Tag: regulation

Is the fate of the independent live streams in Boca Chica uncertain?

12:52 pm

My headline paraphrases this interesting, very detailed, and largely accurate article today from Texas Monthly. It outlines how the newly formed town of Starbase there has the power to block the many independent lives streams and tourist operations that have sprung up since SpaceX opened its facility in Boca Chica.

This proxy government also has the power to create zoning rules and enforce them. In July the city adopted a plan that leaves those with the closest views of the launchpads in violation of new zoning designations. The mainstay launch-day ticket sellers here—Rocket Ranch and a few others—operate in what’s now officially a residential area, near newly built homes for SpaceX executives. The same violation applies to the spots where the streamers have mounted their video cameras.

These cottage industries aren’t doomed. Texas law has grandfathering provisions that allow existing businesses to remain open after zoning changes. But Starbase city attorney Andy Messer raised eyebrows during a recent city commission meeting by saying that the grandfathering would be considered on a “case-by-case basis.” Hearing this, some property owners expressed hesitation to approach the city to ask if their status was in question. “I don’t want to poke the bear,” as one put it.

Will SpaceX force the town of Starbase to shut these independent operations down? The article describes the possibilities in great detail. The very nature of SpaceX and its founder, Elon Musk, suggests it won’t happen. The company thrives on openness and straight talk. Musk himself is a proven supporter of free speech and competition. It would be shocking if his company suddenly took a different position. Moreover, SpaceX, Starbase, or its residents (almost all of which are SpaceX employees) generally benefit from the good publicity of these independent operations, publicity that the company’s own employees enjoy.

Yet, Starbase is a company town, and the long history of such places is that with time, the company takes over and rules everything, allowing nothing that it does not control.

Stay tuned. Above all things won’t be dull in Boca Chica.

Hat tip Robert Pratt of Pratt on Texas.

6 comments

Gilmour to attempt first launch again next year

2:53 pm

Eris rocket launch and failure
Eris rocket falling sideways from launchpad
(indicated by red dot). Click for video, cued
to just before launch.

According to a presentation by the CEO and founder of Australian rocket startup Gilmour Space, the company now sufficiently understands what caused the failure on its first launch attempt on July 30 to plan a second attempt in 2026.

The company is still investigating the root cause of the failure. “It looks like what went wrong on the launch is something we’ve never tested close enough to the launch conditions before,” he said, but didn’t elaborate.

One factor in the launch was the long delay between shipping the rocket to the launch site, known as the Bowen Orbital Spaceport, and the launch itself. “Rockets aren’t designed to be at the launch site for 18 months,” he said. The launch site, he noted, is just a kilometer from the ocean, creating salty conditions that can be corrosive.

That extended time at the launch site stemmed from delays securing regulatory approvals for the launch. That included not just a launch license from the Australian Space Agency but also airspace, maritime and environmental permits. “We had to get 24 different permits from the Queensland government,” Gilmour said. “All of these things take a long time to do.” He acknowledged that the company had not put enough resources into those regulatory processes. “The approval processes just took way too long.”

What is ironic is that as bad as Australia appears to be in terms of red tape, it is far better that it mother country, Great Britain. At least in Australia spaceports have been approved and at least one launch has taken place. And it only took eighteen months! In Great Britain the permitting process for its two proposed rocket spaceports has taken almost a decade, and still no vertical launches have occurred at either.

2 comments

International Astronautical Congress meeting in Australia produces several international agreements

9:40 am

During the International Astronautical Congress meeting that is going on in Sydney, Australia this week, a number of countries have signed agreements calling for a variety of partnerships.

None of the agreements appear to include any significant new projects. All suggest a desire to work together to foster development in their commercial space industries. The number of agreements with Australia is a reflection of the conference’s location in Sidney.

The most amusing agreement is the last, between the UK and Australia. The governments of both of these Commonwealth nations have had serious problems with red tape that have hindered commercial development, especially in the UK. The agreement expands a UK government grant program worth about $9 million so that Australian startups can win grants. It apparently does nothing to ease the red tape in either nation.

Leave a comment

FAA releases proposed revisions to environmental assessment at Boca Chica to accomodate full orbital testing and return of both Superheavy and Starship

12:33 pm

The planned return trajectories for both Superheavy and Starship
The planned return trajectories for both
Superheavy and Starship

The FAA today released [pdf] a new draft of the environmental assessment of SpaceX’s Superheavy/Starship operations at Boca Chica that will allow for full orbital flights as well as for both to return to that launchpad.

The two maps to the right show the two planned return paths for Superheavy (top) and Starship (bottom) as it comes back from orbit. In both cases the ships will return to Boca Chica to be caught by tower chopsticks. The reassessment analyzed the impacts of these trajectories, including its impact on aviation traffic, and concluded the proposal was acceptable. From its conclusion:

The 2022 PEA [Programmatic Environmental Assessment] and April 2025 Tiered EA [environmental assessment] examined the potential for significant environmental impacts from Starship-Super Heavy launch operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site and defined the regulatory setting for impacts associated with Starship-Super Heavy. The areas evaluated for environmental impacts in this Tiered EA include aviation emissions and air quality; noise and noise-compatible land use; hazardous materials; and socioeconomics. In each of these areas, the FAA has concluded that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. [emphasis mine]

This approval is still only a draft. It must go through a public comment period, ending October 20, 2025. There will also be a virtual public meeting on October 7, 2025. Information about submitting comments or participating in that virtual meeting can be found here.

Such meetings are likely to see the leftist anti-Musk crowd come out in droves, screeching how we are all gonna die if these launches are allowed. The FAA will nod its head, and then ignore the Chicken Littles and approve this plan.

The plan itself tells us that SpaceX is definitely gearing up the first orbital flights of Starship next year, along with the first attempts to catch it with the tower chopsticks.

One comment

Court throws out environmental lawsuit against SpaceX, FAA, and Starship/Superheavy

8:45 am

The federal district court judge for the District of Columbia yesterday dismissed entirely the environmental lawsuit that had been filed against SpaceX and the FAA by anti-Musk activists following the first orbital test launch of Starship/Superheavy.

More details here. The lawsuit itself [pdf] was filed in 2023, claiming that the FAA’s environmental assessment of SpaceX’s activities at Boca Chica would do no harm to the environment were wrong.

SpaceX activities authorized in the FONSI/ROD [the environmental reassessment issued last year] have and will adversely affect the surrounding wildlife habitat and communities. In addition to harm from construction activities and increased vehicle traffic, rocket launches result in intense heat, noise, and light pollution. Furthermore, the rocket launches and testing result in explosions which spread debris across surrounding habitat and cause brush/forest fires — including one that recently burned 68 acres of adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. The FAA calls these explosions “anomalies,” but in fact they occur frequently, with at least 8 over the past 5 years. FAA acknowledged that many more such “anomalies” are expected over the next 5 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has found that prior SpaceX rocket explosions harmed protected wildlife and designated habitat in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

At the time I noted this:

In other words, rockets and launch sites should never be placed inside wildlife refuges, because such activity is detrimental to wildlife.

A more false statement cannot be made. Under this conclusion the launch facilities at Cape Canaveral, which have been operating in the middle of a wildlife refuge now for more than six decades, should be shut down immediately. All the wildlife there must certainly be dead!

We have almost three-quarters of a century of empirical data in both Florida and California that spaceports are clearly beneficial to wildlife, because they actually create the refuge by reserving large areas where development cannot occur. This court decision merely confirms reality, something it appears increasingly the left doesn’t have much grasp of.

4 comments

New study of 300,000 people in Italy proves COVID jab caused gigantic increase in cancer cases

1:23 pm

Figure 1 from the study
Figure 1 from the study. Click for original. Anything
to the right of the vertical line indicates an increase
cancer diagnoses.

As noted bluntly by Health & Human Services secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr. at a Senate hearing last week, “We were lied to about everything:” A new study of the entire population 11 years and older of a single province in Italy, 300,000 people in total, has now proven that the mRNA COVID jab results in a terrifying and skyrocketing increase in the numbers of cancer cases.

The researchers found that “vaccinated” individuals had far higher hospitalization rates for new cancer diagnoses than the unvaccinated, particularly for breast, bladder, and colorectal cancers. Hospitalizations for cancer were 35% higher in the vaccinated (HR 1.23). The risk spike was strongest among men and those with no prior COVID infection.

  • Overall Cancer Risk: +23% after just one dose
  • Breast Cancer: +54% increased risk
  • Bladder Cancer: +62% increased risk
  • Colorectal Cancer: +35% increased risk

The researchers warn that the danger persisted and continued increasing after multiple doses.

In other words, the entire world is now facing a possibly major increase in cancer cases and a significant lowering of life expectancy, because it panicked in 2020 over a respiratory virus comparable to the flu. Those few voices (such as mine) that tried to resist that panic and call for a reasoned response were routinely blacklisted and silenced, and the result is now an impending disaster, on top of the catastrophes we have already suffered due to lockdowns, social distancing, and mask and jab mandates.

Kennedy summed up this situation quite well at that Senate hearing on September, 4, 2025. He was attacked ruthlessly over and over again by Democratic Party senators, only to hit them back twice as hard, noting how they are all in the pay of the pharmaceutical companies that make the jab, bribes totaling millions. He started however with this stark condemnation:
» Read more

30 comments

SpaceX gets FAA approval to double its annual launches from Cape Canaveral

9:02 am

After several years of paperwork, the FAA yesterday approved SpaceX’s request to double its launch rate at the Space Force’s Cape Canaveral spaceport.

In addition to the annual launch increase from 50 launches to up to 120, the Federal Aviation Administration’s environmental review also approved a new on-site landing zone that could accommodate up to 34 booster landings per year. These boosters are the reusable first-stage portions of Falcon 9 rockets that SpaceX lands and refurbishes for future flights.

The review, finalized on Wednesday, found what’s known as a “Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact,” meaning the proposed changes “would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment” under federal law, with impacts reduced by specific protective measures. [emphasis mine]

The highlighted words illustrate the absurdity of these environmental reviews. We know without doubt and without any major review that rocket launches do no harm to the environment or wildlife. We have seven decades of data in Florida proving it.

According to the article both the FAA and the Space Force still need to issue further approvals before this request can go forward. Expect the Space Force to agree, without much bother. The FAA needs to amend SpaceX’s launch licenses, and this should also happen relatively quick, especially with Trump as president.

One comment

An interesting look at why the British government decided to eliminate its space agency

8:55 am

Gone, and likely soon to be forgotten
Gone, and likely soon to be forgotten

Link here. The article depends almost entirely on anonymous sources, but unlike most propaganda news stories which typically use such sources to push one pro-government perspective, this article includes sources from a range of viewpoints.

According to those sources who wanted the UK Space Agency (UKSA) gone, the agency was eliminated last month because it simply had not been very effective in building up Great Britain’s space industry. First, it was too focused on doing what the European Space Agency wanted.

The U.K. has had a different approach to space than its European counterparts, such as Germany, France and Italy, the source explained. Historically, the U.K. has dedicated most of its resources to the European Space Agency (ESA) rather than pursuing a multipronged approach involving a strong domestic space program and bilateral partnerships independent of ESA. Therefore, over 80% of UKSA’s budget has been placed into ESA. The perception in the government was that UKSA was acting more in line with ESA’s wishes than with the U.K. government’s needs, the source added.

Second, it not only did nothing to alleviate the red tape hampering the industry, its existence added a layer that made things worse. Numerous studies and hearings before Parliament in the past five years have bewailed the situation. The inability of the rocket companies to get launch licenses — for years — proved their correctness.

Meanwhile, the anonymous sources opposing the agency’s elimination argued that without it Great Britain will be in a weaker position negotiating with its ESA partners as well as projecting itself internationally in the space field.
» Read more

6 comments

Court rules in favor of SpaceX’s lawsuit against the NLRB’s legal status

9:36 am

NLRB logo
Now standing on feet of clay.

The Fifth Circuit of the US. Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) unfair labor practice cases against SpaceX and two other companies should remain suspended until the legal challenges by those companies to the NLRB’s legal authority is settled.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said Tuesday that being subjected to an unconstitutional administrative proceeding was an irreparable harm that justified preliminary injunctions halting NLRB cases. “The Employers have made their case and should not have to choose between compliance and constitutionality,” Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, wrote for the court. “When an agency’s structure violates the separation of powers, the harm is immediate—and the remedy must be, too.”

You can read the court decision here [pdf].
» Read more

One comment

Starmer government consolidates the UK Space Agency into larger agency

9:08 am

Gone, and likely soon to be forgotten
Soon to be gone, and likely forgotten

The Starmer Labor government in the United Kingdom today announced that it is stripping the UK Space Agency of its independent status and absorbing it into a larger agency, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology,

Taking place by April 2026, the new unit will keep the UK Space Agency (UKSA) name and brand and will be staffed by experts from both organisations. This will drive up efficiency in line with the government’s Plan for Change, cutting red tape and making Whitehall more agile.

Today also sees the publication of over 60 recommendations from industry leaders on how to improve regulation for space missions, including Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPO) – where spacecraft work together in orbit.

The press release is filled with similar language extolling this bureaucratic change as guaranteeing a reduction of the red tape that has squelched the space industry in the United Kingdom, but a close review should make us all highly skeptical. The link for those “60 recommendations” lists nothing of a kind. Instead, it provides a second link to a report describing a government simulation of a licensing process for a commercial rendezvous and proximity satellite mission (RPO) (working with three different commercial companies) which is filled with bureaucratic language that is practically incomprehensible. For example, from the executive summary:
» Read more

Leave a comment

California’s Coastal Commission again rejects an increase in SpaceX’s launch rate at Vandenberg

9:21 am

Wants to be a dictator
Wants to be a dictator

As expected, the California Coastal Commission yesterday again rejected the proposed doubling of launches by SpaceX at the Vandenberg Space Force Base, from 50 to 100 launches per year, claiming this time it would destroy the environment.

“The sonic booms and their impacts on California’s people, wildlife and property are extremely concerning,” Commissioner Linda Escalante said at a hearing Thursday in Calabasas. “The negative impacts on public access, natural resources and environmental health warrant our scrutiny under California as a standard of review.”

The commissioners and its staff also argued that the launches were not related to national security or military purposes, but instead acted “to expand SpaceX’s commercial telecommunications network rather than serve federal agencies.” See the staff report [pdf] issued prior to the meeting.

The simple fact remains that it is a privately owned company engaged in activities primarily for its own commercial business. It is not a public federal agency or conducting its launches on
behalf of the federal government. It should therefore be regulated accordingly. [emphasis mine]

How dare SpaceX try to make a profit as a private company in America? And how dare the Space Force act as a servant of the people to provide this private company service? What have we come to?! Is communism and top-down authoritarian rule no longer America’s fundamental purpose?

Nor are the claims of the commission about the environment valid. » Read more

11 comments

Trump orders the federal agencies regulating space to review and streamline regulations

9:47 am

Trump defiant after being shot
Trump’s war with the swamp continues

Fight! Fight! Fight! In a new executive order issued yesterday, President Trump tasked NASA and the Transportation, Commerce, and Defense departments to work together to review and streamline the present regulations that have been hindering the American space industry for the past four years.

A summary of the order can be found here.

The order specifically tasks Transportation secretary Sean Duffy to review and streamline the regulations related to launches and re-entry, as well as the environmental requirements that were imposed during the Biden administration requiring numerous environment impact statements for practically any new project and even when an established project gets revised slightly. It has been these new rules that squashed the efforts of almost all the new American rocket companies during the Biden administration.

The order also demands that Commerce, Transportation, Defense, and NASA review the laws relating to coastal management that have allowed the states to block “spaceport infrastructure development.” All these agencies are also required to review their licensing rules to eliminate duplication while also eliminating rules that impede “novel space activities (missions not clearly or straightforwardly governed by existing regulatory frameworks).”

Finally, the order establishes a new position at the FAA but reporting directly to the Transportation secretary who will be expressly focused in following through on these regulatory reforms, with the primary goal to aid the commercial space industry.

While this order changes no specific regulations, it now forces the bureaucracy toward change, with deadlines set for action ranging from two to six months. Expect whole swathes of regulations and licensing requirements to disappear in the coming months. We might even see new rocket companies finally resume launches, something that ceased during the Biden years.

One comment

Starlink now available in Israel

9:20 am

After a year of regulatory paperwork, the Israel government has finally allowed SpaceX to offer Starlink to customers in Israel proper, but not in the West Bank or Gaza.

The company received an operating license from the Communications Ministry last year, following lengthy negotiations and regulatory procedures, but its launch was delayed until now. The restriction on coverage in the West Bank and Gaza is likely due to security concerns over potential use by hostile actors.

Expect the usual leftist anti-Semites to accuse Israel of bigotry for excluding access to Palestinians, but until those Palestinians show some willingness to live with Israel in peace (something they so far show no signs in doing, especially in Gaza), this policy makes perfect sense.

19 comments

California Coastal Commission to reconsider SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch proposal

10:12 am

The California Coastal Commission has now scheduled a meeting on August 14, 2025 to reconsider SpaceX’s request to double its launch rate at Vandenberg Space Force Base from 50 to 100 launches per year.

Though it has no real authority over the base, and though the Space Force has indicated it has no objections to SpaceX’s proposal, the commission rejected that increase in a 6-4 vote in October 2024, but did so not because the commissioners thought it would harm California’s beaches, but because they did not like Elon Musk’s endorsement and campaigning for Donald Trump during the election campaign.

SpaceX has subsequently sued, with a judge ruling two weeks ago that the suit can go forward. Based on the statements made by commissioners in October, SpaceX has an excellent case, and will likely win in court.

It appears the commission is now acting to possibly stave off that suit. The article at the link also notes that the make-up of the commission has changed since that October meeting, with at least one of the commissioners who expressed the most hate against Elon Musk, Gretchen Newsom, is no longer a member.

At the same time, the hostility to Musk and SpaceX for environmental reasons appears to still exist within the commission. Either way, in the end SpaceX’s launch rate at Vandenberg is going to increase, since the military is agreeable to the change.

5 comments

Study identifies range of interference produced by Starlink satellites

8:58 am

In analyzing about 76 million radio images produced by the new Square Kilometer Array (SKA) in Australia scientists have found within them signals produced by SpaceX’s Starlink satellites.

PhD candidate and study lead Dylan Grigg said the team detected more than 112,000 radio emissions from 1806 Starlink satellites, making it the most comprehensive catalogue of satellite radio emissions at low frequencies to date. “Starlink is the most immediate and frequent source of potential interference for radio astronomy: it launched 477 satellites during this study’s four-month data collection period alone,” Mr Grigg said. “In some datasets, we found up to 30 per cent of our images showed interference from a Starlink satellite.”

Mr Grigg said the issue wasn’t just the number of satellites, but the strength of the signals and the frequencies they were visible at. “Some satellites were detected emitting in bands where no signals are supposed to be present at all, such as the 703 satellites we identified at 150.8 MHz, which is meant to be protected for radio astronomy,” Mr Grigg said. “Because they may come from components like onboard electronics and they’re not part of an intentional signal, astronomers can’t easily predict them or filter them out.”

The researchers were careful to note that SpaceX has been following all international regulations, and that these signals are not a violation of any law or regulation. Further, they emphasized that “Discussions we have had with SpaceX on the topic have been constructive.”

Because many other such constellations are now being launched — with several from China that normally does not negotiate these issues like SpaceX — the scientists want new international regulations imposed to protect their work.

More and more it seems astronomers should simply move their operations into space or the Moon, where such issues will not exist. Getting above the atmosphere and away from our modern technological society provides so many benefits for research the move should be a no-brainer. That it is now also much cheaper to do it (thanks to SpaceX) makes the move even more practical.

For some reason however the idea seems too difficult for many astronomers to fathom.

One comment

New Space Force policy will encourage a robust private industry to build the capabilities it needs

9:39 am

Capitalism in space: The U.S. Space Force (USSF) today released what it calls an “annex,” outlining its “Principles for Space Access Resourcing Decisions,” that will act as an over-arching guidance to its general space policy. The nine principles listed are expressly focused on encouraging redundancy in launch and satellite military capabilities by using the robust private and competitive aerospace industry that now exists.

The annex details how the service will consider and prioritize commercial space sector requests for government resources, as well as government investment decisions. The annex features nine principles, rooted in law, that will guide the Assured Access to Space Enterprise’s decision-making on a variety of resourcing decisions including acquisition strategies, investment priorities and property allocation. … “These principles reflect our understanding that a strong commercial space industry is a force multiplier for the U.S. Space Force. We are committed to working alongside our industry and allied partners to ensure safe, reliable and resilient access to space for decades to come,” [said Deputy Chief of Space Operations for Strategy, Plans, Programs and Requirements Lt. Gen. Shawn N. Bratton.]

The annex signals an acknowledgment of the evolution of the space access landscape from the 1950s, in which the government was the primary customer, to today where commercial space activities account for the preponderance of launch manifest activities.

You can read the full “annex” here [pdf]. The principles clearly emphasize the need to use the private sector for the military’s needs. It also underlines the Space Force’s responsibility to serve the needs of this growing private sector by making its launch ranges as available as possible to that industry.

The principles however also recognize that strain caused that increased use, and adds this last principle as a caveat:

Launch rates at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and Vandenberg Space Force Base have increased to the point where commercial and hybrid launches comprise the vast majority of operations. The demand for operational support and infrastructure sustainment and modernization exceeds USSF resources. Therefore, the USSF transparently engages with stakeholders to arrange equitable cost-sharing of multi-use resources and balanced input on public/private infrastructure investment.

It makes excellent sense for the military to re-negotiate its fees with the launch companies that use its facilities to cover costs. In fact, this is a much better way to cover these costs than the launch taxes proposed by Senator Ted Cruz’s budget bill in June. Cruz’s proposal is a legal tax that allows no room for negotiation. The Space Force’s policy will allow it flexibility to negotiate fees as needed and with much greater efficiency and speed.

Sadly, expect Cruz’s taxes to win out, as this kind of heavy-handed overuse of government power has been the default for decades.

Leave a comment

Third Indian state announces a space policy to encourage private enterprise

9:37 am

India map

A third state in India, Andhra Pradesh, has now released its own space policy, designed to create what it calls “manufacturing clusters”, centered around India’s main spaceport at Sriharikota.

The A.P. Space Policy (4.0) 2025-30 is valid for five years from the date of issue (July 13, 2025), or till a new policy is announced. A technical committee will be constituted under the Commissioner of Industries to vet and process applications for land allotment in the Space Cities proposed to be developed along the Hyderabad-Bengaluru Industrial Corridor in Sri Sathya Sai district and in Tirupati (Routhasuramala).

The government will form an SPV, ‘AP Space City Corporation’, which will drive all initiatives related to the development of the above Space Cities, and serve as the central agency to coordinate infrastructure development, raise start-up funds, attract investments, facilitate industry partnerships, build partnerships to attract global demand, and liaise with all GoI [Government of India] entities for tapping the domestic demand.

The previous two state space policies in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, announced in April, had similar goals aimed at promoting the establishment of private aerospace companies within their regions.

Whether Andhra Pradesh’s policy will work carries uncertainties. Its advantage is that it is linked to India’s primary spaceport. Its disadvantage lies in the complex bureaucracy the state is creating in conjunction with these “Space Cities.” Such bureaucracies are rarely helpful for new businesses.

Leave a comment

Judge narrows SpaceX lawsuit against California Coastal Commission

9:16 am

Though U.S. district judge Stanley Blumenfeld ruled in May that SpaceX’s lawsuit against California Coastal Commission for targeting the company because the commissioners did not like Elon Musk’s political views can proceed, in early July he also narrowed the lawsuit significantly.

Blumenfeld granted a motion to dismiss violations of the First Amendment and due process against the commission and individual members based on lack of standing, sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim, but allowed allegations of “biased attempts to regulate SpaceX’s activity” and unlawfully demanding a CDP to proceed.

“In sum, SpaceX has plausibly alleged a ripe, nonspeculative case or controversy over whether it must obtain a CDP to continue its Falcon 9 launches,” Blumenfeld said in his order. “The credible threat that defendants will bring an enforcement action and subject SpaceX to daily fines for not having a CDP — which defendants pointedly do not disavow — is sufficient to establish an actual injury under Article III [of the U.S. Constitution].”

It appears the judge acted to protect the commissioners themselves from direct liability, using the made-up concept from the 20th century that government employees are somehow wholly immune from any responsibility for their actions.

Nonetheless, SpaceX has a great case, and is very likely to win in court, a victory that could very well cause the coastal commission and the state of California serious monetary pain.

4 comments

SpaceX gets approval to build oxygen plant at Boca Chica

1:03 pm

SpaceX today received the okay from Cameron County to build a plant at Boca Chica to produce oxygen from the atmosphere for use in its Superheavy/Starship rocket.

The commissioners voted, 3-1, to give Elon Musk’s rocket company a beachfront construction certificate and dune protection permit, allowing the company to build a modern-day factory akin to an oil refinery to produce gases needed for space flight launches.

The plant will consist of 20 structures on 1.66 acres. The enclosed site will include a tower that will reach 159 feet, or about 15 stories high, much shorter than the nearby launch tower, which stretches 480 feet high. It is set to be built about 280 feet inland from the line of vegetation, which is where the dunes begin. The factory will separate air into nitrogen and oxygen. SpaceX utilizes liquid oxygen as a propellant and liquid nitrogen for testing and operations.

By having the facility on site, SpaceX hopes to make the delivery of those gases more efficient by eliminating the need to have dozens of trucks deliver them from Brownsville. The company says they need more than 200 trucks of liquid nitrogen and oxygen delivered for each launch, a SpaceX engineer told the county during a meeting last week.

As usual, the same cranks who always complain about this stuff are given space by this news outlet to whine, but the truth is that the commission’s vote well reflects the attitude of the local community. It supports what SpaceX is doing, because of the prosperity the company is bringing to this formerly depressed region.

Moreover, this facility will not only save SpaceX money and make it easier to launch more frequently, it is likely environmentally beneficial. I suspect the facility will be relatively clean compared to the truck convoys it will replace.

Hat tip Robert Pratt of Pratt on Texas.

6 comments

SpaceX finally passes final regulatory hurdle to sell Starlink in India

9:11 am

You might get deja-vu from this story, since I have reported repeatedly in the past that SpaceX has finally gotten regulatory approval to sell Starlink in India.

However, India’s complex regulatory framework — leftover from the days of British rule and strengthened for decades after independence when the strongly socialist Congress Party ruled — ended up requiring SpaceX to leap multiple regulatory hurdles to get the Starlink approved. According to news reports today, that last licensing hurdle has now finally been leaped.

The final approval marks a crucial milestone that will pave the way for the Musk-led company to launch its commercial satellite operations in the country. The Elon Musk-led company has been waiting for regulatory approvals since 2022 to operate legally in India. With this approval, Starlink has become the third company to enter the satellite space in India after Reliance Jio and Eutelsat’s OneWeb, in which Bharti Airtel, led by Sunil Mittal, is a shareholder.

Does this mean SpaceX can now sell Starlink in India? Of course not:

The next step for Starlink is to secure spectrum from the government, which will likely be assigned in the coming months. It also needs to set up infrastructure on the ground. One of the most critical aspects of Starlink’s India foray will be its compliance with the country’s security rules.

Since Starlink doesn’t need a complex ground infrastructure, selling terminals directly to customers, the infrastructure mentioned in the quote likely involves partnering Starlink operations with the Indian telecommunications companies Airtell and Jio, so that they get a piece of the action.

Leave a comment

ESA picks five rocket startups for future launch contracts

9:00 am

European Space Agency

Capitalism in space: The European Space Agency (ESA) today announced that it has chosen five rocket startups — out of twelve that applied to its “European Launcher Challenge” — now approved to bid on future ESA launch contracts.

The startups are Isar Aerospace and Rocket Factory Augsburg from Germany, PLD Space from Spain, MaiaSpace from France, and Orbex from Great Britain. Though none have successfully completed a first launch. all five showed the most advancement. Isar has had one attempted launch failure, while Rocket Factory lost its rocket during a static fire test just before launch. PLD meanwhile has achieved a short suborbital test, while Orbex has said it was ready to launch three years ago but was blocked by red tape in the United Kingdom.

MaiaSpace is technically the least advanced, but it is also a subdivision wholly owned by ArianeGroup, a partnership of Europe’s largest aerospace companies, Airbus and Safran. It was also established in partnership with France’s space agency CNES. Thus, it has well-established connections within Europe’s aerospace industry that makes it favored.

The goal of this ESA program is to shift from the government model it has used for decades, where ESA builds and owns the rockets, to develop a competitive rocket industry of independent companies that market their rockets to ESA for contracts. ESA has seen the success in the U.S. when NASA shifted to this capitalism model in the past decade, and wishes to emulate this.

Whether it remains uncertain. ESA is still mired by bureaucratic government thinking, as illustrated by the next phrase in this challenge:

The next phase of the proposal will see ESA open dialogue between the preselected companies and their respective Member States. This process will help formalise the proposal ahead of the agency’s Ministerial-Level Council meeting (CM25), which will take place toward the end of the year. At CM25, Member States are expected to formally commit funding to the initiative. Following the meeting, ESA will issue a Phase 2 call for proposals, which will be restricted to the preselected candidate companies. European Launcher Challenge contracts will then be awarded after a final evaluation period.

The ESA’s very nature seems to impose odious bureaucratic rules on its member nations that could hinder these private companies. For example, these rules now block any other independent rocket startups from bidding on contracts. Like the bootleggers during Prohibitioin, the ESA has essentially divided competition up by territory and given it to these favored companies. No one else is allowed in.

Leave a comment

EPA employees who publicly signed letter opposing Trump’s agenda have now been put on leave

1:42 pm

Trump defiant after being shot
Trump in charge

They apparently forgot who the American people elected and who is thus the boss! The 170 EPA employees who publicly signed a letter this week announcing their opposition to Trump’s policies at EPA have now all been put on leave, with the expectation that they will eventually lose their jobs as well.

Staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency who signed a letter of dissent against President Donald Trump have been placed on leave, reports The Hill. “The Environmental Protection Agency has a zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration’s agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November,” EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said in a written statement.

The letter, posted on June 30, 2025, made it very clear in its opening paragraph that these employees were willing to defy orders and sabotage the Trump administration.
» Read more

19 comments

New data: the ozone hole occurs mostly because of the sunspot cycle and cosmic rays, not CFC pollution

1:18 pm

The ozone hole linked to the solar cycle

The uncertainty of science: A science paper released yesterday suggests that the ozone hole over Antarctica that scientists have been tracking for almost a half century is caused mostly by the solar cycle and the accompanying fluctuations in cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere, not the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that used to be used in aerosol spray cans.

The graph to the right, from figure 2 of the paper, illustrates the data. The red line is the ozone hole fluctuations predicted by the paper’s model, labeled “CRE Theory”, based on the increase of cosmic ray radiation during solar minimum. The blue, black, and green lines indicate the actual fluctuations of ozone and temperature in the lower stratosphere where the ozone layer exists. As you can see, the model and actual fluctuations match quite closely. From the paper’s abstract:
» Read more

18 comments

Orbex delays first launch from Saxavord until 2026

2:26 pm

Map of spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea
Proposed spaceports surrounding the Norwegian Sea

The rocket startup Orbex has now announced that “infrastructure requirements and engagement with regulators” has forced it to delay the first launch of its Prime rocket from 2025 until 2026.

Orbex at the start of this decade had signed a 50-year lease to launch its Prime rocket from the proposed Sutherland spaceport on the north coast of Scotland. In February 2022 it applied for a launch license, with the hope of launching before the end of that year. For three years it waited for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to approve that license, to no avail.

Finally in December 2024 it gave up on launching from Sutherland and shifted its plans to the Saxavord spaceport in the Shetland Islands, apparently because that spaceport had been more successful in getting its CAA approvals (though even it had to wait years).

Though the company attributes this new delay as much to getting its launch facility ready at Saxavord, delays caused by British red tape continues to be a systemic and entrenched problem in the United Kingdom. It appears it remains so.

9 comments

European Union proposes new space law to supersede national space rules

9:47 am

The European Union

The European Union (EU) has now released its proposed Space Act that would impose European-wide regulations on the space industries of all its partnering nations, superseding their own regulations and policies.

The press release claims, at the start, that this space act would “cut red tape, protect space assets, and create a fair, predictable playing field for businesses,” but in reading the act itself [pdf], it appears to do the exact opposite. It imposes new environmental, safety, and cybersecurity regulations on the design of satellites and spacecraft in a manner that will likely slow development and competition in Europe significantly. And it applies these regulations not only to European companies but to the rest of the world’s space industry, should it do any operations at all in Europe.

This European Union space law was initially supposed to be released last year, but was delayed because it appeared there was strong opposition to it from many of the union’s member nations.

The proposed law appears to have been reshaped to limit the areas the EU can regulate space, but my appraisal of these regulations is that they are designed to quickly expand to cover everything, while adding an unneeded layer of red tape across Europe’s space industry that will only cause it to founder.

It must also be noted once again that there is no one in the bureaucracy of the EU qualified to impose these regulations on the space industry. The EU launches nothing. Its bureaucracy knows nothing about space technology. All it can do is say no to anyone that wants to achieve anything, just because it thinks it knows better.

It will be interesting to see if this space law passes. It still must be approved by European Parliament and the European Commission. I expect there to be significant opposition from several different member states, most especially Germany, Spain, and Italy, each of which have a newly emerging space industry. We should also expect opposition from the member nations formerly part of the Soviet bloc, as their past totalitarian experience makes them very skeptical of this kind of bureaucratic power play.

At the same time, the political structure of the European Union is designed to encourage the passage of such laws, which is one reason there is a rising movement in many member nations to leave the union. If the law passes, expect it to cause more fragmentation within Europe, rather than unifying the continent as it claims it will do.

4 comments

French startup Latitude to spend $9.3 million on building its French Guiana launch facility

9:52 am

French Guiana spaceport
The French Guiana spaceport. The Diamant launchsite is labeled “B.”
Click for full resolution image. (Note: The Ariane-5 pad is now the
Ariane-6 pad.)

The French rocket startup Latitude has announced it will spend $9.3 million to build its own launchpad at the spaceport in French Guiana, where hopes to launch its Zephyr rocket in 2026.

In a 23 June update, Latitude confirmed the Guiana Space Centre as the launch site for the inaugural flight of its 19-metre-tall, two-stage Zephyr rocket, which is designed to deliver payloads of up to 200 kilograms to low Earth orbit. The site was one of two under consideration, with the company also having committed to developing launch infrastructure at SaxaVord Spaceport in Scotland. When that partnership was announced in March 2022, Latitude, then known as Venture Orbital Systems, aimed to carry out its first launch from SaxaVord in 2024.

Construction of the ELM-Diamant shared launch facility began in 2025 and is expected to be completed by 2026. According to Latitude’s 23 June update, the company will work with CNES and the European Space Agency in the coming months to implement its dedicated launch infrastructure at the site. This will be followed by the inaugural launch of its Zephyr rocket in 2026.

It is not clear exactly how that ELM-Diamant launch site will be shared. France’s space agency CNES (which operates French Guiana) had previously said it wanted all the new European rocket startups that wanted to launch from there to use a common launch infrastructure, thus requiring them to share technology as well as redesign their rockets to fit CNES’s requirements. The rocket startups objected, but it now appears two startups, Latitude and PLD, and come to an agreement of some sort.

This deal also suggests that Latitude is shifting away from using the Saxavord spaceport in the United Kingdom, possibly because it has seen the difficult regulatory hurdles required there and has decided French Guiana is a better option.

2 comments

Under Trump FCC shifts from regulating satellite construction and de-orbit to streamlining red tape

9:15 am

FCC seal

According to a Space News article yesterday, the FCC’s regulatory focus since January and the advent of the Trump administration has shifted significantly from its focus during the Biden administration.

The article describes in detail the present focus to streamline regulations and speed license approvals.

One early result of this push is a reduction in the FCC’s licensing backlog. Schwarz said the space bureau has reduced pending applications by 35 percent since January, including those for new space stations and ground infrastructure.

Modernizing regulations for non-geostationary satellite systems is another priority. The FCC is considering revising so-called “power limit” rules aimed at preventing interference between low-orbit constellations and traditional geostationary satellites and earth stations. Schwarz said these reforms could help pave the way for higher-throughput services that rival terrestrial broadband.

This focus appears correctly centered on the FCC’s actual legal statutory authority to regulate the limited bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum to avoid conflicts in its use.

Under Biden, the FCC instead focused on expanding its power beyond that statutory authority, claiming it had the right to determine how satellites were built, when they would be de-orbited, and in what manner. None of those activities have anything to do with bandwidth and the FCC’s legal responsibilities.

There was some legislative push back from Congress during the Biden administration, but it was slow and relatively weak. Now that push back has become unnecessary, because the FCC under Trump is back to doing its actual job instead of trying to build empires of regulation.

The agency also appears, for the moment, to have ended its partisan abuse of red tape for political reasons. Under Biden it used its regulatory power against SpaceX in retaliation to Elon Musk’s decision to publicly support Biden’s political opponents. It appears the present effort to speed license approvals for everyone has ended this practice.

Leave a comment

Kazakhstan moves west

9:01 am

Two stories today suggest that Kazakhstan is shifting its politics away from Russia and towards the west, albeit carefully and with an eye to avoid poking the bear that lives so close by.

First, the government’s tourism agency announced plans to develop tourism at its Baikonur spaceport.

Participants discussed infrastructure upgrades, the creation of new travel routes, brand strengthening, investment attraction and partnerships to support long-term development.

According to Kazakh Tourism Сhairman Kairat Sadvakasov, the concept focuses on building a sustainable tourism ecosystem during the periods between rocket launches. The goal is to integrate Baikonur into Kazakhstan’s cultural, educational and scientific agenda.

Both the Soviet and Russian governments have always treated Baikonur as a classified military installation, and forbid such visitation, including vetoing public viewing areas areas. Kazakhstan has likely seen the cash earned by India and U.S. by allowing such spaceport tourism, and wants some for itself. Evidently it now thinks the Russians no longer have the clout to stop it from doing so.

Next, Kazakhstan’s government announced it has signed a deal with SpaceX to introduce Starlink into the country.

The agreement ensures that Starlink will comply with Kazakhstan’s legal and regulatory requirements, including those related to information security and communications. Until now, Starlink operated in the country only on a pilot basis, providing internet access exclusively to schools.

The upcoming launch will allow citizens to legally purchase, register, and use Starlink terminals. The service aims to improve high-speed internet access in remote and hard-to-reach regions, supporting rural schools, healthcare centers, mobile units, and infrastructure sites – particularly in areas where laying fiber-optic networks is not feasible.

This deal also suggests a change in Kazakhstan’s relationship with Russia. Starlink is blocked from Russia due to its invasion on the Ukraine. Yet the service is now available to both Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, formerly part of the Soviet Union and directly adjacent to Russia. That Kazakhstan is publicly permitting Starlink in is a clear statement that it wants the same technology as the Ukraine to better protect it from a Russian invasion.

It also suggests a decline in Russia’s influence inside Kazakhstan. Previously if the Russians said jump, the Kazakhstan government would ask, “How high?” Now it appears it is willing to act more independently, and in ways that are not necessarily in Russia’s interests.

One wonders if this shift could go as far as Kazakhstan trying to sell Baikonur as a launch site for other commercial entities, such as from India, China, and Europe. I doubt many would buy the service (Baikonur is not well located compared to other spaceports), but the very offer would signal a major political shift in this part of the world.

5 comments

Europe approves SES purchase of Intelsat

9:00 am

The European Commission has now approved the purchase of the long established satellite communications company Intelsat by the long established Luxembourg satellite communications company SES for about $4 billion.

This decision follows an approval by the government of the United Kingdom. It now appears the only remaining regulatory hurdle is approvals by the FCC and the Department of Justice in the U.S.

This buy-out follows similar mergers by other old established satellite companies, such as the merger of Viasat with Imarsat and OneWeb with Eutelsat. All are occurring because these older companies, which mostly launched large geosynchronous satellites, have been under heavy competitive pressure from the low orbit constellations like Starlink and OneWeb.

Whether these older companies can compete following these mergers however remains uncertain. To succeed they need to have a product customers want, and at the moment it isn’t clear they have one.

Leave a comment

Trump eliminates restrictions against supersonic flights over the U.S.

9:50 am

In an executive order released on June 6, 2024, President Trump eliminated the half-century-old regulations that forbid supersonic airplanes to fly over the land mass of the United States.

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shall take the necessary steps, including through rulemaking, to repeal the prohibition on overland supersonic flight in 14 CFR 91.817 within 180 days of the date of this order and establish an interim noise-based certification standard, making any modifications to 14 CFR 91.818 as necessary, as consistent with applicable law. The Administrator of the FAA shall also take immediate steps to repeal 14 CFR 91.819 and 91.821, which will remove additional regulatory barriers that hinder the advancement of supersonic aviation technology in the United States.

This order makes sense for several reasons. First, the restrictions were always absurd. The sonic boom concern was always over-rated. Second, the concern increasingly doesn’t exist due to improvements in technology. In a flight test in January, the commercial supersonic airplane startup Boom Aerospace confirmed that its test plane broke the sound barrier three times and each time with “no audible sonic boom.”

Though Boom isn’t the only supersonic startup, it is far ahead of the others. It already has orders from United and Japan airlines for its Overture 80-passenger supersonic jet. This new Trump order will certainly help it attract investment capital, as well as more airlines willing to buy its planes.

4 comments
1 2 3 … 70