Next Artemis mission will be later than promised

Artemis logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House Appropriations committee approves NASA budget, with some cuts proposed by Trump

In what is no surprise if one watched last week’s House hearing about the NASA budget, the House Appropriations committee yesterday approved a NASA budget for fiscal year 2027, giving the agency the same funding it had in 2026, just over $24 billion, rejecting Trump’s proposed major reduction in the budget of over $5 billion.

The vote was along party lines, with the Republicans approving and the Democrats opposing. As expected, while the overall budget was maintained, the Republicans went along with the sense of Trump’s cuts — and the desires of NASA administrator Jared Isaacman — by shifting money from science to exploration within the budget.

The subcommittee bill provides $8.926 billion for human exploration, an increase of about $400 million above the request, and the request itself favors exploration. … The subcommittee’s bill raises the FY2027 level for [NASA science] to $6 billion, but that’s still a $1.3 billion reduction from current spending as Ranking Member Grace Meng (D-New York) pointed out.

The bill also agreed with Trump’s proposal to eliminate NASA’s STEM education office, something Isaacman had repeatedly testified was redundant and a waste of money.

In other words, the committee is giving Isaacman more flexibility with the money it is giving him, as I predicted.

This is only the first step in the budget process. The budget still has to be approved by the full House, the Senate, and the President. Expect changes.

Russia completes 1st test, suborbital, of its new Soyuz-5 rocket

According to Russia’s state-run press, it successfully completed the first suborbital test flight of its new Soyuz-5 rocket, the rocket lifting off from Baikonur in Kazahkstan on April 28, 2026 carrying a dummy payload.

A special launch was conducted today as Soyuz-5, a new Russian carrier rocket with the world’s most powerful liquid-fuel engine, blasted off. <...> Operating the rocket will make it possible to substantially reduce the unit cost of the payload capacity. This will have a positive impact on the economics of space launches,” the Russian state-owned space corporation quoted its CEO Dmitry Bakanov as saying.

The rocket will eventually be able to place about 17 tons in low Earth orbit, making it more powerful than the Soyuz-2 — now used to launch capsules and satellites — but less powerful than Russia’s Proton rocket, used to launch station modules and other more demanding missions.

Soyuz-5 however is not reusable, so it will remain more expensive to use that the new rockets being developed everywhere else outside Russia. Like all of Russia’s rockets, stages will continue to fall inside Russia with each launch. In this case, the first stage and fairings crashed somewhere in Russia, while the second stage splashed down in the Pacific.

Ireland to sign Artemis Accords

According to a NASA press release late yesterday, Ireland will sign the Artemis Accords on May 4, 2026, becoming the 65th nation to join this American space alliance.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman will host Ambassador of Ireland to the United States of America Geraldine Byrne Nason; Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment Peter Burke, T.D., of Ireland; and U.S. Department of State officials for the ceremony.

As I predicted yestesday when Morocco signed the accords, the success of the Artemis-2 mission around the Moon has prompted a number of smaller third world countries to finally sign the accords, and thus should expect more signings to follow. Ireland illustrates this. There will be more soon.

The full list of nations in this American space alliance is as follows:

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, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, 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.

The present state of India’s space program

India's Bharatiya Antariksh Station as outlined in 2024
India’s Bharatiya Antariksh Station as outlined in 2024.
Click for original image.

India’s space agency ISRO yesterday released its annual report [pdf], outlining its accomplishments over during 2025.

Like all such reports, it is filled with glowing superlatives. It provides little concrete information about the agency’s more serious issues, such as what it is doing to fix the upper stage of its PSLV rocket, which has failed on the last two consecutive launches. All the annual report says on this subject is the following:

Based on the recommendations of the National Level Committee comprising of eminent experts from academia & industry, the third stage of PSLV i.e., HPS3 motor with modified design was realised and two static tests were successfully completed on October 06, 2025 and November 19, 2025 as in flight, from SDSC, SHAR. The overall performance of the motor and subsystems were as expected and closer to nominal performance.

The problem is that these fixes and tests did not work. The second failure of the upper stage occurred in January 2026, less than two months later. The annual report should have noted this fact, but did not.

As for India’s planetary program, digging out the present schedule from the report is difficult. Based on this review of the annual report, the dates are as follows:

  • Chandrayaan 4 lunar sample return mission: October 2027.
  • Venus Orbiter: March 2028.
  • Chandrayaan 5 /LUPEX lunar lander: September 2028.
  • Mars Lander: No target launch date as yet.

Expect these dates to be delayed.

The report also gives a detailed description on India’s Gaganyaan manned program, but little information about the planned unmanned tests that were planned for this year, leading to a manned orbital mission next year. At the moment the schedule appears to be experiencing delays, caused mostly by the PSLV launch failures. It appears ISRO wants this issue resolved before it launches that first unmanned Gaganyaan test flight.

If you want to get an overview of India’s government space program, this annual report is a good place to start. It will at least provide a baseline on which you can build a deeper knowledge.

Who really was Jay Gould?

The life and legend of Jay Gould

To get to the point, right at the start, Jay Gould was not a “Robber Baron”, nor was he the worst “Robber Baron,” as many journalists of his time as well as many historians in the next century liked to slander him, implying he was unethical, cruel, and routinely used under-handed tactics to destroy others while making himself wealthy. In fact, he was no more a robber baron then the entire class of hard-nosed businessmen who in the 1800s became America’s first generation of today’s billionaires, using the free enterprise system to gather wealth to themselves while building vast industries that employed millions and made the lives of everyone better and more prosperous.

I have just finished reading Maury Klein’s 1997 fine biography of Jay Gould, the Life and Legend of Jay Gould, and was not surprised to learn that Gould was never the evil personification of worst sort of capitalist, as routinely portrayed by our leftist academia for the past century. Instead, I discovered he was no different then all the other leading businessmen of his time, hard-nosed and ruthless when it came to cutting deals, but strongly committed to making the businesses he ran profitable and successful, providing the public a useful product they would be eager to use.

You see, in a free capitalist society, you can’t succeed unless you are willing to be ruthless at times. This doesn’t necessarily mean you routinely use violence, or break the law, or go out of your way to hurt others, but it does mean you defend yourself from attack, and retaliate quickly using legal means when under attack. These rules apply today as they did in Gould’s time. Nothing has changed.

Gould was no different than Cornelius Vanderbilt (whose life I reviewed here). Nor does he differ from John D. Rockefeller, or Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or any one of the thousands and thousands of American businessmen, who from the founding of this country used its free but legal framework to build a nation while enriching themselves.

Gould’s most famous area of success involved his ownership of many railroads, both in the American west as well as the first elevated subways in New York City. He also gained full control over Western Union, and for more than a decade ran a system that provided the entire country and even the world its first instantaneous method of communications. To gain control over these venues involved many battles, some of which required tactics that were harsh, even a bit under-handed, and clever. Sometimes it required payoffs to politicians, or tricky stock deals that once completed left many others sinking in the wake.

A typical anti-Gould newspaper cartoon from 1882
A typical anti-Gould newspaper cartoon from 1882

Gould’s tactics however were never much different than those of others of his ilk. And like those others, his overall good management of his companies he controlled, as well as the good treatment of the people who worked under him, garnered strong loyalty and support across these industries. Gould wanted control, but always when he had it he used it to make his product better and more useful.

When he died, it was the people who knew him who had good things to say about him, and it was the journalists who did not who continued to spread the slanders, because it made good copy and sold newspapers. And sadly, for the decades that followed, historians used those news reports — mostly wrong — as their primary sources of information, and thus the legend of an evil Gould was created.

Klein’s biography is a worthy effort to counter this bad history. More Americans should read it, if only to realize their past history was far more admirable than what they have been taught for the past few generations.

Gould’s tactics — and his success — were things he learned very earlier on in life, when he went out on his own.
» Read more

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

Jared Isaacman before the Senate
Jared Isaacman before the Senate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAA to begin taxing launches by payload weight

FAA logo

As per the provisions in last year’s reconciliation budget bill (dubbed for propaganda reasons by Trump the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”), the FAA was authorized to begin charging fees (another word for taxes) on the mass of each launch payload. The agency last week announced it is now doing so.

More information here.

For 2026, that fee is 25 cents per pound of payload, capped at $30,000 per launch or reentry. The fees would fund work on improving integration of launches and reentries into the national airspace system directed by an FAA reauthorization act in 2024.

Though the amount per launch is small compared to the cost of the launch itself, this new tax is expected to provide ample funds to allow the FAA to expand its licensing operations to meet the growing launch industry. The real challenge will be whether the bureaucracy can stay focused on its main task of serving the public, or use the money to build a new bureaucratic empire aimed at garnering power over the private sector. History suggests we should be pessimistic, and expect the latter.

In the meantime, rocket companies are simply going to apply this new tax to the makers of their payloads, who in turn will have their customers pay the cost.

Starlink returns to Papua New Guinea after court ruling

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

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

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

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

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

Avio makes more from its Vega-C rocket now that Arianespace is out of the picture

According to a report today at Europeanspaceflight.com, the European Space Agency (ESA) paid Arianespace €51.65 million ($60.6 million) for a December 2024 launch using the Vega-C rocket that the Italian company Avio produces.

That flight was one of the last ones managed by Arianespace. In November 2025 ESA completed the transfer of ownership back to Avio, so that the company now manages and sells its own rocket, rather than have a middle-man government agency run things and take a cut.

Since then Avio has won three separate launch contracts, one from Taiwan for $81 million, another from Brazil for $35.6 million, and a third from Airbus for $84.4 million (see here).

Based on these numbers, it appears that Avio is doing much better selling this rocket directly to the market than having Arianespace and ESA run things for it. It is not only generally getting slightly more revenue per launch (about $67 million average compared to $60.6 million under Arianespace), but it is keeping all the profits, rather than having the Arianespace government bureaucracy take a percentage.

These numbers however won’t hold in the coming years. In the U.S. in the next year at least two reusable rockets — Rocket Lab’s Neutron and Stoke Space’s Nova — are coming on line, and will drive these launch prices down. Furthermore, new smallsat rockets being developed in Germany (two), Spain, India (two), South Korea, and Australia should do the same.

At the moment however Avio is benefiting from the present state of the market, though even that advantage is threatened because it has had to delay the next Vega-C launch due to a technical issue.

Regardless, these numbers give us a strong sense of the present competitive launch costs in today’s market, averaging about $60 million per launch. Before SpaceX came along, that price generally exceeded more than $100 million, and often as high as $200 to $500 million. No more. SpaceX has forced competition on the industry, and the result has been a notable drop in price, with more to come.

Trump fires the entire governing board of the National Science Foundation

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.

Indian rocket startup Skyroot now shipping its Vikram rocket to launch site

The Indian rocket startup Skyroot has now finished assembling its Vikram-1 rocket, and is about to ship it to its launch site at the Sriharikota spaceport on the east coast of India.

At Sriharikota, the rocket moves into final assembly and a round of system checks before a launch window is locked in the coming months. This is the last stretch before liftoff. Countdown operations, testing and integration now shift fully to the launch site.

One of the company’s founders said the most critical testing has been completed, with launch campaign activities set to begin at the spaceport.

The company is presently targeting a launch in June. If Vikram-1 reaches orbit successfully, Skyroot would become the first Indian private company to design, build, and launch its own rocket, and would be well positioned to win launch contracts from smallsat companies, competing directly with Rocket Lab and its Electron rocket.

This success would also help accelerate the Modi government’s effort to transition from a space industry controlled entirely by its government space agency ISRO to a private industry run by competing indepedent companies.

Why is Sierra Space’s Dream Chaser spacecraft not ready for flight?

In a press release posted last week Sierra Space proudly announced that its Tenacity Dream Chaser mini-shuttle has completed its pre-launch ground vibration tests at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, but instead of moving the mini-shuttle to a local facility where it could be integrated with its rocket for launch, the company announced it was shipping it back “to Colorado for final modifications and mission-specific upgrades.”

Normally when a spacecraft, satellite, or any payload passes these last ground tests, it is ready for launch, and it immediately begins integration onto the rocket that will carry it into space. That Sierra Space is not doing this strongly suggests Tenacity did not pass with flying colors, and that some issues were identified that need correction.

Note too that this spacecraft had been delivered for these tests in early 2024, and had been expected to pass them then and be launched that year. Instead, months passed with no word, then its launch was postponed indefinitely, and then NASA canceled Sierra’s contract to provide cargo to ISS.

Now, two years later Tenacity is still not ready for launch. Though the company says the ground tests are now complete, I suspect otherwise. I suspect there is some fundamental issue with the spacecraft that they are hiding because to reveal it would be devastating to Sierra’s public reputation.

Until we know more however this is pure speculation on my part. What we do know however is that this mini-shuttle has not done what was promised, and increasingly appears to be a lemon that will never do it.

Two launches today, by China and Russia

Both China and Russia completed launches today. First China put a Pakistani Earth observation satellite into orbit, its Long March 6 rocket lifting off from Taiyuan spaceport in north China. China’s state-run press made no mention of where the rocket’s lower stages, using very toxic hypergolic fuels, crashed inside China.

Next Russia launched a Progress cargo capsule to ISS, its Soyuz-2 rocket lifting off from Baikonur in Kazakhstan. The freighter will dock with ISS in two days.

The leaders in the 2026 launch race:

49 SpaceX
23 China
8 Russia
6 Rocket Lab

For the third straight year SpaceX continues to lead the entire world combined in total launches, 49 to 42.

Space Force issues twelve companies Golden Dome contracts worth $3.2 billion

As part of the first phase of development of the proposed Golden Dome defensive system, the Space Force revealed this week that it has awarded twelve companies contracts worth $3.2 billion to develop the first prototype designs.

The service awarded other transaction authority (OTA) agreements — worth up to a combined $3.2 billion — to the vendors in late 2025 and early 2026, according to a Space Systems Command press release. Under the contracts, the companies will develop prototypes of a space-based architecture that can shoot down enemy missiles after they’re launched.

The companies that received OTAs are Anduril, Booz Allen Hamilton, General Dynamics Mission Systems, GITAI USA, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Quindar, Raytheon, Sci-Tec, SpaceX, True Anomaly and Turion Space Corp.

The twelve companies have very different capabilities, suggesting the Space Force is hoping to get a lot of different ideas and proposals that will not only give it options but could also provide it multiple methods for destroying in-coming missiles.

Soyuz launch site destroyed at French Guiana

As promised, the Soyuz-2 launch site at France’s French Guiana spaceport was destroyed in a controlled explosion yesterday.

I have embedded video of the explosion below.

The remaining infrastructure at the site—including the assembly and testing complex, railway lines, liquid oxygen storage facilities, and fueling systems—will be transferred to MaiaSpace, a French startup affiliated with Arianespace. The company plans to reuse up to 80% of the existing infrastructure for its own launch vehicle program.

MaiaSpace is not “affliated with Arianespace.” It is a wholly owned subsidiary of ArianeGroup, the company that makes the much larger rocket Ariane-6. The company hopes MaiaSpace’s smaller Maia rocket can capture some of the smallsat business presently owned by Rocket Lab and SpaceX.

The Russians had almost a dozen launches scheduled from this launchpad, worth more than a billion dollars in revenue, when Putin decided to invade the Ukraine in 2022. Russia immediately became a pariah to the rest of the work. That revenue instantly vanished and the companies found other launch providers.

Europe meanwhile gave control of French Guiana back to France, which owns it. France in turn has now been leasing out the unused launchpads there to new rocket startups. Though some pie-in-the-sky academics lobbied to preserve the Soyuz launchpad for “historical reasons”, the French had no desire to do so. Better to make money.
» Read more

Blue Origin opens (secretly) its first foreign office, in Luxembourg

Blue Origin last week opened its first office in another country, in Luxembourg, though the company made no official announcement and the fact only became public when a Luxembourg official mentioned it at a conference in Colorado.

In an unexpected twist, the opening of the European HQ was eventually announced on 15 April 2026, not by the company but by Luxembourg Economy Minister Lex Delles – and not at the Grand Duchy office, but on his visit to the 41st annual Space Symposium, held in Colorado Springs in the US.

Blue Origin’s office on the capital’s Avenue de la Liberté had, in fact, opened right on schedule, Tim Collins, the company’s Vice- President of Global Operations and Supply Chain, told the Luxembourg Times in interview on Wednesday.

…Asked why Blue Origin declined to confirm its opening schedule until April, despite media follow-up requests, Collins said there was no cover-up: the company merely wanted to have something to show off before officially opening. The process has been roughly on schedule throughout, he stressed.

The office will work with Blue Origin’s European customers as well as manage its foreign supply chain, not just in European but globally.

China launches another “set of test satellites promoting internet technology”

China today successfully placed what its state-run press described merely as “a new set of test satellites promoting internet technology”, its Long March 2D rocket lifting off from its Xichang spaceport in southwest China.

No word on where the rocket’s lower stages, using very toxic hypergolic fuels, crashed inside China. The state-run press did add this about the payloads:

These satellites will be mainly used to carry out technology tests and verifications, including direct satellite-to-phone broadband connectivity and space-ground network integration.

The leaders in the 2026 launch race:

49 SpaceX
22 China
7 Russia
6 Rocket Lab

For the third straight year SpaceX continues to lead the entire world combined in total launches, 49 to 40.

Isaacman before Congress: Speaking the truth to power

Jared Isaacman at House hearing yesterday
Jared Isaacman at House hearing yesterday

There has been a lot of attention given by the propaganda press to the testimony yesterday by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman before the House Science Committee, with almost all of that coverage focused on two issues, Trump’s proposal to cut NASA’s budget significantly, and the public statement by Isaacman that two Lunar Gateway modules were delivered “corroded.”

On the corrosion issue, much of the press focused on whether Isaacman’s statement is true (contractors are denying it). I instead was struck by how little pushback there was overall from Congress about Isaacman’s proposal to cancel Gateway entirely. In two hours of testimony, only one congressman brought it up, and even he did not challenge Isaacman’s decision very strongly.

Put simply, it really didn’t matter whether these modules were corroded or not. Congress is not going to challenge Isaacman on this decision. Some politicians might use it in fund-raising letters or at press events as a hammer to win votes or donations, but when it comes time to approve NASA’s budget, they are willing to accept Isaacman’s overall judgment. Gateway will be gone.

As for the budget cuts, I was also struck by the lack of hard opposition from Congress, despite reporting from the propaganda press (like this story) suggesting the cuts were rejected outright. Though repeatedly Isaacman was questioned about those cuts — especially from Democrats — repeatedly he fought back hard, to good effect. He supports Trump’s cuts and does not want more money, because in reviewing NASA’s budget and recent actions, he has found there is ample cash available in Trump’s reduced budget by simply shutting down bad or duplicative projects and focusing his resources more effectively.

The only threatened program that seemed to generate any passion from Congress was Trump’s effort to eliminate NASA’s education STEM program. “We need this program to inspire kids!” they would say. Isaacman would bluntly respond “No we don’t,” noting that NASA issues millions in education grants outside that program (making that program duplicative and unnecessary), and that the best way NASA can inspire kids is to actually fly missions, not send money to some bureaucratic program. Isaacman wants to use that money to make building the lunar base more likely.

Over and over again Isaacman pulled the rug out from under this big-spending congress critters by simply pointing out the truth to them, with one exchange with Zoe Lofgren (D-California) quite typical. She clearly was opposed to Trump’s cuts and wanted to challenge any cancellations being put forth. To do so, however, she wanted Isaacman to provide more detailed information about those cuts. Issacman said sure, I’m glad to provide you everything you want, but then added this:
» Read more

ESA: Full-sized model of its Space Rider reusable capsule is ready for landing drop tests

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

My heart be still! The European Space Agency (ESA) yesterday announced that a full-sized model of its Space Rider reusable capsule is now ready for landing drop tests from a helicopter.

The avionics – Space Rider’s ‘brain’ – were installed in the second week of March. This computer hosts the Guidance, Navigation and Control algorithms that will steer the parafoil, adapting to the wind – including any gusts– to guide Space Rider to a soft landing.

Roughly the size of a mini-van, the drop-test model is a full-size stand-in for the 4.6-m long reentry module, Space Rider lands on skis with the landing gear permanently open on this model as the mechanism is not part of the drop test.

To get an idea how unserious ESA is, we need to review this project’s overall schedule. This reusable capsule concept — which appears to be a variation of either Varda’s returnable capsule or Boeing’s X-37B — was first tested by ESA in 2015. By 2017 the agency was promising it would be flying commercially by 2025. A decade later and they have not yet begun testing a full scale spacecraft.

And the development pace now is glacial. Last summer ESA did helicopter drop tests of just the “brain” and parafoil. It is now going to do those drop tests again, a year later, with this full scale model. Expect another year to pass — at a minimum — before it tries another set of helicopter drop tests, this time with the first actual Space Rider capsule.

At this pace, Space Rider might fly by 2030, maybe. In the meantime, expect at least a half dozen private capsules to fly commercially, for profit. Following Varda’s success investment capital has poured into this industry. All will go from a blank sheet of paper to a flight model in less than five years.

And even if ESA finally gets Space Rider operational, it has established some very complex rules about who can use it commercially, rules so complex I predict few will be interested.

Russia launches the smallest version of its Angara rocket

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.

China picks two Pakistanis to train for a future Tiangong-3 mission

As part of its Soviet-style propaganda effort to promote its space program, China yesterday announced the names of the two Pakistanis who will train for a future short mission to its Tiangong-3 space station.

The agency said in a statement that Muhammad Zeeshan Ali and Khurram Daud will come to China soon as reserve astronauts for training. After completing all training and evaluations, one of them will participate in a space mission as a payload specialist, becoming the first foreign astronaut onboard the Tiangong space station.

This flight is part of Pakistan’s partnership with China in its International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) project to build a lunar base, created by China to counter the U.S.’s Artemis Accords alliance. Pakistan will also fly a small demo rover on China’s Chang’e-8 unmanned lunar mission, scheduled presently for a 2029 launch.

While the American alliance has now signed 63 nations covering most of the world’s major nations, only thirteen nations and about eleven eleven academic or governmental bureaucracies — mostly third world — have joined China.

This Chinese international manned mission mirrors largely what the Soviets would do during the Cold War, flying someone from one of its captured countries to garner international propaganda points. Do not expect these astronauts to do much concrete work. During the Soviet era, the Russians would joke that these foreign astronauts would all get “red hands” disease, caused whenever they tried to touch anything and a Russian astronaut would then slap their hands, saying firmly “Don’t touch that!”

Rocket Lab launches satellites for Japan’s space agency JAXA

Rocket Lab today successfully placed eight smallsats for Japan’s space agency JAXA, its Electron rocket lifting off from one of its two launchpads in New Zealand.

Because all of JAXA’s rockets are presently grounded due to technical failures, Japan’s space agency has had to turn to Rocket Lab. In fact, these eight satellites were originally supposed to launch on JAXA’s Epsilon-S rocket, which remains grounded after an explosion during a static fire test. There have been no updates on the status of Epsilon-S since December 2024.

Rocket Lab was also supposed to do a suborbital hypersonic test flight yesterday out of Wallops Island in Virginia, using the first stage of Election in its HASTE suborbital configuration. As this is a test for the War Department, little information is generally released. This video from a distance confirms the launch apparently took place, but whether it was a success or not remains unknown. That Rocket Lab’s announcers did not tout its success either before or after today’s JAXA launch — as they have routinely done in the past — suggests something might have gone wrong, though this too is pure speculation.

The leaders in the 2026 launch race:

48 SpaceX
21 China
6 Russia
6 Rocket Lab

For the third straight year SpaceX continues to lead the entire world combined in total launches, 48 to 38.

Jordan to sign the Artemis Accords

According to a press announcement tonight from NASA, Jordan will sign the Artemis Accords on April 23, 2026 at NASA headquarters in Washington, DC.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman will host Ambassador Dina Kawar of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and U.S. Department of State Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Ruth Perry for the ceremony.

Jordan becomes the 63rd nation to sign the accords. It also joins Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates from the Arab Middle East. While it is certainly wise to not trust any nation controlled by Islam, having these nations allied with us in space will help mitigate the worst aspects of their religion. That they are also joining a space alliance that includes Israel is another indication that they are realizing that their future is better aligned with Israel than against it.

The full list of nations in this American space alliance is as follows:

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, Jordan, 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.

Japan to do test launch of its H3 rocket in June

Japan’s space agency JAXA is now planning a test launch on June 10, 2026 of its H3 rocket, carrying a dummy payload only in order to test the changes it has made in the rocket after a failed launch in December 2025.

The failure of the eighth H3 rocket was likely caused by an adhesion problem in the satellite mounting structure, which led it to break apart during flight, according to an investigation by JAXA. Similar issues were found in other units, prompting the space agency to fix them so the components can maintain their structural integrity.

In the June launch, a dummy satellite will be mounted on the test vehicle to collect data and verify the effectiveness of the measures. For future launches of actual satellites or space probes, JAXA plans to review the mounting structure design to reduce the risk of failure.

In other words, the method for attaching the payload to the rocket at some points failed, so that the satellite separated prematurely. The June launch will be to test a new mounting system.

Posting has been light the last few days as I deal with recovery from knee surgery.

NASA’s IG: With only Axiom building NASA’s future spacesuits, the agency’s lunar program faces great scheduling risk

Axiom's two spacesuits being tested underwater
Axiom’s two spacesuits being tested underwater in October 2025.
Click for original.

According to NASA’s inspector general’s report today [pdf] on the state of NASA’s effort to create new spacesuits for use by its astronauts on future space stations as well as in its Artemis lunar program, the planned schedules for the lunar landing and those stations are threatened because the agency presently has only one contractor, Axiom, building new suits, and has not established any spacesuit standardization rules should it want to issue contracts to others. From the report’s conclusion:

While NASA is taking steps to mitigate schedule risk, it must also contend with the unique risks inherent to a single-provider environment until future competition is introduced. … If Axiom cannot satisfy its contractual requirements in a timely or cost-effective manner, then NASA could be forced to continue using the problematic EMUs throughout the life of the ISS and significantly adjust its lunar plans. [EMUs are the complex suits presently used on ISS, and would not work well for any lunar landing mission.]

While xEVAS [the new suit concept] is flexible enough to allow for additional providers, doing so may not help the Agency meet its more immediate Artemis goals. Critically, NASA must address existing design and safety risks resulting from the lack of standard requirements for spacesuits to be compatible with various lunar spacecraft and assets.

As shown by the photo above, the development of Axiom’s spacesuit has been proceeding, and seems likely to be available for next year’s Artemis-3 Earth orbit test mission. At the same time, it is still behind schedule, a fact that has been mitigated because NASA’s entire Artemis program is equally behind schedule.

The report lists three commercial companies that might be able to provide alternative suits, and thus some redundancy, as shown by the image below.
» Read more

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

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.

1 2 3 334