Tag: Space Force

Space Force finally certifies ULA’s new Vulcan rocket for commercial military launches

9:26 pm

After significant delays in developing ULA’s new Vulcan rocket, and then further delays after the rocket’s second test launch (which experienced technical issues), the Space Force today finally announced that it has certified the rocket, thus allowing ULA to proceed with several military launches that have been stalled for months. From ULA’s press release:

In September 2016, ULA entered into an agreement with the U.S. Air Force and outlined the plan to certify Vulcan according to the Air Force’s New Entrant Certification Guide. Over the last few years, the collective ULA and Space Force team have completed 52 certification criteria, including more than 180 discrete tasks, two certification flight demonstrations, 60 payload interface requirement verifications, 18 subsystem design and test reviews, and 114 hardware and software audits.

What was not revealed was the criteria the Space Force used to finally put aside as critical the loss of a nozzle on one of Vulcan’s two side booster’s during the second test launch. While the rocket successfully got its payload into the proper orbit, for a booster to lose a nozzle is not trivial. ULA has recently said it had found the cause and has fixed it, but few details have been revealed. Nor has this new announcement revealed any further details about the fix.

Regardless, this certification is very good news for ULA. Expect it to move as quickly as it can (which will seem slow in comparison to SpaceX) to launch a number of delayed military launches.

6 comments

As Space Force switches to capitalism model for its satellites, it will also not name the companies it hires

9:58 am

Capitalism in space: The main reason President Trump got the Space Force established in his first term was because the Air Force resisted rethinking its space military operations. It insisted on building large government-built satellites that took years to complete and always went overbudget and behind schedule.

The creation of the Space Force gave new people the ability to push for a major change, switching to the capitalism model whereby the government designed and built nothing but instead acted as a customer buying what it needed from the private sector. In addition, it allowed a major shift from those big satellites — easy targets for destruction — to the large private constellations of many small satellites, cheap to build and launch and difficult for other militaries to take out.

The Space Force — in order to protect the satellite companies it hires to build these satellites — has now announced that it will no longer publish the names of those companies.

The U.S. Space Force plans to keep the names of commercial companies participating in its new space reserve program under wraps, aiming to protect them from potential adversary threats as commercial satellites play a growing role in military operations.

Col. Richard Kniseley, director of the Space Force’s Commercial Space Office, said companies signing agreements under the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve (CASR) program can disclose their participation but are not required to. “That potentially puts a target on their back,” Kniseley told SpaceNews, underscoring the risk to private-sector firms providing space-based services during wartime.

Under this program, the Space Force has already signed contracts with four satellite companies, but the names remain undisclosed.

Though there is some logic to this decision, it carries great risk of corruption and misbehavior. Almost every time government bureaucrats and private companies are allowed to work in secret we routinely see kickbacks, bribery, and contract payoffs. And don’t expect congressional oversight to prevent such things, since there is now ample evidence from DOGE that our federal lawmakers have been quite willing to take their own payoffs to allow such corruption to prosper.

The switch to capitalism by the Pentagon is unquestionably a good thing. It will get more done for less. Letting it act in secrecy is a mistake however. Better to live with the risk of attack than allow our government and the companies it issues big money contracts to do things behind closed doors.

6 comments

ULA pinpoints reason a nozzle fell off a Vulcan rocket side booster during last launch

9:11 am

During a press briefing earlier this week, ULA’s CEO Tory Bruno noted that a manufacturing defect was the reason a nozzle fell off one of the two solid-fueled strap-on boosters during the second launch of the company’s new Vulcan rocket.

In a March 12 media roundtable, Tory Bruno, president and chief executive of ULA, said the anomaly was traced to a “manufacturing defect” in one of the internal parts of the nozzle, an insulator. Specific details, he said, remained proprietary. “We have isolated the root cause and made appropriate corrective actions,” he said, which were confirmed in a static-fire test of a motor at a Northrop test site in Utah in February. “So we are back continuing to fabricate hardware and, at least initially, screening for what that root cause was.”

The company however still awaits approval by the Pentagon to begin Vulcan commercial military launches. That delay has forced it to shift its first launch in 2025 from Vulcan to an Atlas-5 launch of Amazon’s first set of operational Kuiper satellites. Bruno also revealed during the press briefing that the company has scaled down the number of launches it hopes to complete in 2025 from 20 to 12, with the reduction caused almost entirely by fewer Vulcan launches.

2 comments

Space Force awards development contracts to eight startups

9:27 am

The Space Force’s commercial office, dubbed SpaceWERX, announced March 8, 2025 that it has awarded development contracts to eight startups totaling $440 million.

Each STRATFI agreement is worth up to $60 million, with SpaceWERX and several defense agencies contributing up to $30 million per project. Private investors provide matching funds to scale innovations that have already demonstrated viability through prototype development.

The winners — Albedo, Beast Code, CesiumAstro, Gravitics, LeoLabs, Rise8, Umbra and Xona — were announced March 8 at an event at the Capital Factory in Austin, Texas.

Of these companies, Gravitics is probably the most interesting, as it is attempting to become a major American provider of space station modules. It already has a $125 million contract with Axiom to build a small module for that company’s station. This new contract from the Space Force suggests the Pentagon is considering launching its own space station, or possibly attaching a Gravitics module to one of the four private stations presently being built. Below is my present ranking of these four stations:

  • Haven-1, being built by Vast, with no NASA funds. The company is moving fast, with Haven-1 to launch and be occupied in 2026 for a 30 day mission. It hopes this actual hardware and manned mission will put it in the lead to win NASA’s phase 2 contract, from which it will build its much larger mult-module Haven-2 station..
  • Axiom, being built by Axiom, has launched three tourist flights to ISS. There are rumors it is experiencing cash flow issues, but it is also going to do a fourth ISS tourist flight this spring, carrying passengers from India, Hungary, and Poland.
  • Orbital Reef, being built by a consortium led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space. Though Blue Origin has apparently done little, Sierra Space has successfully tested its inflatable modules, including a full scale version, and appears ready to start building the station’s modules for launch.
  • Starlab, being built by a consortium led by Voyager Space, Airbus, and Northrop Grumman. It recently had its station design approved by NASA.
2 comments

Space Force’s X-37B completes seventh flight, lasting 434 days

8:22 am

With landing on March 7, 2025 at Vandenberg in California, of one of the Space Force’s two X-37B reusable mini-shuttles, the military completed the seventh total flight, this one lasting over 434 days.

The mission achieved a number of important milestones. First, it was the first launched on SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket. Previously launches had used both ULA’s Atlas-5 as well as SpaceX’s Falcon 9.

Second, the spacecraft successfully demonstrated its ability to use aerobraking to adjust its orbit.

The Space Force also claimed other classified experiments on board “tested space domain awareness technology experiments that aim to improve the United States Space Force’s knowledge of the space environment.” That’s however all they told us.

Because the Space Force has stopped telling us which of the two X-37B’s is flying on each launch, it is not clear the Space Force even has a fleet of two any longer. It could be one has been retired.

One comment

ULA & Northrop Grumman complete static fire test of Vulcan strap-on booster

9:13 am

As part of its investigation into the loss of a strap-on booster nozzle during the second launch of ULA’s Vulcan rocket in October 2024, ULA and Northrop Grumman on February 13, 2025 successfully completed a static fire test of another strap-on booster.

The test was also apparently done in order to convince the Space Force to certify Vulcan for military launches. The Pentagon originally required Vulcan to complete two launches before certification, something that second launch achieved despite the loss of the nozzle. It has held off that certification however, insisting on more information into the nozzle loss.

The investigation has scrambled ULA’s planned launch schedule. The company had hoped after the second certification launch to fly two Space Force commercial launches before the end of 2024. Both launches were pushed back into 2025, so much so that ULA has been forced to de-stack a Vulcan rocket so it can instead do an Atlas-5 launch first, carrying the first set of Amazon’s Kuiper satellites.

Whether the results of this static fire test will satisfy the military is at present unknown. No details about the test were revealed, other than the companies were studying the results.

Leave a comment

ULA swapping Vulcan for Atlas-5 for first 2025 launch

11:18 am

ULA has decided to destack the Vulcan rocket it had planned as its first launch in 2025 (launching a military payload) and is now replacing it with one of its remaining Atlas-5 rockets to put the first batch of satellites for Amazon’s Kuiper internet constellation.

It appears the military is not ready to certify this launch after the second Vulcan launch in October 2024 experienced a problem with one of its strap-on boosters. The payload got to its proper orbit, but the loss of that booster’s nozzle appears to be an issue the military remains concerned about.

Rather than wait, ULA decided to switch to the Kuiper launch. The company wants to complete up to 20 launches in 2025, many of which are for Amazon using its last ten or so Atlas-5 rockets. When it can start commercial launches of Vulcan remains somewhat uncertain. The military has indicated it will make a final decision of certification in the spring, and has also said that first operational flight will follow soon after.

4 comments

Space Force starts environmental impact study of SpaceX’s launches at Vandenberg

3:35 pm

In mid-December the Space Force initiated a new environmental impact study (EIS), reviewing SpaceX’s request to significantly increasing the number of launches it would do out of Vandenberg, an increase that could climb to as much as a hundred launches per year.

The EIS will examine the environmental impacts from the redevelopment of Space Launch Complex (SLC) 6 for use by SpaceX for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. The Space Force awarded SpaceX access to SLC-6, aka “Slick Six,” in 2023 after the final launch of United Launch Alliance’s Delta 4 from the site.

SLC-6 was built in the 1960s for the Air Force’s Manned Orbiting Laboratory program, which was canceled in 1969 before any launches took place. It was later converted to support Space Shuttle launches, but mothballed after the Challenger accident in 1986 before hosting a single launch. ULA took over the site in 2006.

The EIS would also allow SpaceX to conduct up to 100 launches annually between SLC-6 and its existing launch pad at Vandenberg, SLC-4. That includes booster landings at both launch sites as well as droneships downrange.

This is where we are are in the first quarter of the 21st century. Nothing new can be done anywhere without detailed environmental impact statements that take months, sometimes years, to complete, and almost always conclude that the proposed work can proceed without harm. Often however that conclusion can only come if the government and the private sector agree to funnel cash to environmental causes and organizations, if only to shut them up and prevent further lawsuits. (That’s exactly what happened in Boca Chica. Expect the same now in California.)

It must be noted again that we now have almost eight decades of empirical proof in both Florida and California that rocket launches do no significant harm to the environment, and that if anything they act to protect wildlife by creating large undeveloped refuges in the surrounding land. These new impact statements forced on SpaceX in California, in Florida, and in Boca Chica are therefore nothing more than a government power play, done in order to tell everyone who really is boss.

A new boss however takes over the executive branch of the federal government in only a few weeks. I suspect he will not look kindly at these games. Expect some quick changes almost immediately.

4 comments

China and SpaceX complete launches

11:21 pm

Two launches today. First China launched four Earth observation radar satellites, its Long March 2D rocket lifting off from its Taiyuan spaceport in northeast China. No word where the rocket’s lower stages, using very toxic hypergolic fuels, crashed within China.

SpaceX then launched a GPS-type satellite for the Space Force, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral. Little was released about the payload and what information was released was not very informative. The first stage completed its fourth flight, landing softly on a drone ship in the Atlantic.

The leaders in the 2024 launch race:

130 SpaceX
62 China
16 Russia
13 Rocket Lab

American private enterprise still leads the rest of the world combined in successful launches 149 to 94, while SpaceX by itself leads the entire world, including American companies, 130 to 113.

Leave a comment

Rocket startup Stoke Space completes static fire test of first stage engine

10:02 am

Stoke's Nova rocket
Stoke’s Nova rocket

The rocket startup Stoke Space revealed yesterday that it has completed a static fire test of the first stage engine it will use on its Nova rocket, shown in the graphic to the right.

The test, which was not the first for this engine, proved out several new technologies.

Stoke Space called the test significant for several reasons. It’s the first hotfire of the company’s Block 2 (flight layout) stage 1 engine, and this engine architecture — called full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) — is considered particularly challenging. Only two entities in the world — Stoke and SpaceX — have successfully developed FFSC engines. … Stoke’s stage 1 engine is a liquified natural gas/liquid oxygen engine capable of producing 100,000 pounds of thrust. The duration of the test was not revealed.

It was the first time Stoke has tested on its new vertical test stand in Moses Lake. The company’s testing philosophy is that you must “test like you fly,” and it believes vertical testing is key to engine development.

Nor is the first stage engine the only technological innovation. Nova’s second stage uses a radical design whereby the engine releases its thrust through a ring of small nozzles on the outside perimeter of the stage, rather than a single central nozzle. This design is what the company hopes will allow it to return that upper stage intact for reuse.

The four year old company has raised $100 million in investment capital, but has also faced environmental red tape from the Space Force for its launch facility at Cape Canaveral. It had previously targeted 2025 for the first test flights of Nova, but that schedule appears unlikely because of this red tape.

One comment

The next two Vulcan launches for the Pentagon slip to 2025

9:14 am

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

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

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

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

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

2 comments

ULA begins stacking Vulcan for military launch, anticipating Pentagon approval

8:56 am

Though the Space Force is still reviewing the nozzle issue on the second flight of ULA’s Vulcan rocket and has not yet certified the rocket for military operational launches, ULA has begun stacking the next Vulcan for an anticipated military launch of a national security satellite.

On Monday [October 21], ULA shared photos of the 109.2-foot-long (33.3 m) booster being hoisted into the Vertical Integration Facility to begin the stacking process. In the days and possibly weeks to come, the 38.5-foot-long (11.7 m) Centaur 5 upper stage will be added along with four solid rocket boosters and the payload fairings.

It appears that the military has accepted Vulcan for this launch because — despite the nozzle falling off of
a strap-on side booster — the rocket was successful in placing its payload in its precise orbit. The Space Force is simply completing the paperwork required for certification.

No date however has been set, but the company hopes to complete two military Vulcan launches in 2024, so it won’t be that far in the future.

7 comments

Space Force awards SpaceX big launch contract

10:24 am

Space Force yesterday awarded SpaceX a $733 million contract for what appears to be a total of eight future launches of military and national security payloads.

Few details were released about the payloads, including the launch timeline. The deal was issued as part of the military launch contracting system, which in June named SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin as its launch providers for the next five years.

However, one official’s comment appeared to suggest this contract award was the military’s expression of disgust at the delays at ULA and Blue Origin in getting their rockets launchworthy.

“In this era of Great Power Competition, it is imperative to not leave capability on the ground,” Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, program executive officer for Assured Access to Space, said in an emailed statement on Friday. “The Phase 3 Lane 1 construct allows us to execute launch services more quickly for the more risk-tolerant payloads, putting more capabilities on orbit faster in order to support national security,” Panzenhagen added. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the Space Force wanted to split this contract between the three companies, but it decided to give it all to SpaceX because it expected any launches given to ULA and Blue Origin would not launch on time, and it didn’t want “to leave [that] capability on the ground.”

In the case of ULA, its Vulcan rocket finally made its first two launches this year, four years late, but on the second launch had a failure on one of its solid-fueled strap-on boosters (the nozzle fell off). Though the rocket successfully placed its dummy payload into the correct orbit, the military has either decided that it can’t yet certify Vulcan for military launches, or sees further delays while the investigation and fixes are installed.

As for Blue Origin, its New Glenn rocket is also four years behind schedule, and likely won’t launch until next year. To get it certified will also probably require two launches, and since that company never seems to be in a hurry to do anything (NASA removed its payload from New Glenn’s first launch because the company had failed to meet the required interplanetary launch window), the Pentagon probably decided it can’t give it any contracts at this time.

And so, more launches and profits for SpaceX. While it is great for that company, with revenue that will likely aid in developing Starship/Superheavy, this is not a healthy situation for the American space industry. As a nation we need more than one launch provider. We need these other companies to stop dithering around and get the job done. That’s the true American way. Have they forgotten how to do it?

14 comments

Musk says SpaceX will sue California Coastal Commission

8:42 am

In a tweet on X on October 12, 2024, Elon Musk said that SpaceX will sue the California Coastal Commission for violating his first amendment rights as soon the court opens tomorrow.

“Filing suit against them on Monday for violating the First Amendment,” he wrote, adding: “Tuesday, since court is closed on Monday.”

At least two commissioners had made it very clear in public statements at a hearing last week that they were voting against a Space Force request that would increase the number of launches at Vandenberg because they opposed Elon Musk’s political positions, not because the request would do any harm to the coast. The commission then rejected the request 6-4, with others claiming that SpaceX should have made the request directly rather than have the Space Force do it.

The vote remains non-binding, as the Space Force has the legal power to do whatever it wants at Vandenberg, and only works with the commission as a courtesy.

2 comments

California officials: SpaceX shouldn’t be allowed to launch from Vandenberg because we hate Elon Musk

10:11 am

In voting yesterday to reject a plan by the military to increase the number of launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, members of the California Coastal Commission admitted openly they did so because they do not like Elon Musk and his publicly stated political preferences.

The California Coastal Commission on Thursday rejected the Air Force’s plan to give SpaceX permission to launch up to 50 rockets a year from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County.

“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” Commissioner Gretchen Newsom said at the meeting in San Diego.

…“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”

It must be noted that this vote is not legally binding on the military. Though it has always tried to work in cooperation with this commission, it has the right to decide for itself how many launches it wants to allow out of Vandenberg. Whether it will defy the commission however is uncertain, and likely depends entirely on who wins the presidential election. If Harris wins, she will likely order the Space Force to not only obey the commission but to further limit launches by SpaceX at Vandenberg. If Trump wins, he will likely tell the Space Force to go ahead and expand operations, ignoring the immoral political machinations of these commissioners.

And it must be emphasized how immoral and improper these commissioners are. Their task is to regulate the use of the California coast in order to protect it for all future users, from beach-goers to rocket companies. It is not their right to block the coast’s use to certain individuals simply because those individuals have expressed political views they oppose. Not only does this violate Musk’s first amendment rights, it is an outright abuse of power.

If anyone in California reading this article wishes to tell these commissioners what they think of their actions yesterday, you can find their contact information here.

27 comments

Rocket startup Stoke Space is saddled with the same red tape as SpaceX

10:06 am

Stoke's Nova rocket
Stoke’s Nova rocket

We’re from the government and we’re here to help you! The rocket startup Stoke Space appears to be struggling with the same kind of environmental red tape that is hindering SpaceX, though in Stoke’s case the red tape appears absurdly unnecessary.

Stoke is the only company besides SpaceX developing a rocket with both its first and second stages returning to Earth to land vertically and then be reused. Unlike SpaceX Starship/Superheavy, which is gigantic and revolutionary in all ways, Stoke’s Nova rocket is comparable in size to the hundreds of rockets that have launched from Florida since the 1960s. Based on that six-decade track record, it would seem that getting rights to launch Nova (but not for its return) would be considered basic and routine, requiring little complex bureaucracy.

Hah! Fooled you!

Before any of this can take place, the Space Force must complete its “environmental assessment” of the company’s plans at LC-14 [the launchpad used for John Glenn’s first orbital mission and many others subsequently], in order to evaluate how repeat launches will affect local flora and fauna. These assessments are mandatory under federal law, and they can often take months — but the upside is that they provide a closer look at a company’s operational plans.

» Read more

7 comments

SpaceX launches two broadband satellites for the Space Force and Norway

8:49 pm

SpaceX tonight successfully launched two broadband satellites, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Vandenberg in California.

The satellites will provide improved broadband service in the Arctic regions for both the Space Force and Norway, which partnered with Northrop Grumman to build the satellites.

The Falcon 9 first stage completed its 22nd flight, tying the record of one other booster for the most reuses. It landed on a drone ship in the Pacific.

The leaders in the 2024 launch race:

79 SpaceX
33 China
10 Rocket Lab
8 Russia

American private enterprise now leads the rest of the world combined in successful launches 94 to 49, while SpaceX by itself still leads the entire world combined, including American companies, 79 to 64.

Leave a comment

ULA completes its 4th launch this year and last Atlas-5 launch for the Space Force

9:10 am

Though ULA’s Atlas-5 rocket still has a number of launches on its manifest before it is retired, early this morning the company successfully completed the last Atlas-5 launch for the Space Force, the rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral in Florida.

This was ULA’s fourth launch in 2024, the most in a year for the company since 2022. The leader board for this year’s launch race remains unchanged:

74 SpaceX
31 China
8 Rocket Lab
8 Russia

American private enterprise however now leads the rest of the world combined in successful launches 87 to 47, while SpaceX by itself still leads the entire world combined, including American companies, 74 to 60.

Note: A Rocket Lab that had been scheduled for today has been delayed two days.

6 comments

Space Force adds Stoke Space and Blue Origin to its list of smallsat launch companies

9:59 am

The Space Force has now added rocket startups Stoke Space and Blue Origin to its list of launch companies who are now approved to bid on launches of the military’s small satellites.

The two firms join 10 other vendors in the OSP-4 pool: ABL Space Systems, Aevum, Astra, Firefly Aerospace, Northrop Grumman, Relativity Space, Rocket Lab, SpaceX, United Launch Alliance (ULA), and X-Bow.

This program is designed for launches that are not critical and can be used to help new rocket companies, while also encourage all the companies to move more quickly, as the contracts are designed to be require a launch within 12 to 24 months after award, and sometimes much sooner. For example, several recent Firefly launches required the company to deliver the payload to the assembly building and get it mounted in less than a few days, and to do so only when told by the military.

This military smallsat launch program is also wholly different than the Space Force’s large payload launch program, which presently only allows SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin to bid on launches. With both programs however it appears the military is no longer limiting the companies that can bid to as small a number as possible — which had been its policy for the first two decades of this century — but instead is eagerly expanding the number over time to increase competition and its own options. With the large payload program the Pentagon intends to revisit its list yearly to widen it as new companies mature.

6 comments

ULA replaces Sierra’s mini-shuttle with dummy payload to launch Vulcan in September

9:28 am

Because of continuing delays in preparing Sierra Space’s Tenacity Dream Chaser mini-shuttle for launch, ULA has been forced to remove it from the second launch of Vulcan in order to proceed with the launch in September as planned.

ULA needs to launch Vulcan for the second time and as soon as possible in order to get approval from the Pentagon to do military launches. The delays in getting Tenacity ready for launch has already impacted that schedule, as ULA had originally hoped to launch Vulcan on its second flight — with Tenacity as the payload — several months ago. Further delays beyond September would seriously damage not only ULA’s bottom line, but the military’s own needs. It is all for these reasons that ULA has now set up a new review team to force this schedule forward, likely under pressure from the Pentagon.

Sierra Space meanwhile says that Tenacity is still on track to be ready to launch before the end of the year, but it is unclear what rocket will carry it. ULA will likely offer another Vulcan rocket for the purpose, but to do so it will probably have to delay some other payload, and it is certain it will not do that to any upcoming military launches. Based on the announced launch schedule, it does not look like this launch can occur on a ULA rocket in 2024. ULA says it hopes to launch at least 20 times in 2025, so one of those launches will likely carry Tenacity.

One comment

Space Force names SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin as its launch providers for the next five years

9:14 am

As part of the military’s program for issuing launch contracts, the Space Force yesterday announced that it has chosen SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin as its launch providers, allowing them to bid on $5.6 billion worth of planned launched over the next five years.

The NSSL Phase 3 program was structured into two “lanes.” Lane 1 is for less demanding launches to low Earth orbit, while Lane 2 is reserved for heavy lift rockets capable of delivering payloads to nine reference orbits, including some of the most demanding national security missions.

The selection of Blue Origin, SpaceX, and ULA for Lane 1 contracts confirms that no other launch providers met the criteria. Seven bids were submitted, according to the DoD announcement.

The Space Force apparently rejected the other four unnamed companies because they “are still maturing their launch capabilities.” It will allow them to re-submit applications next year, and could approve others for bidding at that time, which is a major change from past policy. Previously the military would name approved companies, but not reconsider others for years, a policy that limited its options and reduced competition. Now it appears it will be doing so frequently, possibly every year, in order to regularly increase the number of companies that can bid on military contracts.

This change is excellent news for the American launch industry, as it means the Pentagon has finally ended its long standing launch policy that played favorites.

4 comments

Pentagon wants to buy from SpaceX its own 100-satellite Starshield constellation

10:21 am

The Pentagon is so impressed with its experience using SpaceX’s Starlink system as well as its military-hardened version dubbed Starshield that it is negotiating the purchase from SpaceX of its own 100-satellite Starshield constellation.

Col. Eric Felt, director of space architecture at the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration, said the plan is to acquire a constellation of Starshield satellites by 2029, contingent upon receiving the necessary funding appropriations from Congress.

Speaking at SAE Media Group’s Milsatcom USA conference on June 10, Felt noted that the military has been an avid consumer of SpaceX’s commercial Starlink services, but also wants to take advantage of the company’s dedicated Starshield product line and procure a government-owned constellation. In a briefing slide presented at the conference, titled “Satcom 2029,” Felt showed the DoD’s notional future satcom architecture including more than 100 Starshield satellites.

If approved for funding from Congress, this Starshield constellation would be used in conjunction with other military communciations satellites, which could also include satellites provided by other satellite companies such as Amazon and its as-yet unlaunched Kuiper constellation. The main advantage for such a system is redundancy. It is very difficult for an enemy to take the system down, since it uses so many small satellites. It is also cheaper to maintain and upgrade.

6 comments

Space Force cancels major satellite contract with Northrop Grumman

10:02 am

The Space Force today announced it has cancelled a major multi-satellite contract with Northrop Grumman, worth almost a billion dollars, because of cost overruns and scheduling delays.

Northrop was formally notified last month of the termination within “our restricted Space Business,” the defense contractor said in a regulatory filing, using jargon for classified programs. The filing offered no details on the classified satellite or the reasons it was called off, which were provided by people who commented on condition of anonymity because of its secret status.

Based on previous contract announcements, this cancellation appears to be the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman in August 2023, as part of two awards, one to Northrop and the second to Lockheed Martin, with each building 36 satellites of a 72 satellite communications constellation. The Northrop contract was valued at $733 million.

Apparently in the six months since, the Space Force found that Northrop Grumman wasn’t doing a satisfactory. Whether Lockheed Martin will pick up the contract to replace Northrop however is not clear. The Space Force might put it up for bid again.

2 comments

The Pentagon picks Northrop Grumman’s orbital refueling port as its standard

9:05 am

Having reviewed the designs of several orbital refueling ports, the Space Force has chosen Northrop Grumman’s port as the standard it wishes future military satellites to use.

In a move that could shape the in-orbit satellite servicing market, the U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command designated Northrop Grumman’s Passive Refueling Module (PRM) as a favored interface to enable future in-space refueling of military satellites. The PRM has a docking mechanism to allow a refueling vehicle in orbit to transfer propellant to another satellite to extend its useful life.

Northrop Grumman said the Space Systems Command, which oversees in-space logistics and services programs, also will support the company’s development of an orbital fuel tanker for geosynchronous orbit missions that would carry up to 1,000 kilograms of hydrazine fuel and deliver it to client satellites on demand.

Lauren Smith, program manager for in-space refueling at Northrop Grumman, said the selection of the PRM was based on the maturity and technical viability of the design, as well as the company’s experience servicing satellites in orbit. Northrop Grumman’s SpaceLogistics subsidiary remains the only commercial firm to have successfully serviced satellites in geostationary orbit, having docked twice with client Intelsat satellites some 22,000 miles above Earth to extend spacecraft life.

Note that even though Northrop Grumman’s MEV spacecraft has twice docked with defunct Intelsat satellites to return them to service, the spacecraft did no refueling. Instead, it brought its own fuel and engine, and used that to control the satellite.

Other companies developing refueling services with ports they had hoped would become the standard include Astroscale and Orbit Fab. Both have launched demo missions, but neither has yet completed a refueling mission as well. Though this Space Force decision is not exclusive, and leaves open the possibility of further awards to these other commercial refueling port designs, it will likely force everyone to move towards the Northrop Grumman design.

5 comments

Lockheed Martin & Boeing get Space Force satellite development contracts

9:43 am

The Space Force has awarded Lockheed Martin and Boeing $66 million contracts each to design their own version of a new communications satellite for the military.

Over the next 15 months, the companies will create prototype satellites showing how they would meet the Space Force’s requirements for the MUOS satellites. DoD announced the contract awards Jan. 25.

The Space Force is expected to select one of the companies in 2025 to manufacture two flight-ready narrowband satellites to modernize the existing constellation of five MUOS satellites in geosynchronous orbit. Narrowband communications use relatively small amounts of data, but are critical for military operations.

A third unnamed company also bid but was not selected. The choice of Boeing for this competition is surprising, considering its numerous management and engineering problems across a wide range of products, from airplanes to space capsules. NASA itself has been so dissatisfied with Boeing’s work that in 2020 it decided at that time “to eliminate Boeing from future award consideration.” That decision appears to still stand. As far as I can remember Boeing not won any NASA contracts since.

Moreover, Lockheed Martin built the current MUOS satellites in orbit, while Boeing does not have a big reputation in recent years building satellites.

All told, it will therefore be extremely surprising if Boeing wins this competition. I suspect the Space Force issued this contract to help keep Boeing a viable company and to give it an opportunity to get its act together. Rewarding incompetence however is rarely successful.

3 comments

Space Force issues contract to assess New Glenn rocket for military launches

9:49 am

The Space Force has awarded Blue Origin an $18 million contract to assess that company’s new New Glenn rocket in order to certify it eventually for military launches.

The Space Force awarded Blue Origin nearly $18 million for “National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Lane 2 early integration studies to assess launch vehicle trajectory and mission design, coupled launch loads, and integrated thermal environments to inform compatibility between launch vehicles and space vehicles for missions planned in fiscal years 2025 and 2026.”

The NSSL Phase 3 procurement is divided into two lanes: Lane 1 caters to lower-risk missions to lower orbits, while Lane 2 focuses on demanding missions to higher orbits, requiring certified launch vehicles and full mission assurance. The latter is where Blue Origin, with its New Glenn heavy-lift rocket, could aim to challenge incumbents SpaceX and United Launch Alliance.

Bids for NSSL Phase 3 were submitted in December. Launch services contracts are expected to be awarded later this year for missions to be flown starting in late 2025 through 2029 or beyond.

The Pentagon wants to certify a third launch company for these higher-mass, higher-orbit missions, and New Glenn is powerful enough to provide that service, once it begins operational. This study puts Blue Origin on a path to get that certification.

After years of delays at both ULA and Blue Origin that left almost the entire launch market in the hands of SpaceX, it now looks like SpaceX is finally going to get some competition.

Leave a comment

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket launches the Space Force’s X-37B

6:15 pm

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket tonight successfully launched one of the two X-37B reuseable mini-shuttles in the Space Force’s fleet, lifting off from Cape Canaveral.

This was the seventh X-37B flight. It is not clear which of the two vehicles was flying, and how many flights it has completed previously. The previous X-37B flight stayed in orbit for a record 908 days, landing safely in November 2022.

The two side boosters completed their fifth flight, landing safely back at Cape Canaveral. The center core was treated as expendable, and was not recovered.

The leaders in the 2023 launch race:

95 SpaceX (with another launch scheduled later tonight)
65 China
19 Russia
8 Rocket Lab
7 India

American private enterprise now leads China in successful launches 109 to 65, and the entire world combined 109 to 102. SpaceX in turn trails the rest of the world (excluding other American companies) 95 to 102.

6 comments

Firefly successfully launches for the second time in 2023

10:41 am

Alpha seven seconds after liftoff
Alpha seven seconds after liftoff

UPDATE #2: According to a Firefly tweet on X, the second stage failed to fire its second burn. The satellite however was deployed, communications established, and mission operations started. Though its orbit will decay prematurely, it appears the customer, the Space Force, will achieve most of its mission objectives. This should be considered a successful launch, albeit not one that Firefly will want to repeat in this manner.

UPDATE: It appears the upper stage might have had a problem in its final engine burn intended to circularize the orbit for deployment. Either the burn failed to occur, or did not fire correctly. See this tweet. (Hat tip Jay.) I have found other reports that indicate the same question.

The question now is whether this is considered a successful launch. One of its main tasks was to demonstrate fast assembly and prelaunch procedures, for the Space Force. This was accomplished. If the satellite cannot function however is isn’t a full success. I will wait for more information before deciding whether to remove it from the launch stats.

Original post:
——————
Firefly today successfully completed its second launch in 2023, its third launch overall, its Alpha rocket lifting off from its launchpad at Vandenberg in California.

With this launch Firefly also met its launch prediction for 2023, two launches. The mission was its second for the Space Force this year, both designed to test quick launch procedures. As of posting the payload has not been deployed.

The leaders in the 2023 launch race remain the same:

92 SpaceX
61 China
18 Russia
8 Rocket Lab
7 India

American private enterprise now leads China in successful launches 106 to 61, and the entire world combined 106 to 97. SpaceX still trails the rest of the world (excluding other American companies) 92 to 97.

2 comments

Firefly schedules second launch in 2023

9:19 am

Firefly has now scheduled the second launch of its Alpha rocket in 2023, with a launch window of about 20 minutes on the morning of Decmeber 20, 2023.

The payload is a smallsat from Lockheed Martin testing new antenna technology, but the launch is for the Space Force. Like the previous September 15, 2023 launch, it is designed to test the ability of Firefly to get a payload into orbit quickly, from assembly to launch.

Leave a comment

The scrub of this week’s Falcon Heavy launch of X-37B

9:31 am

In what has become quite rare, SpaceX was forced to scrub its December 11, 2023 launch of its Falcon Heavy rocket, carrying one of the Space Force’s X-37B spacecraft, due to technical problems.

Initially, the cause of the scrub was linked to a problem with the company’s ground systems, not the rocket itself. This in itself is significant, because of the almost hundred launches SpaceX has done this year, almost none have been scrubbed, and the few that have been scrubbed were almost always because of weather conditions. The company has gotten its launch ground systems and rockets working like clockwork, so to have a problem with the ground systems on this Falcon Heavy launch was quite unusual.

SpaceX officials initially thought they would be able to fix the problem and launch after only one or two days delay. However, shortly thereafter unstated additional problems were identified that required the company to roll the rocket back to its assembly building for more work.

As a result, the launch date is now to be determined, and could even be delayed to early next year. The article at the link focuses on how this rescheduling could impact two other launches that carry commercial lunar landers. This I think is unlikely, since both work under much more restrictive launch windows, for this reason are almost certain to get priority in scheduling.

More important is the question as to what caused the initial scrub and then the need to roll the rocket back for more checkouts. Are the problems with the Falcon Heavy or with the X-37B spacecraft, or with some issue involving both? Neither SpaceX nor the Space Force would release any details. The fact that SpaceX now so rarely has technical issues at launch suggests some problem with the X-37B, but that conclusion is pure speculation.

3 comments
1 2 3 4 5