by India, Japan, and others, mostly aimed at testing the engineering for later larger rovers.

The real issue however is how this decision illustrates Canada’s leftist government misplaced priorities. Increasingly it appears it is canceling actual space research or planetary missions and shifting the money to other uses, either European projects or bureaucracies in Canada or failing Canadian businesses.

8 comments

German rocket startup signs deal to launch from SaxaVord spaceport in Scotland

9:56 am

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

The German rocket startup HyImpulse yesterday signed a contract with the SaxaVord spaceport on the Shetland Islands in Scotland to do a suborbital test launch at SaxaVord later this year.

HyImpulse has agreed a launch deal with the Unst spaceport, with the aim of a suborbital launch in quarter three of 2026. It will be the second launch of the company’s SR75 suborbital launch vehicle following a successful lift-off in Australia in 2024, which used a hybrid propulsion system involving paraffin “candle wax” and liquid oxygen. HyImpulse said that initial launch, from Koonibba, showed the vehicle could demonstrate “stable flight validating system performance under operational conditions”.

Under the agreement, SaxaVord will provide launch infrastructure and operational support for the launch of the SR75.

HyImpulse is the second German rocket startup to sign a deal to launch from SaxaVord. Rocket Factory Augsburg plans its second attempt to do an orbital launch from there later this year. In 2024 it was gearing up to do that launch but an explosion during a full static fire test of the rocket’s first stage killed that plan.

Considering the red tape the United Kingdom has imposed on rocket companies, bankrupting two and delaying all launches for years from both SaxaVord and the other proposed spaceport in Sutherland, Scotland, I am surprised these two rocket companies have signed these deals. Maybe the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been reformed and eased that red tape.

Or maybe HyImpulse will find its plans blocked by the CAA as that agency once again ponders at glacial pace the issuing of a new launch license. Stay tuned.

2 comments

Canada leases Nova Scotia spaceport for $200 million

9:55 am

Proposed Canadian spaceports
Proposed Canadian spaceports

The Canadian government yesterday announced it is committing significant funding to several space-related companies, including issuing a ten year $200 million lease to the Nova Scotia spaceport that has been unable to attract any launch customers for the past ten years.

The investment is a 10‑year, $200‑million agreement to lease a dedicated space‑launch pad that will serve as the central foundation for a multi-user spaceport near Canso, Nova Scotia. Operated by Maritime Launch Services, this spaceport will support the operational needs of the Department of National Defence (DND), the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), and the wider Government of Canada, while also offering ad hoc access to allies and partners.

The history of Maritime and its Spaceport Nova Scotia is far from encouraging. It was first proposed in 2016, offering satellite companies both a launch site and a Ukrainian-built rocket. That plan fell through when Russia invaded the Ukraine and the rocket became unavailable. Since then Maritime has struggled to convince rocket companies to use the spaceport, all to no avail. It signed some deals, but none has gone anywhere. This Canadian government lease appears an attempt to save it, since it is very unlikely that this government will be capable of building its own rocket during those ten years.

In order to avoid accusations of favoritism, the government at the same time also announced further $8.3 million grants to three Canadian companies to help them develop their own rockets, one of which is Nordspace, which has its own proposed spaceport, the Atlantic Spaceport in Newfoundland. According to the government, these grants are part of a $105 million program to encourage a sovereign Canadian rocket industry. The other two companies are Reaction Dynamics, which wants to launch its suborbital rocket from Nova Scotia, and a new startup dubbed the Canada Rocket Company, of which little is known.

Apparently, the leftist Canadian government is following in the footsteps of the leftist government of the United Kingdom. In both cases their private spaceports have floundered for decades, unable to attract customers for a variety of reasons. To save them, both governments are now pouring cash into their pockets to prop them up.

In the case of the UK, the obstacles have almost entirely been the red tape of the government. In the case of Canada and Maritime’s Nova Scotia spaceport, it has been a series of bad management decisions that reflect poorly on the company. Private capital has thus not been interested in investing in it. Nor have any rocket companies been interested in launching from it.

So of course, the leftist Canadian government is going to use other people’s money to fund it. How typical.

Canadian may get its own launch capability from this program, but don’t bet on it. Government programs like this have routinely failed, wasting billions and decades with little to show for the effort. The program’s one saving grace however is that the government isn’t designing, building, and owning the rockets. It is instead hiring these three companies to do the work. Under that framework, there is a chance something might actually happen.

9 comments

Real change at the FCC?

1:51 pm

Brendan Carr during Breitbart interview
Brendan Carr during Breitbart interview

FCC chairman Brendan Carr this week didn’t simply make a public statement yesterday against Amazon, as I reported earlier today. The day earlier, on March 10th, he did an hour-long interview with Breibart News, providing a more complete summary of the FCC’s overall agenda since the change of administrations from Joe Biden to Donald Trump.

You can watch that interview here. To put it mildly, the shift in policy and approach at the FCC is significant, and appears to be generally moving in the right direction.

To understand the context, we need to first review the FCC’s approach during the Biden administration. My regular readers will remember the many stories during that time describing the FCC’s aggressive effort to expand its regulatory power, in many cases in areas completely exceeding its fundamental statutory authority. For example, it proposed new regulations designed to tell satellite companies how and when to de-orbit their satellites. It also wanted to its own bureaucracy for imposing those regulations, and went ahead and created it without any congressional approval. It also under Biden attempted to limit satellite operations that the astronomy community opposed, an action that was once again outside its statute authority.

Overall, the goal of the FCC under Biden was to expand the power of the administrative state, in as many areas as possible. And though there was push back from Congress, as long as a Democrat was president it was clear that this power-grab was going to grow exponentially.

After the 2024 election, however a Democrat was no longer president. Trump quickly moved in 2025 to squash the FCC’s power grab, with a stated public goal to instead streamline FCC regulations and speed license approvals.

Carr’s interview earlier this week essentially gave us an update on that Trump policy, and it appears this new anti-regulatory policy is moving forward, with a goal to eliminate ten regulations for every one regulation added. According to Carr:
» Read more

7 comments

The Senate cries “Uncle!” on SLS and big goverment with its latest NASA authorization bill

8:01 am

I usually pay relatively little attention to the NASA authorization bills that Congress passes periodically, because these bills are generally nothing more than opportunities for the loudmouths in Congress to use them as a bullhorn to puff themselves up to the public and press. Almost never do such bills really have any real impact on the future, or if they do, that impact is often unintended and negative, as Congress is by and large ignorant about these matters and has priorities counter-productive to getting anything substantive accomplished.

I pay even less attention to authorization bills that have only been approved by a committee, and have not yet been voted on by either house. Such bills are ephemeral and the stuff of fantasy. It is nice to know what’s in them, but until such bills are actually approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, their language is even more unworthy of serious attention.

Have the pigs in the Senate learned to stop gorging themselves?
Have the pigs in the Senate learned to stop gorging themselves?

Nonetheless, the NASA authorization bill that was just approved by the Senate Commerce committee is worth reviewing, but not for the reasons that has interested the rest of the mainstream and even the aerospace press.

True, the bill extends ISS until 2032. True, it fully supports the commercial private space stations being built to replace it. True, it endorses NASA administrator Jared Isaacman’s restructuring of the Artemis program. True, it rejects all of Trump’s proposed cuts to NASA’s science programs. And true, it strongly endorses a Moon base as a first step to colonizing Mars.

All of these facts are significant, but to focus on each specifically — as it appears the entire press has done — is to miss the forest for the trees.
» Read more

6 comments

The United Kingdom’s Labor government to spend £500 million on space

10:07 am

The UK Space Agency, gone but not forgotten
The UK Space Agency, gone but not forgotten

My heart be still! The United Kingdom’s present Labor government yesterday announced it has allocated an additional £500 million ($665 million) on a wide range of space projects, all of which are either new government programs or facilities or direct subsidies to its failing space businesses.

Nowhere in this announcement did government officials address the choking regulations and burdensome licensing requirements that have essentially driven away all space business while bankrupting two different rocket startups, Virgin Orbit and Orbex.

In addition to the £1.7 billion committed to European Space Agency (ESA) programmes in November 2025, the government is allocating more than £500 million to national space programmes:

  • £105 million to develop civil capabilities for in-orbit servicing and manufacturing (ISAM) – an emerging market where the UK has a strong competitive edge and opportunities to deliver significant commercial returns and strengthen national resilience
  • £85 million to develop the National Space Operations Centre, including £40 million to build a new ground‑based sensing network, supporting the 24/7 requirement to protect satellites and manage an increasingly crowded space environment
  • £80 million to deliver the Connectivity in Low Earth Orbit (C-LEO) programme, including for a new £30m funding call opened today to support UK businesses developing smarter satellites, advanced hardware and AI‑enabled data delivery
  • £65 million for the National Space Innovation Programme to accelerate breakthrough technologies and boost commercialisation
  • £40 million for the Unlocking Space Programme to drive market demand for space technology, develop national security capabilities and attract private investment to support the scale up of UK firms
  • £37 million to develop space clusters, building on local strengths and ensuring the benefits of space reach every corner of the UK
  • £20 million to accelerate spaceport infrastructure development in Scotland

The announcement was made in connection with the decision by this Labor government to eliminate the UK Space Agency as a separate bureaucracy, consolidating it into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). The consolidation was intended to save money and make the government more efficient, but this announcement suggests it is being used to funnel more cash into DSIT’s bureaucracy, simply under a different name.

None of this is going to do much to promote an independent space industry in Great Britain. As long as it continues to take years to get launch licenses, rocket companies are not going to launch from its spaceports. And without those launches, its space industry is going to be seriously handicapped. And dumping cash into these various government programs won’t do much either to promote competition or innovation. All the UK will get is more bureaucracy and government control.

7 comments

NASA initiates new program to grab talent from the private sector

4:00 pm

Where new talent will now go to wither
Where new talent will now go to wither.

As part of NASA administrator’s effort to remake NASA into a cutting edge agency, “the global leader in space,” the agency in partnership with the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has initiated a new program, dubbed NASA Force, to recruit talent from the private sector for two-year terms, after which they can then try to get a full time job either with NASA or a private aerospace company.

NASA Force will identify and place high-impact technical talent into mission-critical roles supporting NASA’s exploration, research, and advanced technology priorities, ensuring the agency has the cutting-edge expertise needed to maintain U.S. leadership in space.

Tech Force, led by OPM, was established to recruit elite technical professionals into federal service, embed them at partner agencies to modernize systems, accelerate innovation, and strengthen mission delivery. NASA Force represents a focused expansion of that effort, tailored to the unique technical demands of space exploration and aerospace research.

“America’s leadership in space depends on extraordinary talent,” said NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. “NASA Force will help us attract the next generation of innovators and technical experts who are ready to solve the toughest challenges in exploration, science, and aerospace technology. This partnership strengthens our workforce and helps ensure the United States remains the global leader in space.”

This program however has things entirely backwards. The last thing any engineer who has just graduated college should do is get a short two-year job at NASA. He or she will learn all the wrong lessons, working for a government agency not interested in efficiency or profit.

Instead, it is essential the first job new engineers get is in the private sector, to learn how to do things fast and efficiently. It Isaacman had the right priorities, he would use this money to fund these jobs in the private sector, so that new graduates will get the right training. Unfortunately, that is not Isaacman’s priority. He wants the government to lead.

Moreover, NASA’s job was never intended to be “the global leader in space.” Its job was to formulate the federal government’s needs in space, and then ask the private sector — the American people — to get the job done. Isaacman instead wants to have NASA do the job, as it did for a half century after Apollo, quite poorly. Only after the agency began relying on private enterprise beginning in 2008, the capitalism model, did things finally start happening again.

The worst aspect of this program is that it will take talent away from the private sector. A lot of good and talented young engineers will gravitate to these NASA positions for the high pay, relatively easy good hours, and prestige. They won’t accomplish much there, and their training will be wrong-headed. Meanwhile, the private sector will lose that talent and have to find it elsewhere, assuming it is available at all.

24 comments

Engineers locate helium flow issue on SLS upper stage

8:01 am

NASA last evening posted an update on the status of its SLS rocket, noting that engineers had located the seal that had caused the helium flow issue in the upper stage during unfueling after the wet dress rehearsal two weeks ago.

Engineers determined a seal in the quick disconnect, through which helium flows from the ground systems to the rocket, was obstructing the pathway. The team removed the quick disconnect, reassembled the system, and began validating the repairs to the upper stage by running a reduced flow rate of helium through the mechanism to ensure the issue was resolved. Engineers are assessing what allowed the seal to become dislodged to prevent the issue from recurring.

Though this information is somewhat vague, it strongly suggests the seal with the problem was in the upper stage, not the umbilical line that is part of the ground systems.

Before they can return the rocket to the launchpad, they need to make sure they identified the exact issue that caused the seal to not work properly. They also are replacing the batteries in the rocket’s self-destruct system as well as flight batteries in the upper stage, core stage, and two strap-on solid-fueled boosters. It also appears they are replacing another seal the oxygen feed line for the core stage.

Once this work is finished and confirmed, they will still need to roll SLS back to the launchpad and likely do another wet dress rehearsal countdown, though that rehearsal might be condensed to focus on these issues specifically.

The present launch window closes on April 6th, so the timeline is very tight. NASA management is reviewing later windows in late April as well as May and June.

Despite the major reshaping of the later missions in the Artemis program that NASA administrator Jared Isaacman announced last week, this upcoming Artemis-2 mission remains the same, a ten-mission carrying four astronauts around the Moon using an Orion capsule with a questionable heat shield and an untested life support system.

2 comments

NASA’s corrupt Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel: NASA must be bigger and have more control!

11:36 am

Orion's damaged heat shield
Orion’s damaged heat shield after 2022 flight.
ASAP “Move along! Nothing to see here.”

NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) today released its annual report, and once again it demonstrated why I have been calling it corrupt and a waste of money for years.

The report can be read here [pdf], but let me warn you that its findings have nothing to do with ASAP’s original purpose (created after the 1967 Apollo 1 launchpad fire that killed three astronauts), to look at NASA projects to make sure the agency is not ignoring specific safety issues.

Instead, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, the panel focused on management goals and larger strategic issues, and as usual concluded that the best way to do things is to make NASA bigger with more control over the entire space industry.
» Read more

6 comments

Europe tests a new engine design aimed at nothing

10:57 am

ESA: where projects go to die
The European Space Agency:
home of dead-end projects

The European Space Agency (ESA) today announced that it has successfully completed a static fire test program of a new rocket engine, dubbed Greta, that uses alternative fuels in order to save the environment.

Greta uses hydrogen peroxide and ethanol as propellants, a more sustainable alternative with a lower carbon footprint compared to monomethyl hydrazine propellant used by most traditional rocket engines in this thrust range.

Greta was ignited multiple times from July to November 2025 and showed stable operations, including controlled shutdowns. During the test campaign the engine fired continuously for over 40 seconds at a time. Greta was tested on a new, low-cost and versatile mobile test stand with instruments measuring data such as pressure and temperature, which will be used to further optimise the engine.

The problem is that this engine is not being built for any specific rocket or spacecraft. As the press release notes vaguely, “This type of engine could be used on lunar landers or on kick stages, such as Astris that is being developed for Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket.”

In other words, this is a test program only, and could very well end up on the scrap heap once completed, because it belongs to no private company aimed at making profits.

NASA did these kinds of projects for decades, all for naught. The agency would make a splash with its press release, the propaganda press would extol blindly the wonders that have been achieved, and then the project would complete and get quietly shelved, stored somewhere in the government archives (possibly in the same place they put Indiana Jones’ Ark of the Covenant).

ArianeGroup is building this engine for ESA, so there is a small chance the company might decide to use it in a future rocket or spacecraft, but only if it makes sense financially. And there is no indication that this engine’s development is tied to financial concerns, in the slightest. For example, the program only calls for another round of static fire engine tests — using “parts for the flight-like motor design” — in 2027, more than a year hence. At that pace the engine will be obsolete before tests are completed.

22 comments

SLS is back in the Vehicle Assembly Building

9:43 am

Last night NASA yesterday successfully completed the roll back of its SLS rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).

The SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft for NASA’s Artemis II mission arrived at the Vehicle Assembly Building from Launch Pad 39B at approximately 8 p.m. EST Feb. 25, at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. While in the assembly building, technicians will troubleshoot the helium flow issue to the rocket’s upper stage, replace batteries on the rocket’s upper stage, core stage, and solid rocket boosters as well as service its flight termination system.

NASA officials have not said what will happen next, once that helium flow problem is resolved. I suspect NASA administrator Jared Isaacman will insist on another wet dress rehearsal to not only test the rocket’s troublesome fueling system, but to also test the helium system used to drain the tanks afterward.

If so, it is very unlikely a launch can occur prior to April 6th, when the present launch window closes. The odds of there being no issues on the next dress rehearsal are slim, based on SLS’s past record, and even if all goes well, the time margins are very very tight, allowing for no delays of any kind.

0 comments

Scientists: When a SpaceX upper stage burns up in the atmosphere, it burns up in the atmosphere!

10:12 am

Chicken Little rules!
Chicken Little rules!

We’re all gonna die! In making the first direct measurement of the plume caused by the vaporization of the lithium in a SpaceX Falcon 9 upper stage as it burned up in the atmosphere, scientists now claim the pollution for those upper stages as well as the coming launch of tens of thousands of satellites is going to seriously harm the environment.

You can read their paper here. From its conclusion:

Beyond this single event, recurring re-entries may sustain an increased level of anthropogenic flux of metals and metal oxides into the middle atmosphere with cumulative, climate-relevant consequences. After oxidation and heterogeneous uptake on alumina and other metal-oxide particles, aluminium and co-injected species could perturb stratospheric ozone chemistry, modify high-altitude aerosol microphysics through new particle formation, growth, and coagulation, and thereby influence radiative balance. Key unknowns include emission inventories for rockets and satellites, lack of a systematic observational survey of mesospheric metals, altitude-time ablation profiles, chemical lifetimes, particle size-composition distributions, and transport pathways into the lower stratosphere. Addressing these uncertainties will require coordinated, multi-site observations (including resonance-fluorescence and elastic lidars, in situ sampling, and satellites), together with whole-atmosphere chemistry-climate modelling to connect event-scale injections to long-term impacts.

The problems with this study, and its conclusions, are numerous. First of all, this first direct detection of the lithium plume is really no discovery at all. We know the rocket’s upper stage carried lithium. We know it burned up in the atmosphere. It is plainly obvious that lithium would end up as vapor in the upper atmosphere where stage burned up. This detection simply measured what we already knew.

Second, the amount detected is really insignificant. At about 60 miles elevation the numbers rose from 3 lithium atoms per cubic centimeter to 31 during the stage’s burn-up, numbers that will quickly dissipate at these high altitudes. We are not talking big numbers.

Finally, the threat from debris from upper rocket stages is only a temporary problem. As the demand to launch more satellites grows — which it will — the demand to recover and reuse the upper stages will grow as well. Already two American companies, SpaceX and Stoke Space, are developing rockets that will be completely reusable.

The mentality of these scientists is the same “Chicken Little” view of life held by the establishment science community for decades, from climate to industry to Covid to any human endeavor. “Everything humans do is bad! We must ban it now before it destroys us all!” And none of their cries of panic ever carry any larger context or reasonable perspective.

Sadly, this same attitude permeates the mainstream propaganda press. They don’t question such studies, they instead reprint their claims in bold, without any skepticism. We are thus ill-served by our so-called “independent and free” press.

27 comments

NASA today completes SLS wet dress rehearsal with few problems

8:35 pm

NASA today successfully completed its SLS wet dress rehearsal countdown with few problems, fueling the rocket completely and then running the countdown down to T-33 seconds and then recycling back to T-10 minutes and running the countdown down again, this time to T-29 seconds.

During the day-long event there were only two minor issues, neither of significance. Early in the day there was “an issue with ground communications” that required mission control to shift to “backup communication methods” for about a half hour before the issue was resolved.

Then, during the first countdown to T-33 the count was paused and recycled once “due to a booster avionics system voltage anomaly.” This also appeared to be minor issue quickly resolved.

NASA will hold a press conference tomorrow at 11 am (Eastern) to discuss the results of the entire rehearsal.

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman had stated previously that he needed to see a perfect rehearsal before he would approve the launch of Artemis-2, carrying four astronauts on a ten-day mission around the Moon. While today’s rehearsal was not “perfect,” the issues were very minor. I suspect he will give the okay, with a tentative launch date of March 6, 2026 already being considered. The present launch window closes on April 6, 2026.

That mission, should it fly, still carries enormous risk. The Orion capsule will be using a life support system never tested in space before. It will also be using a heat shield that is questionable, having failed to behave as expected in the first Artemis mission in 2022.

3 comments
1 2 3 4 … 144