Tag: oppression

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.

4 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

The space station startups: NASA’s new space station plan is mistaken

9:01 am

The American space stations under development

At a conference event this week officials from three of the five American space station startups expressed strong disagreement with NASA’s new space station plan.

The new plan would have NASA build and launch its own new core module, dock it with ISS, and have the new stations attach their first modules to it prior to flying freely. NASA proposed this plan because it does not believe there is enough market to sustain the stations independently and NASA doesn’t have the budget to fully fund them.

The officials repeatedly disagreed about the market issue.

“We believe not only we can be ready by 2030” when the International Space Station is slated to be retired, “but we also believe that we can be profitable on the current market, not waiting for the future market we all will develop and will be successful at,” said Max Haot, CEO of Vast [building the Haven-1 and Haven-2 stations].

…Haot and executives from Axiom Space and Starlab Space said their responses to NASA’s request for information — which were due April 8 — show otherwise. “We put in 390 pages of independent analysis, research studies, datas, contracts, those types of things,” said Marshall Smith, CEO of Starlab Space, which is targeting 2029 for its station to be on orbit. “We’re being very clear and what we can do and how that works.”

One prominent revenue stream the panelists pointed to is other space agencies and nations eager to send their astronauts and payloads to space. “We’ve flown 12 people to space that paid us money to do that,” said Jonathan Cirtain, CEO of Axiom Space, referring to the four private astronaut missions it’s conducted to ISS. “We’ve flown 166 payloads today. All of those are paying payloads that generate revenue for the company.” The Texas company plans to begin operating in 2028 when its first two station modules are slated to be in orbit, then gradually grow the station to five modules.

The officials also said the core module idea would actually slow things down. NASA would have to first build and launch it, and would be starting from scratch to do so. It takes years to build such a thing, and it will certainly not be ready by 2030, when ISS is presently supposed to be retired. Moreover, forcing them to dock to this module would force them all to completely change their own plans, something they all find counter-productive.

In announcing NASA’s core module plan, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman also stated that he was open to industry feedback. I suspect that his core module proposal is going to die, and be replaced with the more direct transition from ISS to these private stations, the approach these companies favor.

I should add that the three startups that spoke up at this conference are also the three that are in the lead to build their stations, according to my rankings below. As far as I can tell, they are all tied for first place, with their station development very robust and well financed.
» Read more

26 comments

Latvia to sign Artemis Accords

3:27 pm

NASA announced today that Latvia will be signing on to the Artemis Accords on April 20, 2026, becoming the 62nd nation to join this American alliance in space.

The Republic of Latvia will sign the Artemis Accords during a ceremony at 9 a.m. EDT Monday, April 20, at NASA Headquarters in Washington. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman will host Dace Melbārde, Latvia’s minister for education and science; Jānis Beķeris, chargé d’affaires at the Embassy of the Republic of Latvia to the United States; and Jacob Helberg, under secretary of state for economic affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

With this signing, all three of the Baltic states that were once occupied and part of the Soviet Union have now joined this American alliance. So have the former Soviet provinces of the Ukraine and Armenia, as well as the nations of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, all of which were once part of the Soviet Bloc, behind the Iron Curtain. In fact, almost all of Russia’s neighbors in Europe have allied themselves with the U.S. Artemis space alliance. It does appear that Putin’s stupid effort to recapture the Ukraine has backfired badly, encouraging these nations to come to us out of fear of the aggressive tyrant on their borders. These nations also probably recognize that Russia’s space effort is a Potemkin Village, hollow and of little worth. If they want to go to space, they need to align themselves with American technology.

The full list of all signatories to this American space alliance:

Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Ukraine, the United States and Uruguay.

2 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.

Leave a comment

Sweden’s space agency signs cooperative licensing agreement with the FAA

11:40 am

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

The Swedish Space Agency has signed a cooperative licensing agreement with the FAA to help facilitate orbital launches by American rocket companies from its Esrange spaceport.

While the Esrange Space Centre has been in operation since the 1960s, it has strictly been used for suborbital flights. In 2023, SSC Space, the commercial operator of the facility, inaugurated a new launch complex at Esrange to support orbital missions. While the facility has yet to host a launch, South Korea’s Perigee Aerospace and US launch provider Firefly Aerospace have both committed to using it in the future.

Sweden’s efforts to enable US rocket launches from Esrange took another step forward on 15 April 2026, as the Swedish National Space Agency signed an agreement with the FAA to coordinate the licensing of those missions. The agreement builds on a 2025 Technology Safeguards Agreement between the two countries, which laid the groundwork for US launch providers to export what the US government considers “advanced space technology” to Sweden.

Esrange’s interior location remains a problem, however. Any orbital launch is going to have to fly over other countries, either Finland, Russia, or Norway, and it remains unclear whether those countries will approve. Norway has already expressed opposition.

Leave a comment

A military pilot’s perspective on downed pilot rescue in Iran Easter weekend

6:01 pm

An evening pause: The details of the amazing search & rescue effort to recover a downed American pilot in Iran last weekend has been covered quite thoroughly in the media, especially the alternative press. This video gives us the compelling perspective of the men and women who made that rescue happen. Even if you oppose Trump’s present actions against Iran, Steeve’s reveals a fundamental aspect of the American way of war that illustrates again the best part of America. The key quote, “Will you be worth the trip?”

Hat tip Mike Nelson.

17 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

Saxavord spaceport lost about $7 million in both ’23 and ’24; Andoya launch scheduled for today

9:00 am

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

According to a report in the Times of London yesterday, the Saxavord spaceport on the Shetland Islands lost about $7 million in both ’23 and ’24.

Annual accounts for Shetland Space Centre, the SaxaVord operating company, show a near 32 per cent rise in revenue to £2.5 million for 2024. The document, recently lodged at Companies House, shows a £5.4 million [$7.25 million] pre-tax loss, compared to £5.1 million [$6.85 million] in 2023.

The spaceport is controlled by billionaire Anders Holch Povlsen, who had been instrumental in using the courts to block launches from the other proposed spaceport in Sutherland, Scotland. Saxavord meanwhile was first proposed about four years ago, but it has also not yet had its first launch. In both cases, the major obstacle has been the United Kingdom’s regulatory bureaucracy run by its Civil Aviation Authority, which has taken years to issue permits and licenses. Those delays have bankrupted two rocket companies, Virgin Orbit and Orbex, because they were unable to launch as scheduled.

Saxavord hopes its first launch will occur later this year, from the German rocket startup Rocket Factory Augsburg. That company had hoped to launch in 2024 — after more than a year delay due to red tape — but an explosion during the final static fire test of the first stage ended those plans.

Meanwhile, the first orbital launch from Norway’s Andoya spaceport is now expected later today by the German rocket startup Isar Aerospace. This will be the second launch of its Spectrum rocket, the first failing just after lift-off in 2025. This second attempt had been scrubbed in January and March, and is now scheduled for 1 pm (Pacific) today. I have embedded its live stream below.
» Read more

One comment

India’s second spaceport to be completed next year

9:26 am

The existing and proposed spaceports in India
The existing and proposed spaceports in India

According to officials in India, the nation’s second spaceport at Kulasekarapattinam is on schedule to be completed by next year, when it will become available for polar launches of the SSLV rocket as well as other commercial rocket launches.

India is moving ahead with plans to operationalise a new launch facility at Kulasekarapattinam in Tamil Nadu. It is expected to be commissioned during the 2026–27 financial year, according to information shared in the Lok Sabha by Jitendra Singh.

The new facility, officially called the Small Satellite Launch Vehicle (SSLV) Launch Complex, is being developed as the country’s second space launch site. The Kulasekarapattinam complex will primarily handle launches of SSLV missions to Sun-synchronous Polar Orbit, a trajectory widely used for Earth observation satellites.

The SSLV rocket is at present controlled by India’s space agency ISRO, though there has been an effort by the Modi government to transfer it to the private sector. It is not clear whether that effort has been successful. ISRO and India’s large space bureaucracy has been resistant. There have also been indications that this new spaceport will be made available to the handful of Indian rocket startups that are developing their own rockets.

The Sriharikota spaceport is ISRO’s main launch site. The Hope Island site is a proposed commercial and private spaceport, whose future remains very uncertain.

Leave a comment

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

The new town of Starbase is canceling its May elections

12:15 pm

Boy, Elon Musk sure is a FASCIST! Because no one filed to run against the mayor and two commissioners, the new town of Starbase is now about to cancel its May elections.

During an upcoming meeting, the Starbase City Commission is scheduled to consider an ordinance canceling the May 2, 2026 General Election, as all candidates for mayor and city commissioner are running unopposed.

Under Texas law, local governments may cancel elections when every race on the ballot is uncontested.

That means Starbase’s current leadership will remain in office without voters needing to cast ballots. The city’s inaugural mayor is Robert “Bobby” Peden, a SpaceX executive who serves as Vice President of Texas Test and Launch for the company. Two commissioners serve alongside him: Jordan Buss, a senior director of environmental health and safety at SpaceX, and Lois Wallace, an interim commissioner and Starbase resident.

Expect to see stupid mainstream stories suggesting no one filed because people were afraid to run against these SpaceX managers and thus threaten their job status. “Musk, that evil fascist, clearly threatened to send out hit men against anyone who filed! Opposition to Musk will not be allowed!”

What I think is really happening is twofold. First, no one at SpaceX is really interested in this boring administrative government work. They’d rather build cutting-edge rockets. Note that the two commissioners are not really rocket engineers, with one being the wife of a SpaceX employee and the other doing “environmental health and safety” work, likely related to making sure SpaceX meets government work regulations. The real engineers at SpaceX have better things to do.

Second, there really isn’t that much for these town officials to do anyway. The town was established mostly to ease SpaceX’s own regulatory red tape with the state, and once established the task is largely done. Why waste time running for a position that will only add to your work load, while accomplishing nothing of real substance?

6 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

FCC chairman blasts Amazon and its Leo satellite constellation

9:08 am

FCC logo

Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, yesterday harshly criticized Amazon for filing papers opposing SpaceX’s application to place a million new satellites into orbit while failing to meet its own FCC license requirement to get 1,600 Amazon Leo satellites in orbit by July 2026.

Amazon should focus on the fact that it will fall roughly 1,000 satellites short of meeting its upcoming deployment milestone, rather than spending their time and resources filing petitions against companies that are putting thousands of satellites in orbit.

To put it mildly, Carr’s point is well taken. In legally protesting SpaceX’s proposed constellation while failing to launch on time as promised, Amazon is following what appears to be standard Jeff Bezos’ practice, epitomized by his rocket company Blue Origin. When customers begin favoring others because the Bezos company either submits a poor bid or fails to meet schedules, the Bezos companies routinely go to court in an attempt to squelch that better competition.

Carr is demanding Amazon stop this, and focus instead on getting its own job done for once. Carr is also signaling the FCC’s position on both SpaceX and Amazon. It is likely going to reject Amazon’s filing and give its okay to SpaceX’s million-satellite constellation, in one form or another.

Carr is also telling Amazon that it faces some push back for failing to launch the required number of Amazon Leo satellites on time. Though it is extremely unlikely the FCC will cancel Amazon’s Leo license, the FCC might fine it heavily. Or it could impose new limits on the constellation. Carr is also indicating the FCC will treat future Amazon license applications much more stringently.

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

While Democrats rage against the American/Israel war on Iran, the PEOPLE celebrate

11:05 am

Without doubt there remain great risks and real constitutional issues involved the present military campaign by both the United States and Israel to destroy the Islamic leadership in Iran. First, it is almost impossible to force a change in power solely by air power. This has been tried numerous times, with little success. Killing the leaders of this terrorist Iranian government is a positive step, but it remains entirely unclear whether this war can produce a better government there.

Second, as much as there might be legal precedents that allow President Trump to initiate this action without direct congressional approval, it continues a dangerous trend ceding power away from Congress and to the presidency, in direct opposition to the intentions of the Founding Fathers in their writing of the Constitution. They very much were opposed to giving any president the power to start a war unilaterally.

Pro-U.S. and Israeli demonstrations by Iranians
Click here and here for original videos.

Having stated the reasonable objections to this military action, however, we must now take a look at the two images to the right to see its immediate and very positive consequences. Both pictures are from videos of very spontaneous demonstrations on February 28, 2026 by Iranian refugees celebrating the American/Israeli attacks against Iran.

The top picture is a screen capture from a demonstration in Georgetown, DC. The bottom picture is a screen capture from a demonstration in Austin, Texas.

Note the flags in both pictures. There are numerous flags of Iran (the version during the Shah’s rule, not the version from the Islamic Revolution). There are many American flags, of course, since these demonstrations are in America.

What is most revealing however are the Israeli flags, being enthusiastically waved by Iranians. Clearly the decades of hate against Israel and Jews by the mullahs in Iran has not had any impact on these Iranian refugees. In fact, in the video of the bottom picture they are chanting “Thank you, Bibi!”, referring to Israel’s leader Benjamin Netanyahu as the camera pans across the crowd.

Moreover, these demonstrations took place in two Democratic Party strongholds, cities where pro-Hamas demonstrations have been routine, including rioting and violence against Jews and anyone who dared suggest Israel’s actions in Gaza might be justified.

Nor are these two demonstrations an exception. They have been the rule across the United States and Europe, as well as in Iran itself. The public — the ordinary people for whom governments are meant to serve — seem very much in favor of what President Trump and Netanyahu are doing in Iran. And they are expressing that support of both America and Israel quite unequivocally. If this doesn’t indicate to the world that Israel and the rest of the Middle East can live together in peace and mutual cooperation, nothing can.

This conclusion is further supported by the response by almost every Arab nation in the Middle East, most of whom started off quite willing to let the U.S. and Israel do this deed, with no opposition or with covert support. Now, because of Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on Arab nations, they have all publicly joined the war, allying themselves not with the Islamic nation of Iran but with the U.S. and Israel.

I would not be surprised if Saudi Arabia soon signs the Abraham Accords. Nor would I be surprised if most of the last remaining Arab nations that have not yet done so join Saudi Arabia.

We could very well be seeing a major realignment of alliances in the Middle East that could really really harbinger the beginnings of real peace in that region. Imagine: Israel at peace with all its neighbors, because the Arabs have finally recognized that it is to their own best interest to do so as well.

37 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

NASA on Starliner: Too much freedom caused the failure!

2:59 pm

Starliner docked to ISS
Starliner docked to ISS in 2024.

NASA today released its final investigation report on the causes behind the Starliner thruster issues during that capsule’s only manned mission in ISS, issues that almost prevented the spacecraft from docking successfully and could have left it manned and out-of-control while still in orbit.

You can read the report here [pdf]. NASA administrator Jared Isaacman made it clear in his own statement that the Starliner incident was far more serious than originally let on.

“To undertake missions that change the world, we must be transparent about both our successes and our shortcomings. We have to own our mistakes and ensure they never happen again. Beyond technical issues, it is clear that NASA permitted overarching programmatic objectives of having two providers capable of transporting astronauts to-and-from orbit, influence engineering and operational decisions, especially during and immediately after the mission. We are correcting those mistakes. Today, we are formally declaring a Type A mishap and ensuring leadership accountability so situations like this never reoccur. We look forward to working with Boeing as both organizations implement corrective actions and return Starliner to flight only when ready.”

A Type A mishap is one in which a spacecraft could become entirely uncontrollable, leading to its loss and the death of all on board. Though Starliner was NOT lost, for a short while as it hung close to ISS that result was definitely possible. Its thrusters were not working. It couldn’t maneuver to dock, nor could it maneuver to do a proper and safe de-orbit. Fortunately, engineers were able to figure out a way to get the thursters operational again so a docking could occur, but until then, it was certainly a Type A situation.

The report outlines in great detail the background behind Starliner’s thruster issues, the management confusion between NASA and Boeing, and the overall confused management at Boeing itself, including its generally lax testing standards.

The report’s recommends that NASA impose greater control over future commercial contracts, noting that under the capitalism model that NASA has been following:
» Read more

50 comments

British rocket startup Skyrora might buy Orbex assets

9:24 am

The British rocket startup Skyrora, which has been around since 2018 and has yet to complete an orbital launch, today indicated it might buy the remaining assets of the now bankrupt British rocket startup Orbex.

The company, which has a manufacturing facility in Cumbernauld, said its move would ensure Orbex technology and the spaceport remained under UK ownership. It also said its bid would safeguard products that had received public funding.

Skyrora has been making promises for almost a decade with no clear progress. It did two successful suborbital tests in 2020 (here and here), had a failed suborbital test in 2022, and applied for an orbital launch license with Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in January 2024. Not surprisingly, it is unclear whether that license has been approved. The company said last year it wants to do that orbital launch in ’26 from the Saxavord spaceport in the Shetland Islands. That gives the CAA two years to approve the license, which based on that agency’s track record might be enough time to get the job done. Or not.

Getting Orbex’s assets might actually be a good thing for Skyrora, which has not been very successful getting anything going with its own engineering. It will still face that odious regulatory regime of the United Kingdom, that has now killed two different rocket startups.

Leave a comment

British rocket startup Orbex goes under

9:10 am

Prime rocket prototype on launchpad
The prototype of Orbex’s never-launched Prime rocket,
on the launchpad in 2022

After waiting four years to get the necessary launch licenses from the United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), delays that forced it to abandon its preferred spaceport in Sutherland to go to the SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands, the British rocket startup Orbex today announced its effort to find a buyer or new financing had failed and it is going into receivership with the goal of selling off its assets.

Orbex has filed a notice of intention to appointment Administrators and will continue trading while all options for the future of the company are explored, including potential sale of all or parts of its business or assets. The notice provides short-term protection and allows the business time to secure as positive an outcome as possible for its creditors, employees and wider stakeholders.

The funding required for Orbex to remain a viable business was sought from a variety of public and private investors during its Series D funding round, which has ultimately failed. Several merger and acquisition opportunities have also been explored, with none resulting in a favourable outcome.

To repeat this company’s sad story, Orbex had hoped to do its first launch from the proposed Sutherland spaceport on the north coast of Scotland in 2022, but was blocked for four years because of red tape. First, the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority would not issue the spaceport and launch licenses. Second, local opposition delayed approvals as well. Those delays ate into the company’s resources, until it became entirely dependent on grants from the UK government (some through the European Space Agency) to keep it afloat.

By 2024 Orbex realized launching from Sutherland was impossible, and it then switched to the Saxavord spaceport in the Shetland Islands. This forced more delays because the company had no facilities there. It had already spent a fortune building everything for Sutherland.

There will be many who will blame this failure on the difficulty of rocket science, but it appears the fault almost entirely lies with the UK government and its odious regulatory regime. Neither Sutherland nor SaxaVord have been able to get anything off the ground, and it appears right now that rocket companies are going everywhere else to find launch sites. New rockets must launch and fail so that they can eventually succeed. The sense I get from the CAA is that it is treating every launch not as a test but as an operational launch that must succeed. Orbex couldn’t meet that standard.

Nor can any other rocket startup. At the moment SaxoVord has only one customer planning to launch, the German startup Rocket Factory Augsburg, but after a static fire explosion in 2024 blocked the launch nothing has happened since. I suspect the company is having problems getting new launch approvals from the CAA.

17 comments

Isaacman issues directive to shift power back to NASA and away from private sector

11:51 am

Jared Isaacman, in announcing this directive
Jared Isaacman, in announcing this directive

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman yesterday issued a major three-part directive which he claimed would save more than a billion dollars at NASA while allowing the agency to “regain its core competencies in technical, engineering, and operational excellence”.

The plan could actually backfire, however, as it appears to shift power and control back to NASA and away from private sector.

First, Isaacman wants to eliminate much of the outside contracting NASA now relies on, bringing that work back into the agency itself. Second, he wants eliminate “restrictive clauses that prevent us from doing our own work and addressing intellectual property barriers that have tied our hands.” Third, he wants to “restore in-house engineering,” having more work done by NASA engineers instead of depending on outside contractors.

To some extent, there is value in all these changes, because in many cases NASA employees use the policy of using contractors to outsource their entire work load, so they can sit and do practically nothing.

Overall however this directive could very well squelch the present renaissance in commercial space, because it will put NASA much more in control of everything. Rather than simply being a customer buying the products built and owned by the private sector (ie, the American people) — the capitalism model — the directive demands that NASA run things, the centralized Soviet-style top-down government model.

This aspect is best illustrated by the second part of his directive. Many contractors, such as SpaceX, do not wish to reveal everything about their product designs to NASA, because then it becomes public and can be stolen by their competitors. By requiring companies to release all proprietary data, those companies will no longer own that data, and thus will no longer be as easily able to benefit from its development. This will discourage private investment. It will also once again centralize development at NASA. Rather than getting multiple ideas and innovation from multiple companies, everything will funnel into the ideas NASA managers and engineers come up with.

Isaacman has come to this directive after spending his first two months as administrator delving into how the agency is operating. But he has gotten the solution entirely backwards. Rather than centralize and expand the work done inside NASA, thus justifying its large workforce that Isaacman has found isn’t doing much, wouldn’t it be better to simply eliminate those government jobs entirely? Trim NASA down to its essentials, and let the American people, not the government, come up with what they need and want in space.

Isaacman is not doing this however. Instead, he is apparently working to rebuild the NASA empire, so that it can once again design all, own all, and control all. That was how things were during the shuttle era, and the result was that for almost a half century, America went nowhere in space.

My doubts and concerns about Isaacman and his priorities, which started during his first nomination hearings, have only increased. Despite being a man who made billions in the free private sector, he increasingly appears to be someone eager to build a government empire to laud over everyone.

31 comments

Midnight repost: How the localized nature of Democrat vote tampering will influence the 2022 election

11:59 pm

The news during the past few weeks revealing scads of new evidence proving the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump in Georgia reminded me of my 2022 essay, now reposted below. What I described in that essay was the exact tactic the Democrats used in Georgia, most specifically in Fulton County that covers the heavily Democratic Party dominated city of Atlanta. In some parts of that county Democrats were so dominant that they could work under the radar, and fudge the vote aggressively.

Though a number of my election predictions in this essay turned out wrong, the essay does provide the basics of what happened in 2020, and could still happen in 2028 and beyond, if a real effort is not made to regain some control of this election tampering. And not surprising, the Democrats are now opposing any such reforms with great enthusiasm, using their slander and demagoguery tactics to rile up their base, helped enthusiastically by the propaganda press that works as their public relations arm.

————————
How the localized nature of Democrat vote tampering will influence the 2022 election

Based on the ample evidence of election fraud, corruption, and vote tampering done repeatedly by Democrats nationwide during the 2020 election, we can expect these politicians and their minions to commit similar election crimes in the upcoming 2022 mid-term elections, especially because the effort by some Republicans to reform their state election systems in the key purple states was so effectively blocked by Democrats, by many quisling Republicans, and by a willing leftist press.

It is however important to understand where that election tampering was done in 2020 in order to understand the election fraud to come, as well as creating a strategy to prevent it. As real estate agents like to say, “Location is everything!”, and it appears this applies to election fraud as well.
» Read more

2 comments

Midnight repost: Truth, Justice, and the American Way

11:58 pm

Tonight Diane and I decided to watch again the 1978 Richard Donner movie, Superman. The overall film is lighthearted entertainment that captures the myth of this super-hero perfectly. However, it has two scenes that remain among the best moments in movie history (which you can watch here and here). The first captures the myth in every way. The second shows us that Superman truly stood for the best in America.

In watching the movie tonight again and reliving the myth I grew up with — that great things are possible if you believe and follow sincerely Superman’s motto of “truth, justice, and the American way” — I decided to repost my essay from 2020 where I attempted to explain what that motto really meant.

Enjoy!
———————

The heroic Superman as envisioned in the 1950s
George Reeves as the heroic Superman as envisioned
in the 1950s television show, emulated later by Richard
Donner in his 1978 movie. Click for show’s opening credits.

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

The words spoken during the opening credits of a 1950s children’s television show:

Faster than a speeding bullet.
More powerful than a locomotive.
Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Look up in the sky!
It’s a bird.
It’s a plane.
It’s Superman!

Yes, it’s Superman, strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American Way.

That television show was obviously Superman, starring George Reeves, and these opening words expressed the mythology and basic ideals by which this most popular of all comic-book super-heroes lived.

I grew up with those words. They had been bequeathed to me by the American generation that had fought and won World War II against the genocidal Nazis, and expressed the fundamental ideals of that generation.

Much of the meaning of these fundamental ideals is outright and clear.
» Read more

12 comments

SpaceX wants revisions to federal rural grant program that has awarded it $733 million

4:05 pm

SpaceX is presently asking for changes in the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program that awards grants to companies that provide internet in rural areas and has already awarded the company $733 million in grants.

BEAD was part of the Biden administration’s bipartisan infrastructure act – originally a $42 billion program to bring broadband internet to areas of the country with little or no broadband access. The Trump administration eliminated other infrastructure act programs, and cut BEAD outlays to $21 billion, along with rule changes to allow satellite providers.

SpaceX applied for BEAD funds in 2025. The company won $733 million worth of BEAD projects nationwide, including $109 million in Texas.

Initially the Biden administration awarded SpaceX almost a billion dollar grant, because its Starlink constellation was the only broadband outlet actually doing the job. Then Musk began to campaign for Republicans, and suddenly the Biden administration pulled that grant, saying absurdly that SpaceX was failing to provide its service to rural areas, when that was exactly what it was doing.

Now SpaceX wants BEAD to ease some of its requirements, and wants these grant funds upfront.

I say, this whole BEAD program is a waste of taxpayer money and a perfect example of crony capitalism. I’m glad Trump cut it in half, but that wasn’t good enough. It should be shut down entirely. SpaceX doesn’t need this handout. It is making money hand-over-fist on its own.

14 comments

A nice summary of all space-based research of reproduction in space

10:12 am

Regulatory recommendations by these scientists
Click for original.

Link here to the press release. The paper itself can be read here.

The paper is an excellent summary of practically all the research that has been done in space and on the ground studying the impact of the harsh environment of space on reproduction. It notes above all that we really know very little despite this research, because the risks to the newborn have precluded direct study. From the paper’s abstract:

Despite over 65 years of human spaceflight activities, little is known of the impact of the space environment on the human reproductive systems during long-duration missions. Extended time in space poses potential hazards to the reproductive function of female and male astronauts, including exposure to cosmic radiation, altered gravity, psychological and physical stress, and disruption to circadian rhythm.

This review encapsulates current understanding of the effects of spaceflight on reproductive physiology, incorporating findings from animal studies, a recent experiment on sperm motility, and omics-based insights from astronaut physiology. Female reproductive systems appear to be especially vulnerable, with implications for oogenesis and embryonic development in microgravity. Male reproductive function reveals compromised DNA integrity, even when motility appears to be preserved. This review examines the limited embryogenesis studies in space, which show frequent abnormal cell division and impaired development in rodents.

In the paper’s conclusion, these academics sadly revert to type, and propose the establishment of an international regulatory framework for controlling this issue, as shown in the graphic to the right. This is empty foolishness, because such regulations will only do more harm than good, stifling research while failing to accomplish anything.

12 comments

Midnight repost: Genocide is coming to America

11:58 pm

Today I came across this tweet:

Brandon Straka Tweet
Click to see video in tweet.

The comparison between the tactics of the Nazi storm troopers and our modern Antifa thugs is apt. It illustrates the time we now live in. It also immediately made me want to repost my 2020 essay, Genocide is coming to America. That essay sadly remains pertinent, because the same unwillingness of decent Germans to believe the Nazis were a threat is the same unwillingness of too many modern Americans to believe the same thing about Antifa and the Democratic Party (which now enthusiastically uses Antifa as its storm troopers).

Worse, we now have a large minority of Americans who support this violent behavior. To them, violence is wholly justified against those who disagree with them. The proof of this horrible fact was demonstrated in the 2025 elections, where in Virginia a Democrat won his election despite openly wishing death not only on a Republican but on that Republican’s children, while in New York an anti-Semitic communist won election as mayor.

————————-
Genocide is coming to America

In my last visit to Israel in 2018, my brother and sister-in-law took me sight-seeing to the northern parts of Israel near the Sea of Galilee. On our first night, we stayed at the home of one of their older friends, a man in his seventies.

That night we sat around their kitchen table so that they could catch up on family matters. At one point in the conversation our host reminisced about an older woman, now gone, who he had known in his childhood in the 1950s who had lived in Germany before and during World War II and had survived a concentration camp.
» Read more

11 comments

FAA moves forward on its environmental assessment of SpaceX’s proposal to launch Starship/Superheavy from Kennedy Space Center

12:01 pm

Proposed Starship/Superheavy launchsites at Kennedy and Cape Canaveral
Proposed Starship/Superheavy launchsites at
Kennedy (LC-39A) and Cape Canaveral (SLC-37)

While NASA has already determined that Starship/Superheavy launches from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida will have no significant impact on the environment, the FAA has not yet completed its own environmental impact statement.

Last week it released a preliminary summary [pdf] of its impact statement, revealing that it has reduced its final options to either approving SpaceX’s request to do as many as 44 launches per year, or to reject any changes — the “no action alternative” — which would block all Starship/Superheavy launches at Kennedy.

The overall tone of this summary suggests strongly that the FAA is almost certainly going to approve SpaceX’s request, allowing as many as 44 launches per year from launchpad LC-39A, as shown on the map to the right. As it notes in describing the “no action alternative”:

SpaceX would not launch Starship-Super Heavy from LC-39A. NASA would not develop, implement, or approve agreements with SpaceX associated with Starship-Super Heavy operations at LC-39A. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need. [emphasis mine]

In other words, rejecting SpaceX’s request would not fulfill the FAA’s obligation to serve the public. It would also not fulfill the FAA’s obligation to serve a fellow government agency, NASA, which has already approved this SpaceX request in a 2019 environmental assessment.

It appears a final decision by the FAA is imminent. A nice summary of this FAA document can be found here, which notes that if approved, it will give SpaceX license approval to launch Starship/Superheavy as much as 146 times per year, from its launchpads at Boca Chica, Kennedy, and Cape Canaveral. Note too that this FAA assessment is independent of the Air Force’s environment assessment, which has already approved 76 launches per year at the SLC-37 launchpad.

6 comments

Orbex failure occurred partly because UK government withheld promised funding

10:34 am

Prime rocket prototype on launchpad
The prototype of Orbex’s never-launched Prime rocket,
on the launchpad in 2022

It appears the government of the United Kingdom contributed to the bankruptcy and sale of the British rocket startup Orbex in more than one way.

Orbex had hoped to do its first launch from the proposed Sutherland spaceport on the north coast of Scotland in 2022, but was blocked for four years because of red tape. First, the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority would not issue the spaceport and launch licenses. Second, local opposition delayed approvals as well. Those delays ate into the company’s resources, until it became entirely dependent on grants from the UK government (some through the European Space Agency) to keep it afloat.

Orbex’s problems were further compounded when it became clear in 2024 that the Sutherland spaceport would never get clearance. Orbex then switched to the Saxavord spaceport in the Shetland Islands, but this forced more delays because the company had no facilities there. It had already spent a fortune building everything for Sutherland.

A new report today says that it was finally forced to shut down and sell its assets to the French startup The Exploration Company because the UK government had withheld some of that promised funding.

News of the potential sale came just a month after a European Space Agency document confirmed that €112 million of €144 million UK government funding, earmarked for the European Launcher Challenge (ELC) scheme, was still “to be distributed”.

As a result, Orbex received just €34.9 million from the scheme – one-fifth of the €169 million awarded to each of its rivals by European governments.

That shortfall equates to about $160 million, a substantial amount of cash. While it is perfectly reasonable for the UK government to withheld these funds if it thinks the money would be badly spent, none of this government funding would not have been necessary at all if the UK government had simply issued the launch permits in a timely manner, allowing Orbex to launch and earn revenue.

As I noted early, congratulations to the United Kingdom, the place where rocket companies go to die! This is now the second such company killed by UK red tape and government incompetence, the first being Virgin Orbit.

8 comments
1 2 3 … 258