Superheavy to be used on next test flight completes 15-second static fire test

SpaceX has successfully completed a launchpad 15-second static fire test of the 33 engines on the Superheavy booster that will be used on the next test flight (the seventh) of its Starship/Superheavy rocket.

The video at the link is remarkable in that it appears all 33 Raptor-2 engines fired for the entire test with no problems either to the rocket or launchpad, despite producing more thrust in that time than any rocket ever in the history of space exploration.

According to this report, it appears SpaceX is targeting January 11, 2025 for that seventh test flight.

SpaceX has not yet announced a launch date for Starship’s seventh test flight, but the company appears to be eyeing Jan. 11; an email sent by NASA to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration identifies that date as the target. (According to that email, NASA plans to deploy a Gulfstream V jet to observe the upcoming flight.)

This date however has not yet been confirmed by SpaceX. Nor has the FAA indicated it will issue a license. The FAA’s approval will depend on the flight plan SpaceX chooses for the test. If similar to the previous two test flights, then that approval will be fast. If not, the red tape will likely cause several more months of delays.

AST SpaceMobile’s satellite-to-cell constellation gets its second contract

AST SpaceMobile, which is building a constellation of satellites that act as orbiting cell towers and can provide service where ground-based cell towers are unavailable, has now won its second contract, signing a 10-year deal with Vodafone, a European cell company which provides service there as well as across Africa and the Middle East.

AST’s first contract is with AT&T in the U.S. It already has five satellites in orbit, and plans to begin launching its second generation and larger BlueBird satellites next year, with the goal to begin service in the U.S. first.

All it needs really is an FCC license, which it has applied for but not yet received. Its main competitor, Starlink, has received its FCC license, so expect this red tape to evaporate relatively quickly, especially with the coming change in presidents.

One of Australia’s proposed spaceports moves

Australia's spaceports
Australia’s spaceports

“I’m from the government and I’m here to help!” Because of its inability to get the proper permissions from a local council, the management of Equatorial Launch Australia (ELA) has abandoned its original spaceport location on the Gove peninsula in the Northwest Territory of Australia and shifted east to a new location on the York peninsula in Queensland.

On the map to the right the “X” shows the old location, with the new location near the town of Weipa on the west coast of the peninsula. The change was forced on the company when it could not get proper approvals from the Northern Land Council (NLC), which manages the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust where the original site was located.

In a statement late on Monday, ELA said its most recent attempt to finalise a lease for the expansion of the ASC in October had been unsuccessful, following three other failed attempts in the last 12 months. In each case, it said the NLC had “failed to meet its own specified deadline for the approval of the Head Lease” or “provide any official reason for the delay”, despite pleas from the NT government and the Gumatj Aboriginal Corporation.

Because ELA has a launch contract with a South Korea rocket startup Innospace that intends to launch next year, it decided the switch had to occur now to make sure it could meet its obligations under this launch contract.

Panama and Austria to sign Artemis Accords

NASA yesterday announced that both Panama and Austria will sign Artemis Accords tomorrow, bringing the total number of nations in the alliance to fifty.

The full list of nations now part of this American space alliance: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, 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, Panama, 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.

The accords were created by the first Trump administration with the goal to create an alliance with enough clout to overcome the Outer Space Treaty’s restrictions on private property. Under the Biden administration, the goal has been rewritten to accomplish the exact opposite, as noted by NASA yesterday:

The Artemis Accords are grounded in the Outer Space Treaty and other agreements including the Registration Convention, the Rescue and Return Agreement, as well as best practices and norms of responsible behavior that NASA and its partners have supported, including the public release of scientific data.

With Trump back in charge, expect him to bring the accords back to its original goal. Unlike his first term, the alliance is now large, and he can use it to quickly apply pressure on the international community to overcome the Outer Space Treaty’s limitations on private property.

Orbex gives up on the Sutherland spaceport, switches to SaxaVord

Map of spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea
Spaceports surrounding the Norwegian Sea

In a very sudden decision, the rocket startup Orbex, based in Great Britain, has “paused” its long-delayed work to develop a launch facility at the Sutherland spaceport in northern Scotland and instead decided to launch its first rockets from the competing SaxaVord spaceport on the Shetland islands.

Orbex says it is halting construction work on the £20 million spaceport and instead is mothballing the project, which has received a £14.6 million public investment package. The space company, which was to have made the Sutherland Spaceport its home port, will now launch its rockets carrying commercial satellites from another north spaceport – SaxaVord on Unst, Shetland.

According to the company’s CEO, it will retain its 50-year lease at Sutherland to give it “flexibility to increase launch capacity in the future.”

The company had originally hoped to launch its Prime rocket from Sutherland in 2022, but has been faced with red tape from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which has still not issued a launch licence, even though the application was submitted almost three years ago. Orbex has also faced lawfare opposition from local activists as well as a major local landowner, billionaire Anders Povlsen, who is also a major investor in SaxaVord.

That last detail might help explain this decision. In private talks Orbex might have learned that the red tape and opposition would disappear if it switched to SaxaVord. The timing is also suggestive, as only a few days ago construction started on a new spaceport in Scotland, located on the island of North Uist.

All told, Orbex might have decided that the stars were aligned against it at Sutherland, and it was better to move. It now hopes to complete the first test launch of its Prime rocket from SaxaVord next year.

Construction begins for 3rd spaceport in Scotland

Map of spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea

Construction of a third spaceport in Scotland has now begun, its location on the northwest coast of the island of North Uist (as shown on the map to the right), with its plans to serve suborbital launches initially.

The Highlands and Islands Enterprise, a Scottish government agency focused on regional development, has allocated £947,000 for the construction of the site’s enabling infrastructure. Additionally, the Comhairle is contributing £675,000 from its 2023-2028 capital programme. The total cost of the enabling works project is estimated to be £2.6 million.

After the construction of the enabling infrastructure is complete, which is expected to occur by Spring 2025, a private sector operator will take over to complete the second phase of construction and manage the spaceport.

According to the Wikipedia page for this area on North Uist, the project was first proposed in 2019, and was then hoping to attract orbital launches. Subsequent opposition by activists slowed development and likely reduced the project from orbital to suborbital, at least for now.

Judge dismisses lawsuit against SpaceX by activists

A federal judge has now thrown out a lawsuit that had been filed by anti-Musk activists in an attempt to halt all launches by SpaceX of its Starship/Superheavy rocket at Boca Chica.

U.S. District Judge Rolando Olvera issued his ruling last Thursday in response to the request filed by Save RGV on Oct. 9. The group has alleged that SpaceX’s water deluge system is releasing untreated industrial wastewater during launches and sought to halt the launches.

The water deluge system is designed to dampen the effects of Starship’s rocket engine blasts during liftoff and static fire engine testing.

“At the beginning of the Starship-Super Heavy Launch System’s development, it became evident that a deluge water system was necessary to protect the launch site and surrounding areas during launches,” Olvera wrote in the order. “A deluge water system sprays large quantities of potable water at the base of the spacecrafts during launch to prevent fires and reduce dispersal of dust and debris.

“Because of these dangers, Defendant cannot launch its spacecrafts without the deluge water system.”

SpaceX had argued that environmental reviews by both federal and state agencies had determined that the deluge system caused no harm. Olvera concurred, and also noted that to block launches would do significant harm to SpaceX and NASA’s entire lunar program.

This activist group, which represents almost no one in southern Texas, has no real interest in the environment. It filed this and other lawsuits simply as lawfare to try to stymie SpaceX for political reasons, knowing that we have more than seven decades of data at spaceports in Florida and California that prove rocket launches and deluge systems cause no environmental harm. In fact, they help wildlife by creating a large refuge where that wildlife can thrive.

Expect further similar lawsuits, all of which will be summarily dismissed afterward.

What I wonder is who is paying for this lawfare? SaveRGV likely doesn’t have the resources.

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

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.

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

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.

Oh no! Starship/Superheavy is loud!

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.

Rocket startup ABL abandons its effort to build a rocket

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.

SpaceX scraps its land swap offer to Texas

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.

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

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.

FAA forming new committee to revise its launch licensing regulations

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.

Denmark joins the Artemis Accords

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.

Major court decision could invalidate many federal environmental regulations

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.

Next Starship/Superheavy test flight now targeting November 18th

SpaceX today announced its plan to fly the next and sixth orbital test flight of its Starship/Superheavy rocket on November 18th, less than two weeks from today.

The next Starship flight test aims to expand the envelope on ship and booster capabilities and get closer to bringing reuse of the entire system online. Objectives include the booster once again returning to the launch site for catch, reigniting a ship Raptor engine while in space, and testing a suite of heatshield experiments and maneuvering changes for ship reentry and descent over the Indian Ocean.

The success of the first catch attempt demonstrated the design feasibility while providing valuable data to continue improving hardware and software performance. Hardware upgrades for this flight add additional redundancy to booster propulsion systems, increase structural strength at key areas, and shorten the timeline to offload propellants from the booster following a successful catch. Mission designers also updated software controls and commit criteria for the booster’s launch and return.

As noted earlier, the FAA has made it clear that no new license is required since this flight plan is essentially the same as the fifth flight.

FCC issues first deep space communications license to private asteroid mining company

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on October 18, 2024 issued the first deep space communications license to the private asteroid mining startup company Astroforge for its planned Odin mission to an asteroid.

Asteroid prospecting company AstroForge has been awarded the first-ever commercial license for operating and communicating with a spacecraft in deep space, ahead of its Odin mission that’s set to launch and rendezvous with a near-Earth asteroid in early 2025.

The license, granted by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Oct. 18, pertains specifically to setting up a communication network with radio ground stations on Earth, to enable commands to be sent up to Odin and data to be transmitted back to Earth. In this case, deep space is defined by the International Telecommunications Union as being farther than 2 million kilometers (1.2 million miles) from Earth.

Other private companies have sent missions to the Moon, but this will be the first to go beyond. Odin will orbit and map the asteroid — not yet chosen — in advance of a larger AstroForge spacecraft, dubbed Vestri, that will land on the asteroid.

Australia issues licenses for two spaceports

Australian commercial spaceports
Australia’s commercial spaceports. Click for original map.

The Australian government has now issued permits for two different spaceports, making possibly orbital launches at both in the near future.

First the planning minister for the province of South Australia has issued final approval allowing launches at the Southern Launch facility on Australia’s southern coast, though that approval included serious restrictions, such as no rocket launched could be taller than 30 meters. He also placed limitations on the number of launches per year, 36, the amount of noise a launch could make, and added other rules “regarding cultural heritage and native vegetation management.”

The spaceport hopes to complete its first orbital launch by the end of next year. Not surprisingly, the leftists in Green Party opposed the spaceport.

Second, the Australian Space Agency issued a launch license to Gilmour Space at its Bowen spaceport on the eastern coast of Australia, seven months late. This quote from the company’s founder is instructive:

But Mr Gilmour said when he and his brother, James Gilmour, set out to be the first to build a rocket of its kind in Australia almost a decade ago, he never imagined that getting a [launch] permit would be the most difficult part. “In my wildest dreams, I didn’t think it’d take this long,” he said. “I honestly thought the environmental approval [to launch a rocket over the Great Barrier Reef] would take the longest, and we got that well over a year ago.”

The company had originally hoped to launch early this year. It still hopes to do so before the end of 2024.

Nearly four dozen anti-SpaceX activists organize to flood public meeting

At a public meeting of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on October 17, 2024 nearly four dozen anti-SpaceX activists apparently arrived en masse in order to overwhelm the public comment period with negative opinions about the company and its operation at Boca Chica.

The report at the link, from the San Antonio Express-News, is (as usual for a propaganda press outlet) decidedly in favor of these activists, and makes it sound as if these forty-plus individuals, apparently led by the activist group SaveRGV that has mounted most of the legal challenges to SpaceX, represent the opinions of the public at large.

What really happened here is that the Brownsville public has better things to do, like building businesses and making money, much of which now only exists because of SpaceX and that operation at Boca Chica. Thus, the only ones with time or desire to organize to show up at these kinds of meetings are these kinds of activists.

It might pay however for some of the more business-oriented organizations in Brownsville to make sure they are in the game at the next public meeting, scheduled for November 14, 2024 [pdf]. This would not be hard to do, and it would certainly help balance the scales, which at present are decidedly been warped by this small minority of protesters.

Sutherland finally gets the okay from local council

Proposed spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea
Proposed spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea.

After multiple submissions of its plan to build a spaceport off the coast of Scotland, the Sutherland spaceport’s most recent proposal has finally been approved by the local council.

Most significant about the decision is that it rejected the legal objections of billionaire landowner Anders Holch Povlsen, who has previously fought the spaceport and is also an investor in the competing spaceport SaxaVord in the Shetland Islands. Povlsen had objected to the spaceport placing small tracking antennas on a nearby mountain where other larger communications antennas already operated.

This decison could still face the veto of the Scottish ministry. It will be no surprise if Povlsen uses his clout to cause difficulties at this level.

Meanwhile, it is more than two and a half years since Sutherland’s prime launch customer, Orbex, submitted its launch license to the United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), with no approval. At the moment the company hopes to launch next year.

Sutherland spaceport submits another revised plan to local council

Proposed spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea
Proposed spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea.

We’re from the government and we are here to help you! The long-delayed proposed Sutherland spaceport on the north coast of Scotland has now submitted another revised plan to its local Highlands council for approval.

The amended plans for Sutherland Spaceport include a smaller launch pad and launch services facility, and realigning an access road to avoid an area of deep peat. Highland Council planners said the changes would mean reducing the amount of peat that would have to be excavated by more than half. The soil is seen as important because it absorbs CO2.

Highland councillors meeting next week have been asked to approve the amendments. In a report, officials said the amount of peat to be dug up could be cut from 24,046 cubic metres to 9,895 cubic metres.

This is the second time the spaceport has had to submit revised plans to this council. It did so in December 2023, but apparently the council was not satisfied.

Meanwhile Sutherland’s main launch customer, Orbex, has still not gotten its launch licence from the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority, first applied for in February 2022. Orbex, which has a fifty year lease at Sutherland and has built its rocket factory nearby, had planned to do its first test launch of its Prime rocket two years ago. Didn’t happen.

Adding to these bureaucratic delays, Anders Holch Povlsen, a local billionaire — who is an investor in the Saxaford spaceport on the Shetland Islands — in July 2024 filed what appeared to be an absurd harrasment lawsuit against Sutherland, and this was the second time he had done so.

I think Orbex picked the wrong spaceport horse in this race, and is likely going to be killed by this red tape and opposition.

SpaceX rolls out the next Superheavy for sixth test orbital launch

SpaceX in a tweet on October 22, 2024 announced the roll out to the launch tower of the next Superheavy to be used in the sixth orbital test flight, only nine days after that launch tower had successfully caught a Superheavy at the end of the fifth orbital test flight.

Though no launch date has been announced, the company is clearly wants to do it soon. Though its present launch license allows it go when ready, it remains unclear whether it will get that approval from the FAA when requested. FAA upper management has repeatedly indicated a desire to delay its approvals to SpaceX, and until there is a change in the White House — thus forcing a change in that FAA upper management — there is no reason to expect the agency to change its behavior.

Spaceport startup SUAS Aerospace signs deal to launch small suborbital rocket from west coast of Ireland

SUAS's proposed spaceport plan
Click for original image.

The Irish spaceport startup SUAS Aerospace has now signed a partnership deal with the Netherlands rocket startup T-Minus Engineering to launch a small suborbital rocket from west coast of Ireland in order to demonstrate the viability of Ireland as a potential spaceport location.

According to this report, “T-Minus will provide its Dart rocket for the launch. Dart stands at 3.5 metres and is capable of carrying payloads of up to 3.5 kilograms to a maximum altitude of 200 kilometres.”

Though SUAS has raised €5 million in private investment capital to push its project to build two launch sites within Ireland, it has not made it clear the exact locations of these sites, other than indicating it wants to place them at two locations on Ireland’s west coast, as shown by the company graphic to the right. I suspect it does not yet have rights to the land, and its lobbying effort is largely focused on getting government help to obtain those rights, either on public or private land.

For example, its press release does not provide any details on where this suborbital launch will occur. I am not even sure the company knows. It might simply arrange some coastal location, simply to make possible this demonstration launch, even if that place is not the actual location of its proposed spaceport.

Cyprus signs Artemis Accords

Cyprus today officially became the 46th nation to sign the Artemis Accords, its signing coming one day before the already announced planned signing by Chile tomorrow.

Adding both nations to the list, the American-led Artemis Accords alliance now includes the following 47 nations: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 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.

Should Donald Trump return to the White House it will be very interesting to watch how this alliance evolves in the coming years. The original goal for the accords when started by the Trump administration was to build an alliance with enough clout to overcome the limitations on private property contained by the Outer Space Treaty. Though this alliance is surely now large enough to force those changes, that goal has been mostly pushed aside by the Biden administration. I suspect a new Trump administration will be able to bring it back to life, with added force due to this alliance’s size.

SpaceX asks FCC for license revision for launching nearly 30,000 Starlink satellites

SpaceX on October 11, 2024 submitted a request to the FCC to revise its Starlink satellite license to cover a revised plan for its second generation satellites that includes a request to place 29,988 Starlink satellites in orbit.

SpaceX first requests several amendments to the orbital parameters of its Gen2 system between 340 km and 365km altitude to keep pace with rapidly evolving global demand for high-quality broadband. First,SpaceX amends the inclination of its orbital shell at a nominal altitude of 345 km from 46 degrees to 48 degrees. SpaceX also amends its pending Gen2 application to seek authority to operate satellites in its Gen2 system in two additional orbital shells — at 355 km altitude in a 43-degree inclination and at 365 km altitude in a 28- or 32-degree inclination. The total number of operational satellites will remain 29,988 satellites across the amended Gen2 system.

With the exception of its polar shell at 360 km, which will remain unchanged, SpaceX also amends its application to more flexibly distribute satellites in its shells between 340 km and 365 km than requested in its pending application, specifically, in up to 72 planes per shell and up to 144 satellites per plane. While this reconfiguration will result in two additional shells and a higher maximum number of orbital planes and satellites per plane for all but one shell between 340 km and 365 km, the total number of operational satellites in the Gen2 system will remain 29,988 satellites.

In the company’s previous request for this number of satellites, the FCC had approved only 7,500, the full request still pending. We can expect objections from the other big satellite constellations to this request. The FCC’s response remains unclear. There could be legitimate reasons to limit SpaceX request, but it is also possible politics will enter the decision as well, for illegitimate reasons.

Meanwhile, astronomers are already whining about the problems these Starlink satellites will cause to their ground-based telescopes. It seems these so-called brilliant scientists can’t get it through their heads that astronomy from Earth will become increasingly difficult in the coming years — with hundreds of thousands of satellites planned from many satellite constellations, not just SpaceX — while astronomy from space has always been a better choice anyway. Rather than demand regulation or restrictions on these new satellite constellations, they should be pushing hard to developing new orbiting telescopes, now, for launch as quickly as possible.

Commerce loosens regulations, allowing American space companies easier use of international facilities

The Commerce department today announced that it has issued three new rulings that will ease the regulations and licensing procedures that American rocket and satellite companies have to go through in order to launch from international facilities.

The first rule will ease licensing for launches from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. This will make it easier for American rocket companies to launch from the new spaceports being built in these nations, as well as allow satellite and orbital tug companies to launch their spacecraft from these nations using non-American rockets.

The second rule, still in its interim stage of approval, would ease the export licensing for satellites and spacecraft “to over 40 allies and partners worldwide, reducing licensing requirements for the least sensitive components for most destinations, and broadening license exceptions to support additional National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) cooperative programs.” It appears this ruling focuses specifically on the countries who have signed the Artemis Accords, joining NASA’s Artemis program.

The third rule, which is at present only proposed, will remove from the State Department’s strict ITAR regulations many space-related defense technology, transfering their licensing to the much more relaxed Commerce department. This ruling appears aimed at helping the new burgeoning orbital tug, refueling, and satellite servicing industry, which uses rendezvous and proximity technology that was previously considered military in nature.

While it appears this easing of regulation goes against the Biden administration general policy of tightening regulations, the changes make sense if we recognize that these regulations also loosen access to American technology for many international partners, something this administration favors.

All in all, however, the changes are thoughtfully worked out, and will likely help energize the American space industry without releasing important technology to the wrong nations.

Musk: We will attempt to catch Starship like Superheavy, “hopefully early next year”

According to a tweet by Elon Musk on October 15, 2024, SpaceX is targeting early 2025 for the first attempt to recover Starship after launch, and to do it the same way it recovered Superheavy, by catching it with a set of launch tower chopsticks.

To do this will require getting that second launch tower at Boca Chica operational. It will also require SpaceX to successfully restart Starship’s Raptor engines in space, something it has not yet done. Once this is demonstrated to work, the company would also have to do another orbital test where Starship is put in a full orbit and then de-orbited precisely to a point over the ocean, demonstrating that such a return can next be done reliably over land.

In other words, a tower catch can only happen after at least two more test flights. Thus, to do it early next year means SpaceX will have to establish a test launch pace of a launch every one or two months. This is actually something Musk has said repeatedly he wants to do, but has been stymied repeatedly by FAA red tape from doing it.

I suspect Musk’s tweet is expressing his unstated hope that a Trump victory in November will force the FAA to ease its bureaucratic interference.

SpaceX sues California Coastal Commission

Wants to be a dictator
Wants to be a dictator

As promised by Elon Musk, SpaceX has now filed suit against California Coastal Commission, and its commissioners, accusing it of violating Musk’s first amendment rights and using its regulatory power against the company simply because those commissioners disagree with Musk’s political positions.

You can read SpaceX’s lawsuit filing here [pdf]. From its introduction:

[The Commission has engaged in naked political discrimination against Plaintiff Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) in violation of the rights of free speech and due process enshrined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Rarely has a government agency made so clear that it was exceeding its authorized mandate to punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO. Second, the Commission is trying to unlawfully regulate space launch programs—which are critical to national security and other national policy objectives—at Vandenberg Space Force Base (the Base), a federal enclave and the world’s second busiest spaceport.

The lawsuit stems from the comments made by the commissioners when then voted against the military’s plan to allow SpaceX to increase its launch rate at Vandenberg spaceport to up to 50 launches per year. In those comments, the commissioners made it clear that the main reason they were voting against the motion was because they were offended by Elon Musk and his political positions, not because the company was doing anything wrong. In fact, the commissioners knew SpaceX was doing nothing wrong. As noted at the first link above:
» Read more

The evidence strongly suggests FAA top management is working to sabotage SpaceX

FAA administrator Mike Whitaker today said this to SpaceX:
FAA administrator Mike Whitaker to SpaceX:
“Nice company you have there. Shame if something
happened to it.”

After SpaceX’s incredibly successful fifth test flight of Starship/Superheavy on October 13, 2024, I began to wonder about the complex bureaucratic history leading up to that flight. I was most puzzled by the repeated claims by FAA officials that it would issue no launch license before late November, yet ended up approving a license in mid-October in direct conflict with these claims. In that context I was also puzzled by the FAA’s own written approval of that launch, which in toto seemed to be a complete vindication of all of SpaceX’s actions while indirectly appearing to be a condemnation of the agency’s own upper management.

What caused the change at the FAA? Why was it claiming no approval until late November when it was clear by early October that SpaceX was preparing for a mid-October launch? And why claim late November when the FAA’s own bureaucracy has now made it clear in approving the launch that a mid-October date was always possible, and nothing SpaceX did prevented that.

I admit my biases: My immediate speculation is always to assume bad behavior by government officials. But was that speculation correct? Could it also be that SpaceX had not done its due diligence properly, causing the delays, as claimed by the FAA?

While doing my first review of the FAA’s written reevaluation [pdf] that approved the October 13th launch, I realized that a much closer review of the history and timeline of events might clarify these questions.

So, below is that timeline, as best as I can put together from the public record. The lesser known acronyms stand for the following:

TCEQ: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service (part of NOAA)
FWS: Fish & Wildlife Service (part of the Department of Interior)

My inserted comments periodically tell the story and provide some context.
» Read more

1 2 3 4 5 6 70