Tag: policy

NASA once again gambling on the lives of its astronauts for political reasons

10:07 am

Orion's damage heat shield
Damage to Orion heat shield caused during re-entry in 2022,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”

NASA this week began the stacking one of the two strap-on solid-fueled boosters that will help power SLS on the Artemis-3 mission, still officially scheduled for September 2025 and aiming to send four astronauts around the Moon.

A NASA spokesperson told Ars it should take around four months to fully stack the SLS rocket for Artemis II. First, teams will stack the two solid-fueled boosters piece by piece, then place the core stage in between the boosters. Then, technicians will install a cone-shaped adapter on top of the core stage and finally hoist the interim cryogenic propulsion stage, or upper stage, to complete the assembly.

At that point the rocket will be ready for the integration of the manned Orion capsule on top.

The article at the link sees this stacking as a good sign that NASA’s has solved the Orion capsule’s heat shield issue that occurred during the unmanned return from the Moon on the second Artemis mission. The image to the right shows that heat shield afterward, with large chunks missing. Though it landed safely, the damage was much much worse than expected. At the moment NASA officials have said it has found the root cause, but those officials also refuse to say what that root cause is, nor how the agency or Orion’s contractor Lockheed Martin has fixed it.
» Read more

19 comments

The next two Vulcan launches for the Pentagon slip to 2025

9:14 am

Both the Space Force and ULA have now admitted that the next two Vulcan launches, which both had hoped to launch before the end of this year, have now been delayed until 2025, and that Vulcan remains uncertified as yet by the military for its launches.

The United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan will not be able to conduct two planned national security missions on its launch manifest for this year after delays with certifying the heavy-lift rocket. The comments came hours after a Space Force official cast doubt that the missions could be completed before the end of 2024.

ULA launched its second certification flight in October, roughly a month behind schedule, following a first flight in January that was nearly four years behind schedule. The Space Force is still assessing data from the October launch in partnership with ULA.

The military had said if ULA completed two Vulcan successful launches it would approve Vulcan for these launches. Though the second launch got its payload to its correct orbit, during launch the nozzle on one of its strap-on solid-fueled boosters fell off. Though officials keep saying they expect certification anyway, that certification has not happened. It appears right now that the military won’t do so until the investigation into the problem is completed and a fix is installed.

At the moment the only rocket company that can launch large payloads for the Pentagon is SpaceX. Though that company has not gouged the military in bidding (though it it could) this is not a good situation. The military wants options and redundancy, not simply to save money, but to give it flexibility. It needs ULA and Blue Origin to finally deliver their rockets.

2 comments

If ordinary people don’t show up at those upcoming FAA Starship/Superheavy public meetings they WILL be screwed

1:24 pm

Starship splashing down vertically
Starship splashing down vertically in the
Gulf of Mexico on November 19, 2024

Yesterday radio host Robert Pratt sent me a news story from a Texas newspaper, the Texas Tribune, which attempted quite surprisingly to capture fairly the local response to the most recent Starship/Superheavy test launch out of Boca Chica on November 19, 2024.

The reporter, Bernice Garcia, clearly made it a point to talk to a lot of people, especially those who came out to see the launch. As a result, she showed that in general, no matter what people felt about Donald Trump or Elon Musk, the local population was almost entirely in favor of SpaceX’s efforts there. For example:

Sanchez was slightly concerned about [the rocket’s sonic booms] but believed the benefits of jobs created by SpaceX was worth the risk. “They know what they’re doing,” Sanchez said.

But his favorable opinion of Musk’s company did not extend to Trump. A naturalized citizen who gained amnesty under the Reagan administration, Sanchez didn’t view Trump’s immigration policies as logistically sound. “If you throw those people out, who’s going to work?” Sanchez said. “You don’t see a white man laboring out in the sun. On the other hand, Mexicans, foreigners, people from other countries –– that’s why they come here, to work.”

While the story found locals with a whole range of opinions about Trump, both positive and negative, it only quoted one person who was hostile to SpaceX, and that quote and person tells us a great deal about the bankrupt nature of that opposition:
» Read more

7 comments

ESA gives its big space rocket company, ArianeGroup, a big subsidy

10:29 am

On November 19, 2024 I noted that in awarding four new rocket startups development contracts worth a total of 44 million euros, the European Space Agency (ESA) had not given any of that grant money to its biggest and most established rocket company, ArianeGroup, which not only owns and builds the Ariane-6 rocket but also has a subsidiary called MaiaSpace that is developing its own smallsat partly reusable rocket, in direct competition with those four small startups.

The exclusion of ArianeGroup in that announcement suggested to me that ESA had decided ArianeGroup’s smalsat rocket subsidary could manage without any additional aid, since its owner is a well-financed big space contractor.

I was wrong. Today the ESA awarded ArianeGroup a much big pile of cash, totaling 230 million Euros, to further finance the development of a reusable demonstration rocket, dubbed Themis, that also uses ArianeGroup’s Prometheus rocket engine. The Themis hopper project has been under development since 2018 initially under the management of Arianespace, has seen many delays in that time, and is now three years behind schedule.

Because of these delays, ESA pulled it from Arianespace in 2022 and gave full control of the project to the builder, ArianeGroup. This new contract award appears to be cementing this new arrangement, and is in addition to previous awards for this project exceeding 224 million euros.

The award also apparently includes funds for ArianeGroup’s MaiaSpace smallsat rocket startup, though the exact amount has not been specified.

The bottom line is that ESA is still dumping lots of cash to its older big space companies. Despite its clear shift to promoting independent rocket startups instead of a single government-controlled commercial entity (Arianespace), it is still favoring the big space contractors like ArianeGroup it has used for decades under that old Soviet-style system.

It will be interesting to see how this unbalanced system plays out in the coming years. Europe might get a competitive rocket industry of many companies, but then it might not, considering its space agency is putting its thumb on the scale to favor the already-established players.

3 comments

The space agencies of India and Australia agree to cooperate in recovering Gaganyaan

9:23 am

India’s space agency ISRO yesterday announced that it has signed an agreement with the Australian Space Agency (ASA) to work together in doing ocean recovery of India’s Gagayaan manned capsule.

The IA [Implementation Agreement] enables the Australian authorities to work with Indian authorities to ensure support for search and rescue of crew and recovery of crew module as part of contingency planning for ascent phase aborts near Australian waters.

Apparently ISRO anticipates the possible need for capsule ocean recovery near Australia should there be a launch abort shortly after liftoff.

Leave a comment

Russia and SpaceX complete launches

9:16 am

Both Russia and the American company SpaceX successfully completed launches this morning. First, Russia sent a new Progress freighter on its way to ISS, its Soyuz-2 rocket lifting off from the Baikonur spaceport in Kazakhstan. The cargo ship is planned to dock with ISS in two days.

Next SpaceX put another 24 Starlink satellites into orbit, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral in Florida. The first stage completed its 20th flight, landing on a drone ship in the Atlantic.

The leaders in the 2024 launch race:

119 SpaceX
53 China
14 Russia
12 Rocket Lab

American private enterprise now leads the rest of the world combined in successful launches 137 to 80, while SpaceX by itself leads the entire world, including American companies, 119 to 98.

Leave a comment

French rocket startup wins multi-launch contract

9:03 am

Capitalism in space: The French rocket startup Latitude yesterday announced that it has gotten a multi-launch contract from the German startup Atmos Space Cargo, which is developing its own returnable cargo capsule.

In a deal announced at Space Tech Expo Europe here Nov. 19, Atmos will buy a minimum of five launches a year of Latitude’s Zephyr rocket between 2028 and 2032. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Each launch will place a Phoenix spacecraft into very low Earth orbit, or VLEO. The spacecraft are designed to accommodate payloads for microgravity research in fields like pharmaceuticals and manufacturing, returning them to Earth.

Both companies have raised private investment capital, with Latitude raising $30 million and Atmos $1.4 million. Both are part of the sudden burst of new independent space companies that have emerged in Europe in only the last three years, even as many new American space startups have fallen by the wayside due to technical problems and government red tape.

Leave a comment

Part 3: Fixing our bloated federal government and the administrative state is going to take decades

12:43 pm

The lion now is roaring, quite loudly
The lion now is roaring, quite loudly.
Photo by Travis Jervey.

In part 1 of this series I described how it appears the American public today is no longer asleep and is instead very aggressively participating in the political and cultural debate in ways it has not in many decades, noting how this shift suggests we are experiencing a much more fundamental societal change than a mere shift in voting demographics.

In part 2 of this series I described how this fundamental shift has begun to express itself within the courts and politics in ways unheard of only five years ago. This expression illustrates the bottom-up nature of America, whereby the citizen is sovereign and our so-called leaders can only resist what those citizens want for only so long. And when those citizens become energized, as they now are, that resistance will evaporate with amazing speed.

In part 3 today I am going to take a more pessimistic view, based not on recent events but on the longer view I take naturally as a historian. I do this all the time in my histories. In Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, in describing the political background behind that mission, I could not help noting how that mission changed America and its social goals significantly, for both good and ill. In Leaving Earth, I opened the book like so:

Societies change. Though humans have difficulty perceiving this fact during their lifetimes, the tide of change inexorably rolls forward, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

I then documented in detail the space efforts by both Russia and the United States in the decades after the Apollo landing and the politics behind those programs, with both providing a great window into how both societies changed in the second half of the 20th century. As I concluded, “They were like ships passing in the night.”

Similarly, the major cultural and political shift away from big government and the regulatory state that I think we are now experiencing in the United States is not going to change our country overnight. These things take time. People who firmly believe it is a good idea to “gender affirm” confused little kids by cutting off their breasts or castrating them are not going to change their minds easily. People who believe in big government — especially those who benefit from it — are not going to meekly allow that big government and those benefits to vanish without a fight.

The left’s long march through the institutions
» Read more

12 comments

FAA approves revised launch rate for Boca Chica; schedules public meetings

10:42 am

The FAA today announced that it has issued a revised draft environmental assessment [pdf] of SpaceX’s operations at Boca Chica in which the agency approves the company’s request to increase its Starship/Superheavy launch rate from 5 to 25 launches per year.

This does not mean that SpaceX can now launch that many times in 2025. The draft still has to go through more red tape, including public meetings and a comment period, then reviewed again by the FAA. In this announcement the FAA rescheduled those public meetings, as follows:

  • Tuesday, January 7, 2025; 1:00 PM–3:00 PM & 5:30 PM–7:30 PM CDT at the Texas Southmost College, Jacob Brown Auditorium, 600 International Boulevard, Brownsville, TX 78520
  • Thursday, January 9, 2025; 1:00 PM–3:00 PM & 5:30 PM–7:30 PM CDT at the Port Isabel Event & Cultural Center, Queen Isabella Room, 309 E Railroad Avenue, Port Isabel, TX 78578
  • Virtually on Monday, January 13, 2025; 5:30 PM–7:30 PM CDT. Registration Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_6f5su5mtTne_vBr8MqJOLA
    Dial-in phone number: 888-788-0099 (Toll Free),
    Webinar ID: 879 9253 6128, Passcode: 900729

I strongly suggest that local businesses and citizens in the Brownsville area organize to show up en masse at these meetings to express their approval of SpaceX, because I can guarantee that the fringe anti-Musk activists groups SaveRGV, Sierra Club, the Friends of Wildlife Corridor, and the fake Indian Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas (which never existed in Texas) are organizing to be there to demand SpaceX be shut down.

3 comments

NASA to award SpaceX and Blue Origin contracts to deliver cargo to the Moon

9:14 am

Capitalism in space: NASA yesterday announced that is planning to award both SpaceX and Blue Origin contracts to use their manned lunar landers as cargo freighters to deliver supplies to its planned lunar base.

NASA expects to assign demonstration missions to current human landing system providers, SpaceX and Blue Origin, to mature designs of their large cargo landers following successful design certification reviews. The assignment of these missions builds on the 2023 request by NASA for the two companies to develop cargo versions of their crewed human landing systems, now in development for Artemis III, Artemis IV, and Artemis V.

…NASA plans for at least two delivery missions with large cargo. The agency intends for SpaceX’s Starship cargo lander to deliver a pressurized rover, currently in development by JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency), to the lunar surface no earlier than fiscal year 2032 in support of Artemis VII and later missions. The agency expects Blue Origin to deliver a lunar surface habitat no earlier than fiscal year 2033.

The contracts however have not been issued. This is merely an announcement of NASA’s intent to do so, which suggests to me that NASA management has already recognized that the entire Artemis program is facing a major restructuring and wants to indicate it will support such a change. That does not mean these contracts won’t be issued — both rely on the privately owned rockets of both companies — but that NASA now realizes that its manned program — which now relies on SLS/Orion — will likely to be changed significantly, likely by the elimination of SLS/Orion and its replacement by private rockets and private manned spacecraft.

Because of this looming restructuring, NASA management probably intended this press announcement — which really announces little that is new — as a signal of its support for such a change, because the announcement focuses on these private companies rather than NASA’s government-built rocket.

Leave a comment

Flights into Brownsville sold out prior to SpaceX’s sixth test flight of Starship/Superheavy

8:57 am

If anyone thinks the anti-Musk activists groups that have been using lawfare to try to shut down SpaceX’s Boca Chica facility have any local support, this story should put a quash on that. According to the airport director for the Brownsville-South Padre Island Airport, all flights sold out leading up to the sixth test flight of Starship/Superheavy.

Airport director Angel Ramos told Channel 5 News he’s noticed traffic increases whenever SpaceX does a flight test. “People are excited,” Ramos said. “They’re wearing SpaceX hats and SpaceX shirts [when they come] in to the airport.”

Ramos said flights were sold out between Sunday and Tuesday, and 700 people have been arriving daily at the airport since Sunday. “There is no launch that happens that we don’t see lots of people coming in and out of the airport, and now that they continue to be more frequent and more successful, people are paying more interest and actually coming days before,” Ramos said.

The story was reported by the local ABC television affiliate, and reflects the very positive impact SpaceX is having on the local community that is recognized quite clearly by everyone who lives there. The Brownsville area had been economically depressed for decades. Now the economy is booming, all because of SpaceX.

The public wants SpaceX there. The nay-sayers represent practically no one. That many local news organizations not only don’t report these facts when they cover the lawfare of these activists but instead often frame their stories as if the opposition is general throughout the region is shameful and an indication of the bankrupt nature of these press outlets.

Leave a comment

Part 2: The waking sleeping giant lurks not just in public places

11:05 am

The lion now is roaring, quite loudly
The lion now is roaring, quite loudly.
Photo by Travis Jervey.

In the first part yesterday of this three part essay, I described how Americans are no longer the disinterested public that we have seen for more than a half century. No longer is the left the only group with passion. Ordinary Americans are now paying attention, and appear aggressively unwilling to allow leftist bad policy and slanderous blacklisting go unchallenged. The public might not be partisan Republicans or conservatives, but it is nonetheless finally aware and outraged by the leftist agenda that has dominated government policy for the past decade, including policies that encouraged the mutilation and castration of children, allowed the queer agenda in schools, promoted anti-Semitism and bigotry throughout the workforce, and fueled an out-of-control federal government that only serves itself even as it squashes the freedoms of ordinary people.

In today’s second part, I wish to dig deeper, because the public’s willing outrage has already caused unexpected major attitude changes in places where such changes have been impossible for decades.

Let us begin with a somewhat complex court decision that I reported on last week. In this court decision, a two-judge panel went beyond the specifics of the lawsuit before it to rule instead on the basic legal authority of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), concluding that its decades-long requirement that all government agencies obey its environmental recommendations in writing regulations was illegal, that CEQ simply did not have the statutory authority to do this.

As I said, the case itself is very complex. It is not even clear this ruling will stand up, since in the end the CEQ’s recommendations essentially reflect those of the President, whose authority to determine how the agencies under him create regulations based on Congressional law is legal and quite final.

The point however is not whether this decision will stand up. The point is that the judges were quite willing to rule on the legal authority of a government entity, and rule against its authority, essentially invalidating its power.
» Read more

14 comments

Judge rules that Ligado’s $39 billion lawsuit against federal government can proceed

9:32 am

A federal judge has now ruled that the $39 billion lawsuit by the satellite company Ligado against the federal government can move forward.

In October 2023, Ligado sued the government for $39 billion over claims that officials at the Departments of Defense and Commerce took “unlawful actions” to, in effect, improperly seize without compensation the firm’s L-band spectrum. In January, the government had asked a judge to dismiss the suit. Today Judge Edward J. Damich of the US Federal Claims Court ruled in part in favor of Ligado and in part for the government over aspects of the case, but ultimately said the case “may proceed.”

Essentially, after the FCC had awarded this spectrum to Ligado, the feds stepped in to take it away for its own use. The company argued that once it was given that spectrum to use for its satellites it was essentially its property, and that the seizure without due compensation was an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This court decision allows this lawsuit to proceed.

The reason these federal agencies seized the spectrum this that they believe Ligado’s satellite constellation would interfere with GPS, something the FCC disputed in awarding the spectrum. Whether the company will win in court remains unclear.

2 comments

ESA awards four European rocket startups contact extensions worth €44.2 million total

9:19 am

Capitalism in space: The European Space Agency (ESA) this week awarded four European rocket startups — HyImpulse, Isar Aerospace, Rocket Factory Augsburg, and Orbex — new contact extensions worth €44.2 million total to continue the development of their commercial rockets.

According to ESA, the €44.2 million in funding awarded through the Boost! contract extensions is aimed at alleviating the pressure in the months before an inaugural flight when costs are high and the potential to generate revenue is limited.

…While the ESA press release did not disclose the specific amounts awarded to each company, announcements from the companies have revealed that Orbex will receive €5.6 million, Isar Aerospace €15 million, and both Rocket Factory Augsburg and HyImpulse €11.8 million each.

The first three companies are German-based, while Orbex is based in the United Kingdom. All four have received ESA grants under this program previously. None have yet actually attempted an orbital launch, but all four have been getting close, though all also face challenges. For example, Orbex, which had said it was ready to launch its Prime rocket in 2022, has been waiting for a launch license from Great Britain’s Civil Aviation Administration (CAA) for almost three years, to no avail. Rocket Factory meanwhile had hoped to launch its RFA-1 rocket this year, but could not after it was destroyed during a static fire dress rehearsal countdown in August.

Isar meanwhile has begun static fire tests of its Spectrum rocket at the Andoya spaceport in Norway. No launch date has been set. Hyimpulse in turn has flown a suborbital test flight from the Southern Launch spaceport on the south coast of Australia, but development of an orbital rocket seems farther behind its competitors.

This ESA contract award is also revealing in who did not get contracts. The large big space company ArianeGroup, which owns the Ariane-6 rocket, also has its own smallsat rocket startup, Maiaspace, that is attempting to compete with these other rocket startups, and had previously gotten ESA development contracts. That it got no contract extension under this program suggests ESA has decided it can manage without this aid, considering its owner is a well-financed big space contractor.

Leave a comment

Part 1: The sleeping giant of the American public has finally awakened

1:20 pm

Rick, stating the truth in Casablanca
Have Americans finally awakened?

In my long life there have been a number of times post-election when pundits nationwide have claimed that the results signaled a major cultural transition. This claim was made in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected president. It was made again in 1994 when voters gave the Republicans their first majority in the House of Representatives in about four decades. A similar claim was made in 2016, when Trump was elected for the first time.

In every single one of these cases the claim was false. There was no major cultural transition. Republicans might have won control, but the American public and its political class still largely leaned leftward. There was almost no change politically. Despite for example Bill Clinton’s announcement that “The era of big government is over” after the 1994 election, the federal government continued to grow in size and power, and to do so with ever increasing speed.

Even more significant, in every single case, the American people went back to sleep after the election. They considered the election their statement of what must be done, and assumed naively that the new elected officials would obey that statement. No matter how much conservatives attempted to make the public aware that the government remained out of control and was further beginning to institute leftist policies far outside what anyone in America wanted, those attempts fell on deaf ears.

The American people were essentially not interested. The only political movement that moved with any passion was that of the left, and it took advantage of this passion to successfully to get its policies imposed.

It seems however that the 2024 election signals a real cultural transition, far deeper and more significant than the mere shift of voting patterns to the right that most pundits are noting by all demographic groups.

No, what is happening is a shift in passion. The American public has awakened in a way I have never seen. I give you this news report as a clear sign, as the events it describes occurred last week, after the November election, when Americans in the past would gone back into slumber and stop paying attention. Watch and be amazed, not just by the outrage by hundreds of ordinary citizens, but by the fact that this outrage was reported correctly and sympathetically by a television news report.
» Read more

23 comments

Oh no! Starship/Superheavy is loud!

9:21 am

Superheavy after its flight safely captured at Boca Chica
Superheavy after its October flight, safely captured at Boca Chica

Time for another Chicken Little report: A new study of the sound levels produced by SpaceX’s Superheavy booster during its fifth launch and landing at Boca Chica in October 2024 suggests that it produces more noise than predicted.

Overall … Gee et al. note that one of the most important conclusions from their data is the differences between Starship’s launch noise levels and those of SLS and Falcon 9. The team found that Starship produces significantly more noise at liftoff than both SLS and Falcon 9 in both A-weighted and Z-weighted (unweighted) noise metrics.

When compared to Falcon 9, the noise produced by a single Starship launch is equivalent to, at a minimum, 10 Falcon 9 launches. Despite SLS producing more than half of Starship’s overall thrust at liftoff, Starship is substantially louder than SLS. More specifically, one Starship launch is equivalent to that of four to six SLS launches regarding noise production. As has been hypothesized by numerous other studies into the noise produced by rockets, this significant difference in noise levels may be due to the configuration of first-stage engines on the rockets. For example, although the Saturn V produced less overall thrust than SLS, it produced two decibels more noise than SLS, which may be due to the clustered engine configuration on Saturn V’s first stage.

We’re all gonna die! Despite the doom-mongering of this study (which you can read here), the only issue noted by the paper from this noise was car alarms going off. And even here, the spread of the noise was asymmetrical, occurring in only one direction.

The concern about sonic booms has always been the annoyance they cause to residents near airports. In the case of Superheavy, it is very unlikely it will ever fly at a frequency to make its noise intolerable. More important, the nature of a spaceport versus an airport reduces the concern considerably, since a spaceport requires a much larger buffer area, and at both of SpaceX’s Starship launchsites in Florida and Texas almost everyone living close by works for the company or in the space business. They are not going to complain.

And while studying these noise issues is useful, we must not be naive about the real purpose of such studies. Underneath its high-minded science goals is a much more insidious one: finding a weapon for shutting down SpaceX. This concern of mine might be overstated, but remember, almost our entire academic community is rabidly leftist and made up of partisan Democrats. They hate Musk for his politics, and have been aggressively looking for ways to hurt him. This sound study is just another tool in that war.

9 comments

NASA’s annual audit is not only not as great as NASA claims, it illustrates how the poison of DEI permeates the agency

3:43 pm

Not all is well at NASA
Not everything is as great as NASA claims

Yesterday NASA issued a press release proudly announcing that its annual independent audit of NASA’s finances concluded “for the 14th consecutive year … an unmodified, or ‘clean,’ opinion [of] its fiscal year 2024 financial statements.”

The rating is the best possible audit opinion, certifying that NASA’s financial statements conform with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for federal agencies and accurately present the agency’s financial position. The audit opinion reaffirms the agency’s commitment to transparency in the use of American taxpayers’ dollars.

In reading the actual financial statements and auditor’s report (available here [pdf]), I found however that all is not “clean”, as NASA claims. Two issues of concern — one financial and the other political — are well buried in the report and should be quickly dealt with by the upcoming Trump administration.

Sloppy bookkeeping

First, the independent auditor, Ernst & Young, found that NASA’s internal control system designed to track spending was not quite up to par. From pages 90-91 of the report:
» Read more

10 comments

Rocket startup ABL abandons its effort to build a rocket

12:42 pm

The rocket startup ABL, which had one failed launch attempt and a second failure during a static fire test, announced yesterday in a long tweet on X that it is abandoning its effort to build a rocket and will instead use its assets to provide products to the military.

[W]e have made the decision to focus our efforts on national defense, and specifically on missile defense technologies. We’ll have more to share soon on our roadmap and traction in this area. For now, suffice to say we see considerable opportunity to leverage RS1, GS0, the E2 engine, and the rest of the technology we’ve developed to date to enable a new type of research effort around missile defense technologies.

In other words, they are repurposing their RS1 rocket for missile technology.

The company’s announcement claims this decision is partly because the competition from established companies diminished its opportunity to gain market share, but I think its real problem was twofold. First, failure breeds failure. ABL’s rocket failures, combined with its very slow response after each failure, probably caused a shrinkage in investment capital. For example, one of its biggest investors had been Lockheed Martin, which had signed ABL up for a big launch contract. ABL’s failure to get its rocket off the ground however had Lockheed switch rocket companies, signing a new launch deal with Firefly in 2024. ABL had thus lost its biggest customer.

Second, as a new company with a rocket under development, it probably faced heavy regulatory burdens getting new launch licenses. The FAA under its “steamlined” Part 450 regulations probably required new license applications every time the company realized it needed to redesign something, and that red tape made it difficult to move forward.

In any new industry one must expect a shake-out to occur whereby many of the startups fail or get absorbed by others. This is natural. It is unfortunate however that government regulation has become an unnecessary and unnatural factor in this shake-out.

Leave a comment

SpaceX scraps its land swap offer to Texas

10:11 am

SpaceX has decided to scrap its land swap offer to Texas, whereby the company would have given the state 477 acres of wildlife land it owns elsewhere in exchange for ownership of 43 acres of state park land adjacent to its Boca Chica facility.

In a Sept. 26 letter seen by Bloomberg News, SpaceX Vice President Sheila McCorkle told the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department that the company “is no longer interested in pursuing the specific arrangement.”

In exchange for SpaceX getting the 43 acres, the company would have given the state some 477 acres of its land near Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, around 10 miles away. The land could have given Texans access for hiking, camping and other recreational purposes, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission said. In March, the commission approved the deal.

Environmental activists worry their fight’s not over with SpaceX and Musk, who has achieved newfound political power through his close ties to President-elect Donald Trump. “We’re concerned that he has something bigger and more disruptive to the beach and to the wildlife in mind,” Bekah Hinojosa, a representative from the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, an advocacy group, said in an interview. [emphasis mine]

The blind opposition of these leftist activists to Musk and anything he does has merely caused them to cut off their nose to spite their face. SpaceX’s proposal would have given the public a much larger wildlife area that was also far enough away from Boca Chica to allow its use all the time. Now the state is stuck with 43 acres of state park land that is going to be useless whenever Starship/Superheavy launches.

The lawsuits against this swap claimed it violated the Texas constitution. My guess is that SpaceX decided it wasn’t worth fighting this battle. Or maybe it is now playing hardball in negotiations. These activists do not have the support of the local community, which wants SpaceX’s operations to be successful. By scrapping the plan now SpaceX might be acting to force the Texas legislature to change the law to make the land swap legally acceptable.

One comment

SpaceX and Amazon take their lawsuits against the NLRB to a higher court

9:58 am

NLRB logo

Both SpaceX and Amazon have now brought their lawsuits questioning the very constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Boards (NLRB) enforcement structure to the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The two companies—founded by the world’s two richest men—will each square off against the [NLRB] that protects workers’ unionizing rights during separate oral argument sessions at the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Nov. 18.

The Fifth Circuit has played a central role in the intensifying constitutional attacks on the NLRB. District courts in Texas, one of three states covered by the Fifth Circuit, have granted the only preliminary injunctions to block agency proceedings based on constitutional arguments.

A lower court judge has already ruled in favor of SpaceX’s lawsuit [pdf], stating that “Under binding precedent, this Court is satisfied that SpaceX has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its claims that Congress has impermissibly protected both the NLRB Members and the NLRB ALJs [administrative law judges] from the President’s Article II power of removal.”

The arguments by both Amazon and SpaceX were greatly strengthened by the Supreme Court’s decision in June 2024, ruling that the SEC’s use of administrative law judges is unconstitutional. Much of that ruling’s logic applies directly to this NLRB case.

One comment

FAA forming new committee to revise its launch licensing regulations

9:14 am

The timing is interesting: The FAA yesterday announced that it wishes to form a committee of “members of the commercial space industry and academia” to revise its Part 450 launch license regulations that were introduced in 2021 supposedly to streamline the process but have instead served to squelch innovation and new rocket startups significantly.

“The FAA is seeking to update the licensing rule to foster more clarity, flexibility, efficiency, and innovation,” said FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation Kelvin B. Coleman. “Making timely licensing determinations without compromising public safety is a top priority.”

The Part 450 rule was developed to streamline the regulations, reduce the number of times an operator would need to come to the FAA for a license approval and decrease the need for the FAA to process waivers, among other goals.

The committee will consist of members of the commercial space industry and academia and will focus on nine topics, including flight safety analyses, system safety, and means of compliance. It is expected to submit a report with recommended changes to Part 450 rule by late summer 2025. The FAA would then use the recommendations to plan future rulemaking actions. [emphasis mine]

The highlighted words are a lie. While established rockets might have benefited — allowing more launches, Part 450 has practically squelched new development because it forces companies to undergo lengthy reviews every time they attempt to introduce any new technology or redesign to their rockets. SpaceX’s experience with Starship/Superheavy is only the tip of the iceberg, because the company is big enough that it has been able to survive these reviews and push on. Almost all of the new rocket startups that were on the verge of launching in 2020, before Part 450 went into effect, have either delayed launches for years or gone bankrupt.

The FAA hopes to conduct the first meeting of this new committee by the first week in December. It apparently realizes that the Trump administration is going to demand a major change in Part 450 (possibly a complete repeal), and the agency wishes to get ahead of this to maybe fix things.

One comment

NASA begins search for new headquarters building

9:01 am

NASA yesterday announced that — because its present lease expires in August 2028 — it is seeking proposals for a new headquarters building in the Washington, DC region.

NASA is asking for responses from members of the development community, local and state jurisdictions, academia, other federal agencies, commercial aerospace partners, and other interested parties to help inform its decision.

Needs for a new headquarters includes approximately 375,000 to 525,000 square feet of office space to house NASA’s workforce. The desired location is within walking distance to a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority station. In addition, the new location also needs parking options, as well as convenient access to food establishments.

It seems to me that this is an ideal opportunity to reduce the size of NASA’s management structure. Since the agency has largely accepted the idea of capitalism in space, whereby it builds almost nothing but instead gets what it needs in the private sector, much of its large overhead and staffing that presently exists and was created when NASA attempted to do it all is now unneeded and is actually redundant. Rather than replace and expand NASA’s present headquarters, which appears to be the agency’s goal, the Trump administration should shrink its size, significantly.

Not only would the taxpayer save money, NASA would be further forced to use the private sector for its needs, thus fueling the growth of that aerospace industry. And for those laid off, they will likely have no trouble getting jobs in this new energized private sector.

All in all, such a reduction would be a win-win, for everyone.

9 comments

China launches Tianzhou cargo freighter to its Tiangong-3 space station

8:50 am

China today successfully launched a new Tianzhou cargo freighter to its Tiangong-3 space station, its Long March 7 rocket lifting off from its coastal Wenchang spaceport.

The leaders in the 2024 launch race:

114 SpaceX
53 China
13 Russia
12 Rocket Lab

American private enterprise still leads the rest of the world combined in successful launches 132 to 79, while SpaceX by itself leads the entire world, including American companies, 114 to 97.

One comment

NASA reveals that it and Russia disagree about the danger posed by the airleak on ISS

8:54 am

Figure 3 from IG report
Figure 3 from September Inspector General report, annotated by me to show Zvezda location.

In a public session yesterday by a NASA commission focused on accessing the safety condition of ISS, officials revealed that the commission and Russia disagree about the root causes behind the airleak and cracks in the docking section of the Zvezda module on the Russian half of ISS, as well as the risk of a catastrophic failure. According to the commission’s head, former astronaut Bob Cabana.

The Russian position is that the most probable cause of the PrK cracks is high cyclic fatigue caused by micro vibrations. NASA believes the PrK cracks are likely multi-causal including pressure and mechanical stress, residual stress, material properties and environmental exposures.

The Russians believe that continued operations are safe, but they can’t prove that to our satisfaction. The U.S. believes that it’s not safe, but we can’t prove that to Russian satisfaction that that’s the case. So while the Russian team continues to search for and seal the leaks, it does not believe catastrophic disintegration of the PrK is realistic and NASA has expressed concerns about structural integrity of the PrK and the possibility of a catastrophic failure.

Because of this disagreement American astronauts now close the hatch between the Russian and American halves of ISS whenever a docking to Zvezda is taking place, and apparently keep that hatch closed until unloading of the docked spacecraft is complete. The Russians in turn only open the hatch to the docking section of Zvezda when they need to load or unload material into the freighter docked there, and coordinate with American astronauts whenever they do so.

Engineers from the two nations continue to discuss the issue, and hope to result their disagreement and come up with a joint plan.

Ultimately, this issue indicates the certain end of ISS in the near future, and adds ugency to the need to get some of those commercial space stations operating in orbit.

7 comments

Pakistan to fly a small rover on China’s Chang’e-8 lunar lander

8:36 am

In an agreement signed yesterday, the Space and Upper Atmo­sphere Research Comm­ission (Suparco) in Pakistan announced it will collaborate with China to build a small rover that will to fly on China’s Chang’e-8 lunar lander.

The lander is present scheduled to land near the Moon’s south pole in 2030, will be China’s second lander to the south pole region, and will also act to officially establish China’s International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) on the lunar surface. It will also include a “hopper” to explore the nearby surface.

Pakistan had already signed on to China’s space alliance to build the ILRS. China’s present list of partners is as follows: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela. That partnership also includes about eleven academic or governmental bureaucracies.

One comment

Denmark joins the Artemis Accords

8:27 am

In a signing ceremony yesterday in Copenhagen, Denmark became the 48th nation to sign the Artemis Accords.

The full list of nations now part of this American space alliance: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Ukraine, the United States and Uruguay.

With this alliance established, the incoming Trump administration will have great political international leverage, increasing the chances it can finally use the accords to achieve its initial goal, to overcome the legal restrictions on private property imposed by the Outer Space Treaty.

Leave a comment

China and SpaceX complete morning launches

8:16 am

Both China and SpaceX today successfully completed morning launches.

First China launched an environmental satellite to study “ocean salinity,” its Long March 4B rocket lifting off from its Taiyuan spaceport in northeast China.

No word on where the rocket’s lower stages crashed inside China. All use very toxic hypergolic fuels, which can literally dissolve your skin.

Next SpaceX completed another launch of 23 Starlink satellites, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral in Florida. The first stage completed its eighteenth flight, landing on a drone ship in the Atlantic.

The leaders in the 2024 launch race:

114 SpaceX
52 China
13 Russia
12 Rocket Lab

American private enterprise now leads the rest of the world combined in successful launches 132 to 77, while SpaceX by itself leads the entire world, including American companies, 114 to 95.

Leave a comment

Major court decision could invalidate many federal environmental regulations

1:54 pm

In what could be a major legal ruling [pdf], a two-judge decision this week in the DC Circuit Court ruled that the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which has for years imposed environmental rules on other federal agencies based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), does not have the statutory authority to do so, thus invalidating every regulation so imposed.

All three members of the three-judge panel agreed that the Agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in [in this particular case]. However, before reaching that conclusion, the majority analyzed whether the CEQ regulations the Agencies followed in adopting the plan were valid, an argument not raised by any of the parties. The majority held, sua sponte, that because there is no statute stating or suggesting that US Congress has empowered the CEQ to issue rules binding on other agencies, the CEQ has no lawful authority to promulgate such regulations.

…Although this decision does not explicitly vacate any action taken by the CEQ, it does establish a precedent that CEQ rules lack statutory authorization, and therefore that other agency actions taken under the CEQ framework are at risk of being vacated. If this decision is not overturned by the full appellate court sitting en banc or by the US Supreme Court, it has the potential to completely change the landscape of NEPA review.

The case is complicated, partly because the Byzantine nature of the federal bureaucracy and the many agencies involved. (It is almost as if these agencies created that complexity to confuse and protect themselves.)

The heart of the decision is that CEQ was apparently first created as an “advisory” body to help other federal agencies follow the intent of NEPA in their own rule-making, but instead soon became a “regulatory” body whose rulings other agencies were required to follow. As that authority was never given it by Congress, CEQ exceeded its authority by making its rulings mandatory.

This court decision will likely leave many agencies on their own in establishing environmental regulations, based on NEPA. However, even that regulatory ability faces limitations, based on the Supreme Court’s recent Chevron decision, which said that government agencies do not have right to promulgate new regulations that are not specifically described in congressional law.

In other words, Chevron says that the bureaucracy cannot make things up, based on its own vague opinions.

The trend of all these court rulings appears aimed at limiting the power of the federal bureaucracy. It will however take some time to determine how much that power is limited, as lawsuits begin to percolate through the courts. If there are lot of lawsuits (which does appear to be happening) we should therefore expect that power to be limited significanly.

9 comments

The dim future of SLS indicated at space business symposium

9:37 am

At a symposium in DC yesterday, a panel of past managers — all of whom had been involved in previous government transitions at NASA — attempted to predict what the consequences will be for NASA with the new Trump administration.

Most of the opinions were pure guesses, some better than others. The real moment of truth came when the entire panel was asked to predict the future of SLS and Orion. The question was put forth by one of the panelists, Lori Garver, who had been NASA’s deputy administrator during the Obama administration, and seemed to have the best understanding of how much the arrival of Trump will likely shake things up significantly.

At one point in the discussion, she asked the panel if they thought the Space Launch System and Orion programs would continue in the next administration. None of the panelists raised their hands. [emphasis mine]

Several of these panelists were big supporters of SLS. Their lack of confidence in its future tells us that SLS and Orion no longer have strong political backing in Washington. Both stand on thin ice.

I predict both will be shut down within the next year, before the next Artemis flight, the first to be manned, to be replaced with a entirely different manned space exploratory program to the Moon and Mars. The decision will be a smart one, but tragically late in coming. SLS should have been dumped years ago. If it had, the U.S. effort to return to the Moon would have been better off, moving forward with a better plan years earlier. Instead, this late decision will once again delay any manned lunar missions for years more.

The change however will be good in the long run, because I expect the new program will be better designed, more efficient, cost less, and be able to do what SLS promised but could never deliver. And it will be based on what private enterprise can accomplish, not a government designed behemoth designed mostly as pork.

4 comments

JPL to layoff 5% of its workforce, the third major layoff this year

9:10 am

JPL in California announced today a layoff of 325 workers, about 5% of its workforce, the third major layoff imposed this year.

The JPL press release indicates the layoffs are because of NASA budget cutbacks, but does not provide any specificity. The cause centers mostly around NASA’s decision to pause its Mars Sample Return project, which JPL was leading. From this report:

This is the third round of layoffs at JPL this year, a reduction spurred primarily by major budgetary cuts to the Mars Sample Return mission, which is managed by JPL. NASA directed $310 million this year to the effort to bring Mars rocks back to Earth, a steep drop from the $822.3 million it spent on the program the previous year.

In January, 100 on-site contractors at JPL were let go after NASA instructed the lab to reduce spending in anticipation of a much tighter budget. In February, the lab laid off 530 employees — approximately 8% of its workforce — and another 40 contractors.

It increasingly appears that JPL’s place in the redesigned mission could be significantly reduced.

The press release also makes it sound like these cutbacks are the end of the world. As JPL has mostly functioned for decades as a private institution attached to NASA almost like a government agency, no one there ever expects to get laid off. In the real world however layoffs such as this happen all the time, especially when a company fails to deliver. JPL in recent years has had budget and management problems, epitomized by the problems now seen with that sample return mission, so it should not be surprised by these cutbacks from NASA.

2 comments
1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 319