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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 comments

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

The American space stations under development

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

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

The officials repeatedly disagreed about the market issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 comments

Two launches since yesterday, by Russia and China

The launch beat goes on! Russia and China each completed launches since yesterday, with Russia first placing a classified military payload involving “multiple spacecraft”, its Soyuz-2 rocket lifting off from its Plesetsk spaceport in northeast Russia. The rocket’s flight path took it over the Arctic, so the core stage and four strap-on boosters fell harmlessly in the ocean.

Next, China placed what it claimed was a “high-precision greenhouse gas detection” satellite into orbit, its Long March 4C rocket lifting off from its Jiuquan spaceport in northwest China. China’s state-run press provided no other information. Nor did it indicate where the rocket’s lower stages, using very toxic hypergolic fuels, crashed inside China.

The leaders in the 2026 launch race:

46 SpaceX
21 China
6 Russia
5 Rocket Lab

For the third straight year SpaceX continues to lead the entire world combined in total launches, 46 to 37.

0 comments

Latvia to sign Artemis Accords

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

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

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

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

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

2 comments

India’s space agency: In ’25 it did 20 maneuvers to avoid collisions in space

India's space agency ISRO, as transparent as mud
India’s space agency ISRO.

India’s space agency ISRO today released its annual Space Situational Report, describing the collision possibilities that now exist due to the large increase in orbiting objects. According to this report, in 2025 ISRO did 20 maneuvers to avoid collisions in space.

More than 150,000 alerts issued by the Combined Space Operations Center (CSpOC) of USSPACECOM for ISRO’s Earth orbiting satellites were analysed using more accurate orbital data from operational flight dynamics. There were 4 collision avoidance maneuvers (CAM) for GEO [geosynchronous orbits], while 14 CAMs, including one for NISAR [A NASA/ISRO radar telescope], which is designated as Risk Mitigation Maneuver in NASA terminology, were performed for LEO [low Earth orbiting] satellites. Wherever feasible, collision avoidance requirements were met by adjusting orbit maintenance maneuvers to avoid exclusive CAMs.

In addition, ISRO had to twice shift the orbit of its Chandayaan-2 lunar orbiter because of an orbital conflict with NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).

The report has a lot more interesting details, as ISRO is also trying to increase its ability to track everything in orbit, rather than rely on data from the American military or American commercial tracking companies, which has been the policy in the past.

2 comments

Saxavord spaceport faces new regulatory and financial issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 comments

A review of India’s government space program suggests it is behind schedule

India's space agency ISRO, as transparent as mud
India’s space agency ISRO.

Link here. The main take-away of the article is that the investigation into the two launch failures of ISRO’s PSLV rocket has stalled everything, including the planned two unmanned orbital test missions of its Gaganyaan capsule, needed before the actual manned mission can fly in early 2027. The first was originally supposed to fly in March, but has been delayed pending completion of the investigation of the PSLV failures.

That investigation however has stalled far more than just Gaganyaan:

The Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), which had announced an aggressive manifest of 18 launches for 2026, has so far completed only one in the first four months of the year, and that mission [PSLV] ended in failure.

The article also notes a decline in ISRO’S transparency in recent months, a decline that bodes ill for the agency and its programs. I have noted this as well. When ISRO in February 2026 announced the next PSLV launch for this coming June, it released no information from its investigation of the previous two launch failures. If ISRO knows what went wrong, it wasn’t saying. All it has told us so far is that the cause of the two launch failures was for different reasons.

1 comment

A very interesting and revealing interview of NASA administrator Jared Issacman

Jared Isaacman
NASA administrator Jared Isaacman

Link here. I found this interview with NASA administrator Jared Issacman to be very informative and worth reading, especially in regards to his comments on the proposed cuts to NASA’s budget.

First, he admits right off the bat that the heat shield was his biggest concern during the Artemis-2 mission. He also took a swipe at past NASA management over this issue. After noting that the initial inspection of the Artemis-2 shield after recovery showed it experienced little serious damage, he added this: “All that aside, if you’re going to wait three and a half years between missions, just replace the heat shield.” In other words, after Artemis-1 NASA management dithered when it saw the damaged heat shield. It should have immediately moved to replace it.

As for the proposed Trump budget cuts and the opposition to those cuts by many in Congress, Issacman said this:

There’s a lot of passionate people out here [referring I think to the space industry and its advocates]. They can do incredible things, from a scientific perspective. I don’t know how many of them have ever pulled together a financial model, and driven execution on some of these things to say what should or shouldn’t be the right budget.

Now, all that said, of course, we will maximize every dollar that Congress affords to the agency. But it is not healthy, for the agency, to get in this mindset that we have to spend our way out of every problem. And I don’t think it’s good for the country to think we have to print our way out of every problem. [emphasis mine]

This is not the first time Isaacman has indicated he thinks NASA can survive these cuts, and in fact can do as well if not better by using what it gets more wisely. It is however the first time he has put NASA’s budget in the context of the entire federal budget, which is badly out of control. Isaacman does not want more money from Congress because he thinks it is bad for the nation to spend itself into debt. He thinks he has enough to do the job.

The entire interview is worth reading. It indicates a very practical and honest mindset. Everyone might not agree with every proposal Isaacman has put forth, but he is clearly approaching things from a very good place.

31 comments

Three launches today, two by SpaceX and one by China

The launch beat goes on! First, China launched eight satellites using its Kinetic-1 (Lijian-1) rocket, lifting off from its Jiuquan spaceport in northwest China. China’s state-run press provide no further information about the satellites, nor did it provide information about where the rocket’s lower stages crashed inside China.

Next, SpaceX completed two Starlink launches on opposite coasts. First it placed 29 Starlink satellites in orbit, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The first stage completed its 26th flight, 42 days after its previous flight, landing on a drone ship in the Atlantic.

The company then did its second launch of the day, placing 25 Starlink satellites into orbit, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The first stage completed its 21st flight, 45 days after its previous flight and landing on a drone ship in the Pacific.

The leaders in the 2026 launch race:

46 SpaceX
20 China
5 Rocket Lab
5 Russia

For the third straight year SpaceX continues to lead the entire world combined in total launches, 46 to 35.

2 comments

Space Force selects Blue Origin as possible lessor of “Sudden Flats” site at Vandenberg for future heavy lift rocket launches

Vandenberg Space Force Base

The Space Force has chosen Blue Origin to help develop the plans and possibly lease the “Sudden Flats” site — also dubbed Space Launch Complex-14 (SLC-14) — at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California for the launch of heavy lift commercial rockets.

The location is shown in the map to the right. The Space Force had requested proposals for developing the site in December 2025.

Respondents were evaluated based on technical capability, financial maturity and alignment with U.S. government requirements. The selection of Blue Origin reflects their ability to meet these criteria and contribute to the development of heavy or super-heavy launch capabilities at Vandenberg Space Force Base.

SLC-14 is considered the most viable site at [Vandenberg] for heavy and super-heavy launch operations due to its location.

Several crucial milestones must be achieved before any construction or launch activities can commence, to include safety assessments and an environmental impact analysis. The timeline for increased launch activity will depend on the completion of the safety and environmental analysis and subsequent infrastructure development.

I suspect that Blue Origin won this bid because SpaceX didn’t offer a proposal. It already has three launch sites for Starship/Superheavy, and probably decided it didn’t need this site.

Blue Origin meanwhile in November 2025 announced planned upgrades to its New Glenn rocket that would make it as powerful as NASA’s SLS rocket, but much cheaper because its first stage is reusable. The company is likely hoping to build that rocket, dubbed New Glenn 9×4 (based on the number of engines on the first and second stages respectively), and launch it from this site.

12 comments

Orion survives re-entry, crew splashes down safe

Orion just after main parachute deployment
Orion just after main parachute deployment

Orion successfully survived re-entry tonight with its questionable heat shield, with the capsule splashing down off the coast of California at 8:07 pm (Eastern).

All four astronauts are healthy and safe. As of posting they were still in the capsule, floating on the ocean, with recovery crews on their way to it. [Update: those recovery crews, six boats with more than 40 people, are taking an ungodly amount of time to latch onto the capsule and begin recovery. Over an hour after splashdown the crew is still in the capsule.]

The Artemis-2 mission is now over, though the final condition of that heat shield still needs to be analyzed. In addition, engineers need figure out how to fix a bunch of other issues that took place during the mission:

  • A leak in an internal helium tank on Europe’s service module
  • Communication drop-outs several times
  • the endless issues with Orion’s toilet

There were other minor issues that cropped up repeatedly, none significant but all of which should be fixed. And though it will be helpful to determine how this heat shield performed, it should be noted that the data is essentially irrelevant to future missions. The next mission, Artemis-3, will use a completely different design, and test it for the first time on a manned flight. That flight however will be in Earth orbit, so the stress on the shield will be far less than this return, even with the changed re-entry path.

Though many will call this lunar fly-by “historic,” it will likely be little remembered by future generations. It did little to move the settlement of the solar system forward. No truly useful engineering was tested. The rocket and capsule are engineering dead-ends. Neither will be of much use for establishing colonies on the Moon or Mars, as SLS is still too expensive and too difficult to stack and launch and Orion is too small for any interplanetary missions, being nothing more than an overweight and very expensive ascent/descent capsule.

The only plus of this mission is that it will likely give NASA’s administrator, Jared Isaacman, the political clout to institute major changes in the entire Artemis program, changes that could make the American colonization of the solar system more likely. There are strong indications that he wants to make better use of the private sector.

And that private sector is poised to bypass NASA, regardless of what NASA wants or tries to do, with capabilities far better then anything we have seen since the Apollo program.

56 comments
1 5 6 7 8 9 838