UFOs are real, and I can prove it! RARE UAP footage and photos, PLUS an...

Starship Flight 8 NEW DELAY, Plus Katy Perry to go on Jeff Bezos Rocket

Wrong about Mars! NASA discoveries confirm that life once flourished, a...

What Starship Can and Can't Do

Starship The Super Heavy booster for the next Starship mission heading to the launch pad for tests earlier this month. (credit: SpaceX) What Starship can, and can’t, do by Jeff Foust Monday, February 24, 2025 As soon as this Friday, SpaceX will perform another test flight of its Starship/Super Heavy vehicle from its Starbase test site in Boca Chica, Texas. The flight will be the first since one in mid-January that ended in the destruction of the Starship upper stage, raining debris over the Caribbean, including some on the Turks and Caicos Islands (see “Tales of two rockets”, The Space Review, January 20, 2025.) SpaceX said shortly after the incident that a propellant leak caused a fire and that it would take steps to prevent such a fire from happening again. Companies and individuals are starting to think about how they can take advantage of that to perform missions not feasible or affordable today, although others are skeptical that Starship will be the vehicle that consumes the entire launch market. A success on this flight would being the company a step closer to finally reaching orbit with Starship. Its initial missions, once it can demonstrate it can reach orbit (even if it can’t yet make a precision landing back at Starbase) will be to demonstrate technologies needed for the lunar lander version of Starship and to deploy larger versions of the company’s Starlink satellites. That will keep Starship busy for the next few years, but assuming SpaceX is successful in achieving its cost, performance, and cadence goals for Starship, much more capacity will be on the market towards the end of the decade. Companies and individuals are starting to think about how they can take advantage of that to perform missions not feasible or affordable today, although others are skeptical that Starship will be the vehicle that consumes the entire launch market. Starships are for Venus and Mars People have been thinking about how to use Starship for some time. Commercial space station developers, for example, see it as an effective means of launching large space station modules. Starlab Space, one such company, envisions launching its entire station on a single Starship. NASA is working on concepts for the future Habitable Worlds Observatory space telescope that could take full advantage of Starship (see “The lifecycle of space telescopes”, The Space Review, February 3, 2025). As Starship edges closer to operational launches, more people are thinking about how to use the vehicle “Starship is around 150,000 kilograms, which is substantial,” Michael Paluszek, president of Princeton Satellite Systems, said of the vehicle’s payload capacity during a presentation earlier this month at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Boston. “So, what do we do with it?” He outlined several options, like supporting space manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. “There may very well be an industry that is best done in low Earth orbit, but how do you get the equipment you need and the raw materials up there, and how do you get the products back?” he said, something that Starship’s large payload bay could enable. Other applications were more speculative, like helium-3 mining on the Moon or even gas giants for fusion reactors that don’t exist yet. Starship could also enable large robotic missions that would otherwise require multiple launches. He recalled a NASA concept from more than two decades ago called the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, a nuclear-powered mission that would have required by his estimate three launches. “What do you do when launch number two fails?” (See “Space science gets big at NASA”, The Space Review, July 7, 2003.) Another speaker at the AAAS session discussed a similar concept. Iaroslav Iakubivskyi is a postdoc at MIT, working on Venus mission concepts and instrumentation. He is part of a group there working on a series of Venus missions, starting with a small entry probe now scheduled to launch next year by Rocket Lab to look for biosignatures in the upper atmosphere of Venus. “It’s a vision where the Mars architecture is rich in energy, water, food, and in crew time,” Lordos said of the Starship-enabled plan. “We will no longer be limited in how much mass we can send to Mars.” While that initial mission is small (originally designed to launch on Rocket Lab’s Electron small launch vehicle), the team has concepts for larger missions. A second mission would send a spacecraft to Venus in the early 2030s to place a balloon roughly five meters across and three meters tall in the atmosphere for additional studies. The third, and by far most ambitious, mission would send an even larger balloon to Venus, one that would be 27 meters in diameter. It would collect atmosphere samples and place them in a rocket, weighing two tons, which would then launch out of the atmosphere to eventually return to Earth: a Venus atmospheric sample return mission. The concept was studied under the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts, or NIAC, program in 2023, he said, with the idea of maturing the technologies needed for flying the mission in the 2040s. “There’s a lot of challenges of how you would do that,” he said of the balloon in particular, “because you need a very high inflation rate to inflate, and a big rocket, suspended underneath it, to launch.” That drives the mission to require a very large rocket. “We did multiple trade studies and SpaceX Starship emerged as the leading solution,” he said, given its payload and cost. Other vehicles required at least two launches, “and the risks involved in that just does not justify the need for that.” SpaceX’s ultimate use for Starship, at least in the vision of founder Elon Musk, is to use the vehicle to establish a permanent home for humanity on Mars. But, while Musk has often talked about sending humans to Mars as soon as possible, he’s said little about what people would do once they get there and how they would live, beyond a few artists’ concepts released by SpaceX over the years. Others, though, are working to fill that void. George Lordos, a research scientist at MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, noted that Starship’s performance enables expeditions much larger than what NASA has contemplated in its various Mars architectures, which have four or even fewer astronauts on the Martian surface. “Each one of those four crew members will, by necessity, have to wear many different hats,” he said at the AAAS session. “At what point do all these hats become not just an inefficient way for humans to support science and exploration, but a safety risk?” He advocated for larger crews that, while more expensive, could do far more science, citing the experience from Antarctica, provided there is a way not just to get them to Mars (and back) but also support them while they’re there. A group at MIT developed a concept for a large Mars base called Pale Red Dot (the name is a long and somewhat convoluted acronym) that won a NASA student competition in 2023. It involved developing a set of modular habitats that could be linked together to create two “villages” hosting a combined 36 people. In that architecture, Starship would be used to deliver the habitats, two on each vehicle. A system called a “starcrane” would lower them to “skateboards” on the surface that would then roll them into position. The habitats would have a rigid lower section and inflatable section to maximize their volume. “The idea is that would build large villages connecting maybe 30 of those modules together per village,” he explained. “Every member of the crew would have their own small studio apartment.” “I don’t subscribe to the view that they destroy all launch all down the chain,” Beck said of vehicles like Starship, comparing it to an Airbus 380 and Electron to a private jet. Other modules could be specialized for various purposes. That included one module whose upper section would host a swimming pool. The section below would serve as a shelter in solar storms, using water as a radiation shield. That section “just so happens to be the Ten-Forward bar.” “It’s a vision where the Mars architecture is rich in energy, water, food, and in crew time,” he said. “We will no longer be limited in how much mass we can send to Mars.” Starship, smallsats, and space tugs The combination of the large payload capacity, low per-kilogram cost, and high launch rate promised for Starship suggests that the vehicle could outperform any other launch vehicle out there, capturing missions that at least have a choice of launch vehicles (given that some missions will be captive to a specific vehicle or those from a specific country.) How do those other vehicles then compete? Those concerns have, in recent years, trickled down to the opposite end of the spectrum from Starship, small launch vehicles. The rise of SpaceX’s rideshare missions on Falcon 9 rockets have taken away customers who might otherwise use small launchers, undermining their business cases. A Starship rideshare, perhaps augmented with orbital transfer vehicles, might further threaten the viability of small rockets. While companies that operate small rockets have raised concerns about Starship in the past (see “Europe looks to end its launcher crisis”, The Space Review, May 6, 2024), companies were more upbeat about their prospects of competing against Starship at the Smallsat Symposium earlier this month in Silicon Valley. “We’ve seen super-heavy launch vehicles arrive at the pad, which is super awesome, but I would remind everybody that they’re great for particular purposes, but they don’t solve every problem,” Peter Beck, CEO of Rocket Lab, said in a keynote address at the conference. SpaceX rideshare missions, he argued, did not kill off all small launch vehicles, citing the growing demand his company has seen for Electron. “Fundamentally, there’s different requirements for different things,” he said, with small launchers tailored for spacecraft that need to go to specific orbits at specific times. “I don’t subscribe to the view that they destroy all launch all down the chain,” he said of vehicles like Starship, comparing it to an Airbus 380 and Electron to a private jet. “They both have distinct purposes and needs, and one doesn’t replace the other.” During a panel later in the day, executives from other small launcher companies agreed. “The size of the vehicle is also very important for rapid response,” said Stella Guillen, chief commercial officer of Isar Aerospace, a German company nearing the first launch of its Spectrum rocket. “I think the class where Spectrum is is very good for producing it fast and being able to turn it around and launch fast.” “That would be true if cheap launch existed, but there’s no such thing,” said van den Dries, arguing that SpaceX has kept increasing launch prices for Falcon 9 and could do the same for Starship. “Nobody knows what will happen, but I think one thing for sure is that SpaceX and Blue Origin will use their big rockets to deploy their own constellations,” said Marino Fragnito, chief commercial officer and launch services director at Avio, which produces the Vega C. “Part of the market will be auto-generated by themselves.” (Blue Origin has not announced plans for a satellite constellation of its own but has contracts to launch part of Amazon’s Project Kuiper constellation.) “Our launcher, Vega C, we cover maybe 99% of satellites in LEO,” he said. Vega C has a capacity of about 3,300 kilograms to LEO and 2,300 kilograms to sun-synchronous orbits. “Why should we build a bigger rocket that is probably more expensive if we don’t capture any market share?” Another skeptic about Starship’s influence is Teun van den Dries, co-founder and CEO of Karman+, a startup that announced last week it raised $20 million in seed funding. Karman+ is an asteroid mining company, with ambitions to go to carbonaceous asteroids and gather materials like hydrated clays there that can then be processed to extract water, using very-low-cost spacecraft. That water could be used as fuel, except that most satellites don’t use water, or the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen that could be created from it, as fuel for on-orbit operations. In the near term, Karman+ plans to be its own customer for those materials using the water as fuel for its own spacecraft that can extend the lives of other satellites. “The missions that we're seeing right now, especially for GEO operators looking at life extension, is this grappling architecture where you become effectively a jet pack bolted on to their spacecraft, doing station keeping for them,” he said in an interview. That’s an approach SpaceLogistics, a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, is doing today to extend the lives of GEO communications satellites. But couldn’t a Starship launch similar servicing spacecraft for another company, or even new GEO satellites, cheaper than the costs of mining asteroids for water to refuel the Karman+ spacecraft? Van den Dries disagreed. “That would be true if cheap launch existed, but there’s no such thing,” he said, arguing that SpaceX has kept increasing launch prices for Falcon 9 and could do the same for Starship. Moreover, Starship requires refueling even for missions to GEO. “We have an order of magnitude cost difference in our benefit because of the refueling architecture that is, in a GEO configuration impossible, to beat,” he said. Another issue people raise about Starship is designing systems that are reliant on launching on that rocket and would be too big, or too expensive, to launch on other vehicles if Starship for some reason was not available. Lordos said at the AAAS meeting that he was not concerned. “We are, one way or another, moving to a different age where mass is no longer a constraint,” he said. “Let’s say that Starship doesn't succeed. They have already prompted competition.” He said that, in the case of the Pale Red Dot architecture, the habitat modules could be redesigned to fly on a different super-heavy rocket. “It’s not as great, but it will still work.” Or, as he put it in his talk, “Go big or stay home.” Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

Space Literacy: Environmental Education For A Space Faring Race

orbtial debris in GEO A lack of awareness of the value of space among the public, amid threats to the space environment about orbital debris, shows the need for a “space literacy” campaign. (credit: ESA/ID&Sense/ONiRiXEL) Space literacy: Environmental education for a spacefaring civilization by Beverly B. Bachelder and Robert S. Bachelder Monday, February 24, 2025 Our spacefaring civilization could benefit from the experience and wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt, the “conservation president.” The rapid development of key Earth orbits and their impending exhaustion presents a challenge similar to one he effectively addressed over a century ago By 1908, the United States had reached an inflection point in the utilization of its terrestrial resources. Roosevelt’s response was to summon the nation’s governors, members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, the Inland Waterways Commission, experts in natural resources, and leading industrialists to the White House for a conference on conservation and the “wise use” of natural resources. The conference owed its success to Roosevelt’s emphasis on a factor that is missing from current conversations about space sustainability: the critical role played by an educated public. In his opening speech, “Conservation as a National Duty,” the president told his audience that the discovery and use of coal, oil, gas, iron, metals, fertile soil, vast forests, and abundant waterways had made “the conditions of our life unparalleled in comfort and convenience.” But he warned his listeners that the nation’s natural resources were in danger of exhaustion if the “old wasteful methods of exploiting them” were allowed to continue. He said, “We began with an unapproached heritage of forests; more than half of the timber is gone. We began with coal fields more extensive than those of any other nation and with iron ores regarded as inexhaustible, and many experts now declare that the end of both iron and coal is in sight.” Roosevelt called for immediate action “to prevent the advent of a woodless age, and defer as long as possible the advent of an ironless age.” [1] Conference attendees were not Roosevelt’s only intended audience. Historian Clay S. Jenkinson points out that the president designed the proceedings to bring the issue to wide public attention. He writes, “Roosevelt said that urbanization cut off much of the American population from the nation’s land and its resources. The people had lost sight of their dependence on nature. This alienation from daily contact with the soil had led the country unwittingly to deplete the natural resources of the continent… Roosevelt made sure that 21 editors and reporters were on hand to inform the 88 million Americans of the importance and grandeur of the conference and to report its findings.” [2] The White House conference was a seminal event in the history of the environmental movement. It succeeded in popularizing the basic concept of conservation and sparked a number of initiatives, including establishment of the National Conservation Commission with representatives from federal agencies and the states. In large measure, the conference owed its success to Roosevelt’s emphasis on a factor that is missing from current conversations about space sustainability: the critical role played by an educated public that recognizes its dependence on the natural world and is willing to support the efforts of policymakers to conserve natural resources for current and future needs. At this critical moment, the public is largely unaware of its dependence on space. In its development of space resources, our spacefaring civilization has followed a similar trajectory. Early in the Space Age, certain regions of Earth’s orbit, a limited natural resource, began to host satellites that provided important services and benefits. In 1959, Explorer 6 took the first satellite image of Earth over Mexico. Telstar-1, the first active communications satellite, was launched in 1962 and connected the US and France in the first transatlantic television transmission. By 1964, the US Navy was using radio signals from its Transit system of satellites to navigate surface ships and submarines. Now we have reached an inflection point for space exploration and space science education. The growing interdependence of human society and the natural system of outer space necessitates a transformative change in the way we educate students about their relationship to space. Today the space operating environment serves as home to more than 10,000 satellites that society depends upon for communications, Earth observation, and navigation. At the same time, our expanding utilization of these orbits for commercial, military, and scientific purposes creates major problems for the international community in its management of space. Key orbital highways are increasingly congested with space debris and space traffic that threaten active spacecraft and astronauts. At this critical moment, the public is largely unaware of its dependence on space. In 2022, Inmarsat surveyed 20,000 respondents from 11 countries about their attitudes toward space. The company reported, “The research findings mark a real wake-up call for the space industry. It’s clear that people have a low understanding of the breadth and richness of the work being done in space today. Perhaps because the technology deployed is essentially invisible, people do not appear to understand the role space is already playing in their everyday lives, nor its potential to deliver a brighter future for our planet.” [3] Contemporary space science instruction is not positioned to help close this education deficit. It was not designed to address the interdependence of society and space and its ramifications. What it does do very well is teach students about space as a natural system. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) for grades 1–12 or standards based on the NGSS framework. The two core disciplinary ideas are the “Universe and the Stars” and the “Earth and the Solar System.” Students examine the “processes governing the formation, evolution, and workings of the solar system and universe.” [4] This is why we are calling now for the creation and development of a new topic in environmental education called “space literacy” to complement contemporary space science instruction. We model space literacy after such well-established topics as climate literacy, forest literacy, and ocean literacy that focus on the interdependence of human society and natural systems. Students examine how society depends on natural systems, how human activity affects natural systems, and how society makes informed decisions about natural systems and their resources. Educating engaged citizens is a key instructional goal because even the best policy ideas tend to fizzle without strong public backing. The Forest Literacy Framework states, “For people to become participating members of a society that values sustainably managed forests, they must comprehend the role forest management plays in meeting the environmental, social, and economic needs of society and understand how they too can participate.” [5] Education for space literacy in Earth’s orbit should help students explore three basic questions in age-appropriate ways. The first question is related to society’s dependence on space: How do certain Earth orbits function as a limited natural resource to provide a wide range of benefits to society? Students learn there are three main types of orbits with distinctive characteristics and capabilities that enable them to host satellites serving a variety of purposes. Earth observation satellites reside in low Earth orbit (LEO), for example, because its close proximity to Earth and short orbital periods provide high resolution imagery and high data transfer rates. Navigation satellites reside in medium Earth orbit (MEO) because they require a combination of low latency communications and broad geographic coverage. Communications and weather satellites, whose mission is to provide continuous coverage over a specific area, reside in geostationary orbit where they travel from west to east at the same speed as the Earth’s rotation; this permits them to transmit a signal to an antenna in a fixed position on the ground. The second question is related to society’s impact on space: How does human activity in space threaten this limited natural resource? Students learn that routine space operations create debris in the form of defunct satellites and spent rocket stages. Debris is also created by fragmentation events, including fuel tank explosions, collisions, and anti-satellite weapons testing. Space debris is dangerous because it travels at orbital speeds and has already reached critical mass in heavily used orbits in LEO. Once collisional cascading begins, the risk to satellites continues until the orbit is no longer useful. Future launches over the next few years will contribute substantially to orbital congestion. Roosevelt’s emphasis on the vital role played by an educated public is all the more salient, and the need for instruction in space literacy is all the more urgent. A third question is related to environmental citizenship: How does society make informed decisions about its utilization of space resources? Students learn about mitigation, remediation, and tracking strategies to relieve congestion and promote safety and efficiency on busy orbital highways. NASA emphasizes the importance of shorter post-mission disposal periods, increased shielding for spacecraft, passivation of fuel tanks, removal and recycling of large debris, better tracking of small debris, and better coordination of space traffic. International guidelines to minimize the creation of new debris have been adopted by the United States and other nations on a voluntary basis. Because such guidelines add to the cost of missions, though, some nations and other space actors are unwilling to adopt them. Teaching materials for space literacy can be designed to address NGSS performance expectations. NGSS-aligned lesson plans and other instructional resources provide entry points within a standards-based curriculum to help students grasp the interdependence of society and space. Through participation in these learning activities, students gain appreciation for outer space as a home to spacecraft that provide information essential to life and health on Earth. As they study Earth’s processes and cycles, students learn how satellites help scientists predict potential disasters, monitor weather and climate, and address effects of human actions on the Earth’s environment. The problem of space debris is used to help students develop an understanding of functions and modeling. While learning about new technologies for space debris mitigation, students are challenged through “hands-on” activities to design their own space debris solutions. Finally, students apply what they have learned within a real-life context as they participate in activities that promote civic engagement, including space education and advocacy with their parents, schools, local communities, members of Congress, and public media. At a time when the nation confronted numerous challenges, Theodore Roosevelt declared “the conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others.” Conservation is still the “fundamental problem” and it has become even more complicated to solve. In 1908, the conservation of natural resources could be viewed as a “national duty” while in 2025, the conservation of terrestrial and space resources must be recognized as a global responsibility. Unfortunately, as James Clay Moltz of the Naval Postgraduate School emphasizes, solving environmental problems in space is similar to solving them on Earth: The “growing fragmentation of power among countries, groups, and organizations makes it difficult to reach a consensus and translate that into action.” [6] Amidst such complexity, Roosevelt’s emphasis on the vital role played by an educated public is all the more salient, and the need for instruction in space literacy is all the more urgent. Endnotes Voices of Democracy: The U.S. Oratory Project, “Theodore Roosevelt: Conservation as a National Duty (13 May, 1908)”. Clay S. Jenkinson, “Teddy Roosevelt and the Surprising Roots of the National Governors Association,” Governing, May 15, 2022. “What on Earth is the Value of Space?” Report by Inmarsat. NGSS Lead States. 2013. “High School Earth and Space Sciences” Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Sustainable Forestry Initiative-Project Learning Tree. (2023). Forest Literacy Framework: A Guide to Teaching and Learning about Forests. Washington, DC, 12. James Clay Moltz, Crowded Orbits: Conflict and Cooperation in Space, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), 189. Beverly B. Bachelder and Robert S. Bachelder co-authored “Educating Space-Age Environmentalists at the Elementary Level,” a chapter in a book edited by Rebecca L. Young: Climate Change Education: Reimagining the Future with Alternative Forms of Storytelling (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2022). They have presented workshops on orbital space sustainability for such organizations as the Massachusetts Environmental Education Society, the Massachusetts Association of Science Teachers, the National Science Teachers Association, and STREAMS—an international conference highlighting exemplary practices in the environmental humanities. A retired school principal, Mrs. Bachelder worked collaboratively with science teachers in her district in 2012 to create and implement “Space Week” for grades six through eight—an interdisciplinary curriculum unit recognized for excellence by the New England League of Middle Schools. Mr. Bachelder is the retired president of a nearly 200-year-old Massachusetts charitable organization that in 2009 launched a public education and advocacy program for a sustainable space environment. Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.

Remote Sensing and the International Law of Space

Pelican The growth of the commercial remote sensing industry using satellites like Planet’s Pelican (above) raises a range of legal issues. (credit: Planet) Remote sensing and the international law of space by Richard M. Carson Monday, February 24, 2025 Remote sensing has become an integral component of global observation, spanning scientific, commercial, and security applications. From high-resolution imagery to AI-powered geospatial intelligence, the capabilities of modern remote sensing satellites have introduced profound legal and policy questions. As space continues to evolve into a domain of economic and strategic importance, policymakers must address the challenges posed by an increasingly privatized and technologically advanced remote sensing industry.[1] The commercialization of remote sensing Remote sensing, once dominated by government-led scientific initiatives, has expanded into a competitive commercial industry. While government programs such as Landsat, Sentinel, and NOAA weather satellites continue to provide essential data for agriculture, disaster response, and environmental monitoring, private firms now control much of the world's high-resolution Earth observation capabilities. Companies such as Maxar, Planet, and Airbus provide detailed, frequently updated satellite imagery, available for commercial purchase.[2] There is no clear mechanism for regulating commercial satellite operators across national jurisdictions. The lack of an international licensing framework raises concerns about data monopolization and access inequality. This accessibility has enhanced global monitoring capabilities but has also introduced concerns regarding privacy, security, and equitable access to geospatial intelligence. Unlike government programs, commercial satellite operators produce proprietary data, creating a market-driven model of information access.[3] Legal uncertainty and international policy challenges The legal framework governing remote sensing remains largely based on the Outer Space Treaty (1967)[4] and the UN Principles on Remote Sensing (1986).[5] While these agreements set general guidelines, they do not explicitly regulate private satellite operators or define specific governance structures for commercial remote sensing. Some of the key legal questions include: Sovereignty and data access: The principle of non-appropriation under the Outer Space Treaty prohibits any nation from claiming sovereignty over celestial bodies. However, the application of this principle to remote sensing data remains ambiguous.[6] Regulation of commercial operators: The Liability Convention (1972)[7] establishes that nations bear responsibility for their space activities, including those conducted by private entities. However, there is no clear mechanism for regulating commercial satellite operators across national jurisdictions. The lack of an international licensing framework raises concerns about data monopolization and access inequality.[8] The role of the UN and COPUOS: The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) has debated remote sensing governance for decades, but no binding treaty has emerged.[9] Legal disputes in remote sensing India and Google Earth concerns: The Indian government raised national security concerns regarding high-resolution imagery of sensitive military sites available through commercial providers.[10] China’s Earth Observation restrictions: China has implemented strict laws limiting the export of high-resolution satellite imagery, asserting that such data is a strategic resource.[11] The European Space Agency’s Copernicus program: The EU’s approach to open data policies under Copernicus has served as a model for balancing commercial interests and public access.[12] The national security dimension Governments worldwide increasingly rely on commercial remote sensing for national security and defense planning. High-resolution satellite imagery is used for monitoring infrastructure, tracking supply chains, and assessing global conflict zones. However, access to such data is not uniformly regulated. The United States imposes licensing restrictions on the highest-resolution imagery for certain regions,[13] while nations such as China and Russia have sought to centralize remote sensing capabilities within state-controlled entities.[14] As AI continues to automate the analysis of geospatial data, questions arise about control, access, and the potential manipulation of intelligence outputs. As geopolitical tensions rise, the role of remote sensing in military and intelligence operations continues to grow. The absence of clear international regulations governing commercial satellite imagery has led to concerns about its potential misuse. The Wassenaar Arrangement[15] and other export control agreements impose restrictions on sensitive satellite technologies, but enforcement remains inconsistent across jurisdictions. AI-powered remote sensing and data privacy Artificial intelligence is transforming the way remote sensing data is analyzed and utilized. AI-driven systems can process vast amounts of imagery in real time, detecting changes in land use, monitoring economic activity, and predicting geopolitical developments. While these capabilities offer immense benefits, they also introduce new risks:[16] Mass surveillance: AI-enhanced remote sensing can monitor construction projects, infrastructure, and even individual activities, raising concerns about privacy rights.[17] Predictive intelligence: The ability of AI to forecast economic shifts, detect illicit activity, and monitor global supply chains presents regulatory challenges regarding data ownership and ethical use.[18] Data security risks: As AI continues to automate the analysis of geospatial data, questions arise about control, access, and the potential manipulation of intelligence outputs.[19] Ensuring business certainty and investment protection To promote investment confidence and remove uncertainty for private businesses, a stable and predictable international regulatory framework should include: Clear data access guidelines: Standardized, transparent policies that allow commercial satellite operators to securely manage and distribute their data without abrupt regulatory changes.[20] Investment protection agreements: Legal commitments among spacefaring nations to safeguard private-sector investments in remote sensing technology, ensuring continuity of operations.[21] Expedited licensing and approvals: Streamlined international processes for satellite launch and operation approvals to reduce delays and unnecessary compliance costs.[22] Liability shields for compliance: Protection mechanisms for companies that follow established international regulations, reducing legal risks associated with unforeseen policy shifts.[23] Public-private oartnerships: Encouraging collaboration between governments and the private sector to develop mutually beneficial regulations while fostering innovation in satellite imaging technology.[24] Conclusion As the commercialization and technological sophistication of remote sensing advance, the absence of a comprehensive legal framework presents challenges but also opportunities. Governments must work to provide regulatory certainty that allows businesses to invest with confidence, innovate freely, and expand market opportunities without fear of sudden legal obstacles.[25] A well-structured regulatory environment will not only protect national security and privacy interests but also unlock economic opportunities, encourage investment, and ensure that space-based remote sensing remains a thriving, investor-friendly industry. By eliminating regulatory uncertainty and reducing bureaucratic barriers, policymakers can support the continued expansion of private-sector space activities while maintaining responsible oversight of this critical technology sector.[26] References United Nations. Outer Space Treaty (1967). European Space Agency. Copernicus Open Data Policy. Wassenaar Arrangement. Export Control Rules for Satellite Technology (2021). United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). COPUOS Proceedings. United Nations. Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space (1986). China Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Regulations on Satellite Data Export. US Department of Commerce. Commercial Remote Sensing Regulations (2020). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679. India’s National Security Concerns with Google Earth. Government Policy Report (2010s). Wassenaar Arrangement, Guidelines on Export Controls for Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (2021). National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China. Recent Satellite Data Export Controls. European Space Agency. Copernicus Data Access Policy Updates (2023). US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). Satellite Imagery Access Restrictions. Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos). Remote Sensing Data Management Policies. Wassenaar Arrangement. Export Controls for Space-Based Remote Sensing Technologies (2021). European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). AI and Remote Sensing Data Security. Privacy International. Mass Surveillance and Satellite Imaging Concerns. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). AI-Powered Geospatial Intelligence Risks. US Department of Homeland Security. Cybersecurity Threats in AI-Powered Remote Sensing. International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Global Satellite Data Access Regulations. World Trade Organization (WTO). Space Industry Investment Protections. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Expedited Licensing for Satellite Launch Approvals. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). Liability Protection for Commercial Space Operators. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Public-Private Partnerships in Remote Sensing Technology. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Space Industry Economic Growth and Regulatory Stability. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Regulatory Frameworks and Investment in Emerging Space Markets. Richard Carson is an attorney who has researched and provided guidance regarding space law since he began practicing law in 1991. After a career in several industries, he now has a boutique practice advising select clients whom are developing emerging technology, including AI-driven 3D image enhancement.

Book Review: "A Space To Grow"

book cover Review: Space to Grow by Jeff Foust Monday, February 24, 2025 Space to Grow: Unlocking the Final Economic Frontier by Matthew Weinzierl and Brendan Rosseau Harvard Business Review Press, 2025 hardcover, 320 pp., illus. ISBN 978-1-64782-716-8 US$32 At Blue Origin, the company with the motto “Gradatim ferociter” or “step by step ferociously,” the steps have been a little more ferocious so far this year. The company finally conducted its first New Glenn orbital launch in January, a mission that was mostly successful other than a failed booster landing. Earlier this month, the company launched its New Shepard suborbital vehicle, demonstrating the ability to provide simulated lunar gravity for the payloads inside for about two minutes. This week, the company will launch another New Shepard carrying six private astronauts. But, earlier this month, the company also announced it was laying off about 10% of its workforce, at least 1,000 employees. Dave Limp, the CEO of Blue Origin, said the company had created “more bureaucracy and less focus than we needed” as it grew significantly in recent years. The layoffs were intended to address those concerns, reducing both engineering and management positions. But while the authors call this a “revolution,” this is book is not an uncritical, overzealous look at the space industry, but one grounded in the rigors of economics. Limp, a longtime Amazon executive, was hired a little more than a year ago by Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos to make the company more decisive. ““He said he didn’t think Blue needed another rocket scientist,” Limp said of Bezos at the Commercial Space Conference in Washington a day before he announced the layoffs. “What we needed was a little bit more organization, a little more decisiveness, some manufacturing expertise.” Those events demonstrated that technical success is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in commercial space: companies, even those backed by billionaires, must eventually demonstrate that they can provide a product that meets the needs of customers and in a way that is financially sustainable. That is at the core of Space to Grow, a new book by Matthew Weinzierl, a professor at Harvard Business School (HBS), and Brendan Rosseau, a former teaching fellow and research associate there. The authors, who created a space economics project at HBS, make clear they see tremendous opportunity for the commercial space industry thanks to the reduced costs to build and launch spacecraft and the growing value of services provided by those satellites in communications, Earth observation, and other sectors. But while they call this a “revolution,” this is book is not an uncritical, overzealous look at the space industry, but one grounded in the rigors of economics. Many of the chapters in the book are case studies of some major space companies: Blue Origin, Planet, SpaceX, and others. Those chapters trace the rise (and sometimes fall: one of the profiled companies is defunct asteroid mining startup Planetary Resources) of these companies, including how they responded to, and sometimes reshaped, the markets. That is tied to what can be considered the book’s central theme, that under certain conditions, markets are efficient. They use economic concepts throughout the book to support their analyses of the companies they profile. Those concepts range from simple supply-and-demand curves to more advanced concepts like the Le Chatelier principle, which explains how decreasing the cost of the supply of a product or service may create only modest increases in demand in the short term, but larger changes in the long term as the market takes more advantage of that less expensive supply. Fortunately, you do not need a background in economics to appreciate that: Weinzierl and Rosseau do a good job explaining those concepts in plain language. They acknowledge that, despite that central theme, markets are not always efficient. They discuss market failures like orbital debris, where there are limited incentives for satellite operators to pay to clean up their defunct satellites, along with regulatory obstacles. They also cite concerns of monopoly power that SpaceX in particular holds in the launch sector; competition, they note, is one of those “certain conditions” required for markets to be efficient. By not competing for commercial crew, Blue Origin was “denying itself the discipline imposed by the market forces that are at the heart of the commercial space revolution’s promise.” Much of the background about the companies in the book will be familiar to readers, but the economic framing is useful for people inside and outside the industry alike. The authors stop short of making specific recommendations for companies or policymakers, but it’s clear they see potential for efficient markets to enable further growth of the industry. In light of the recent events at Blue Origin, it was worth examining that chapter in detail to review their assessment of the company. A “monumental turning point” for the company, in the words of former president Rob Meyerson, was the decision not to bid on the next phase of NASA’s commercial crew program in 2012 after participating in earlier phases. By doing so, Weinzierl and Rosseau state, Blue Origin was “denying itself the discipline imposed by the market forces that are at the heart of the commercial space revolution’s promise” and acting more like a “philanthropic nonprofit than like a space startup.” That appears to be changing now, both with Blue Origin’s technical accomplishments and its internal shakeups. “We have made a lot of progress in the past year on fundamentals and acting quickly and turning us into a world-class manufacturing company, and focusing the company,” Limp said at the Commercial Space Conference. “I think we’ve made some progress. We have a lot to do this year, too.” Note: the authors provided me with a galley of Space to Grow and requested a blurb about the book, which was included in the published version. That blurb reflected my sincere opinion of the book, described in far greater detail in this review. Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

Collision Earth

Trump And Musk May Have Decided To Skip The Moon And Go Direct To Mars

The Independent Trump could ditch US’ $93 billion efforts to return to the moon to fuel Musk’s Mars dreams Julia Musto Sat, February 22, 2025 at 6:44 AM PST6 min read 14 Trump could ditch US’ $93 billion efforts to return to the moon to fuel Musk’s Mars dreams Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways The last time Americans walked on the moon was in December of 1972. The hope was that we would again in 2027. But, President Donald Trump could kill off those plans to make his new right-hand man Elon Musk happy and push the effort for man to finally reach Mars. “Elon’s gonna go into orbit soon. He’s going to go to Mars,” the president, who has previously asserted that NASA should not be focused on the moon, told Fox News host Sean Hannity earlier this week. “At some point,” Space X founder Musk added. “They always ask me: ‘Do you wanna die on Mars?’ And I say, ‘Well, yes, but not on impact,’” Musk added. Musk has not been bashful about his hopes to go to Mars. He has talked about it and worn T-shirts at Trump rallies promoting a mission to the Red Planet. NASA has been pushing for a return to the moon but now questions swirl regarding whether Trump will continue the Artemis project or skip the moon and push ahead to Mars. A possible shift may also be marked by the departure of longtime associate administrator Jim Free, whose retirement was announced this week. Free oversaw the development of NASA’s highly ambitious Artemis program. Under the program, NASA hopes to make major strides in a space race with China and Russia. It is quite pricey, and a 2021 report from the agency’s Office of Inspector General found that aggregate costs are projected at $93 billion. In the years since its launch, the program has faced significant delays to its timeline. Its stated long-term goal is to create a base on the moon to help astronauts travel to Mars. The Apollo 17 mission in 1972 was the last time humans set foot on the lunar surface. NASA’s $93 billion Artemis Program is meant to be a more impactful and longer term return. But, ‘Occupy Mars’ shirt owner Elon Musk could throw a wrench in the years-long effort (AP) The Apollo 17 mission in 1972 was the last time humans set foot on the lunar surface. NASA’s $93 billion Artemis Program is meant to be a more impactful and longer term return. But, ‘Occupy Mars’ shirt owner Elon Musk could throw a wrench in the years-long effort (AP) More Trump has not made his intentions clear on whether he wants to continue the moon mission. He removed a piece of moon rock that Joe Biden kept in the Oval Office and said on his first day that American astronauts would “plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars.” He has not issued an executive order, however, to back up any Mars mission. The Artemis program was first established in 2017, during Trump’s first term in office. Nearly a year into his presidency, he signed a directive aimed at refocusing the U.S. space program on human exploration and discovery, creating a “foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond.” Artemis is slated to mark the return of humanity’s lunar visit and the first crewed flight test of the Space Launch System, of which aerospace giant Boeing is the prime contractor. The first phase, the uncrewed first flight of the Space Launch System rocket, took place in 2022. It’s all a part of NASA’s “Moon to Mars” architecture, hoping to take humanity farther from home than it’s ever been before. Former NASA administrator Bill Nelson called the Artemis campaign “the most daring, technically challenging, collaborative, international endeavor humanity has ever set out to do.” The Apollo 17 mission in 1972 was the last time humans set foot on the lunar surface. But, we could soon return (NASA/AFP via Getty Images) The Apollo 17 mission in 1972 was the last time humans set foot on the lunar surface. But, we could soon return (NASA/AFP via Getty Images) However, to multi-planetary advocate Musk, focusing on areas other than Mars and using commercial companies other than SpaceX may be seen as fruitless. That could throw a wrench into NASA’s plan and what Trump wants to pursue. More in Science A secretive U.S. spaceplane just snapped a stunning view of Earth Mashable California Residents Get Huge Home Insurance Reduction Smart Lifestyle Trends・Ad Officials release once-extinct species back into the wild: 'Back from the brink of extinction' The Cool Down Louisiana entrepreneur looks to the Philippines for innovative solution to state's massive problem: 'A very serious issue' The Cool Down On Thursday, Musk suggested that NASA should begin preparations to deorbit the International Space Station, saying the orbiting laboratory has “served its purpose.” “There is very little incremental utility. Let’s go to Mars,” he said, noting that while the decision remains “up to the president” his recommendation for that process is deorbiting two years from now. In January he called the moon a “distraction.” “No, we’re going straight to Mars. The moon is a distraction,” Musk, who frequently wears a t-shirt emblazoned with the words “Occupy Mars”, wrote on his social media platform X. “Mass to orbit is the key metric, thereafter mass to Mars surface. The former needs to be in the megaton to orbit per year range to build a self-sustaining colony on Mars.” A transition away from the moon is something Boeing is reportedly preparing for. The company says it is planning to issue layoff notices to “align with revisions to the Artemis program and cost expectations,” Bloomberg reported. NASA is on the Department of Government Efficiency - the quasi-government agency spearheaded by Musk looking to trim the federal budget - chopping block, as well. Although, it managed to escape cuts this week. Jared Isaacman, the nominee to lead the space agency during the second Trump term, supports spaceflight to both the moon and Mars. It’s unclear where that will leave the agency in the near-term (NASA) Jared Isaacman, the nominee to lead the space agency during the second Trump term, supports spaceflight to both the moon and Mars. It’s unclear where that will leave the agency in the near-term (NASA) More Jared Isaacman, the nominee to lead NASA under Trump’s second term and a billionaire himself, appears to be on the Mars train. Although, it’s not exactly clear if he’s in lockstep with a 180-degree turn, and he still needs to be confirmed by the Senate. He wrote a long essay about the future of space exploration three days ago, responding to an image of Mars. He discussed enabling humanity to survive “beyond Earth” but did not discuss the agency’s climate science. “Let’s do it! To the Moon, Mars and Beyond! America is going,” Isaacman said. Acting Administrator Janet Petro has also recently said that the moon is still a big part of NASA’s human spaceflight plans. She cited “boots on Mars” but also a presence on the moon, Space.com reported last week. “Many, many, many boots on the moon — that, to me, would be incredible to see,” said Petro.. Last week a NASA spokesperson told NPR that the agency is “looking forward to hearing more about the Trump administration's plans for our agency and expanding exploration for the benefit of all, including sending American astronauts on the first human mission to the Red Planet." Aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin, who believes it’s “pretty clear” that the U.S. will start a humans-to-Mars program, told the organization that this time is filled with both risk and reward. He voiced concerns about Mars becoming a partisan issue. "We need to have bipartisan support. This cannot be viewed as a Trump program or a Musk program. It has to be America's program," Zubrin said.

SpaceX's Dragon to the Moon instead of NASA's $2B SLS Launch...

BREAKING: Starship Launch IMMINENT – But What’s This SURPRISE Flight 9 P...

The Most Disturbing UFO Tech has ESCAPED the US Military | Dr. Steven Greer

Target Earth 1954 Film in English, Richard Denning, Kathleen Crowley, Vi...

David Grusch consulting and PRODUCING new UFO movie withTop Gun Maveric...

Apophis & 2024 YR: Doomsday Asteroids or Overhyped Threat?

2024 YR4 Asteroid Update! Impact even more likely as Govt cuts NASA wor...

Why SpaceX Chose To Land Off Coast of the Bahamas

NASA Warns Highest Ever Recorded Asteroid Impact Chance in 2032

Spying On The Soviet Buran Space Shuttle

Buran A US photo-reconnaissance satellite took this photo of the Soviet flight test facility located outside Moscow in June 1982. In the center of the photo is a large crane used for picking up components of the Energia launch vehicle or the Buran space shuttle and placing them on top of a carrier aircraft for transport to the Baikonur launch site, where a similar crane was used to remove them. An unidentified object is located underneath the crane. (credit: HEXAGON photo via Harry Stranger) Power lifting: Cold War satellite reconnaissance and the Buran space shuttle by Dwayne A. Day and Harry Stranger Monday, February 17, 2025 The Soviet Union developed the N1 rocket to race the United States to the Moon but by 1972, after the fourth N1 launch failure, the Soviets mothballed the launch site and discontinued the program. American satellites regularly flew over the sprawling Baikonur launch complex in Kazakhstan, and by 1974 intelligence analysts determined that the heavy-lift rocket had been abandoned. Four years later, American satellites detected new construction and modification of existing facilities at Baikonur, determining that the Soviet Union was beginning work on a new heavy-lift launch vehicle, and soon concluding that the Soviet Union was also developing a space shuttle equivalent to NASA’s shuttle. Now, recently declassified satellite imagery from the 1980s provides some indications of what the CIA was detecting and how this may have informed their conclusions about the pace of the Soviet space shuttle program. Buran In the late 1970s, American satellites spotted new construction at the Soviet Union's Baikonur launch complex in Kazakhstan, including a new large runway that the CIA determined was for landing a spaceplane. In 1980, no large crane was visible at the airfield. In 1981 a crane nearly identical to the one outside Moscow was erected. It is seen here in summer 1982. In late 1982 it was used for removing space vehicle components off the top of transport aircraft. (credit: HEXAGON photo via Harry Stranger)Buran Eyes overhead The Soviet Union was a highly secret society during the Cold War, and although the United States employed a vast array of sources and methods to gather information on Soviet weapons systems, the most productive tools were reconnaissance satellites. Documents were hard to obtain, spies were difficult to recruit, communications could be encrypted—but it was impossible to conceal the construction of new facilities, and new rockets and large spacecraft had to be transported, putting them at risk of detection from overhead. American photo-interpreters honed skills and techniques to identify new construction associated with Soviet space and rocket programs. Documents were hard to obtain, spies were difficult to recruit, communications could be encrypted—but it was impossible to conceal the construction of new facilities, and new rockets and large spacecraft had to be transported, putting them at risk of detection from overhead. By 1980, the CIA determined that the Soviet Union was not only building a new heavy-lift launch vehicle, but also a space shuttle to rival the NASA space shuttle program. In May 1978, the CIA detected new facility construction at Baikonur and by August 1979 determined that it was a new launch pad for a new rocket. In actuality, it was only a test stand for the rocket (something the N1 never had), but years later was modified to serve as the launch pad. Also in 1979, the Soviets began constructing a large airfield at Baikonur, and the CIA suspected that this airfield was for landing a spaceplane. By 1981, the Soviet Union also began building a twin-bay facility. Although it is unknown how quickly the CIA determined this building’s primary function, it correctly concluded that this facility was for servicing an orbiter. By 1983, the Soviets performed launch vehicle/pad compatibility testing, making it clear what kind of vehicle the Soviets were developing. Finally, in December 1984, a satellite photographed two space shuttle orbiter vehicles at a Soviet airfield, although only one was an actual flight vehicle. The United States had limited information as to why the Soviet Union had begun such a program, but the satellite photos indicated that Soviet space shuttle efforts were extensive and expensive. (See “Target Moscow: Soviet suspicions about the military uses of the American Space Shuttle (part 1),” The Space Review, January 27, 2020.) A major new clue—or really, two major clues—were discovered in 1981. Sometime that year, American satellites photographed Baikonur and a sprawling airbase outside of Moscow, and detected similar construction at both sites. This time it was something unique. Buran The large airfield that the Russians call Zhukovsky and the CIA called Ramenskoye was the Soviet equivalent to Edwards Air Force Base and the location where new aircraft were tested. In summer 1980, no large crane was spotted in satellite photos. It was erected in 1981 and first used to lift rocket components in 1982. (credit: HEXAGON photo via Harry Stranger) The cranes appear The airbase outside of Moscow was referred to as Zhukovsky by the Russians, after a nearby suburb. But during the Cold War the CIA referred to it by the name of another Moscow suburb, Ramenskoye. Officially known as the Flight Research Institute (or LII), the base the Soviet equivalent to the famed Edwards Air Force Base in California, and the place was where the Soviet Union built and tested new prototype aircraft. The Soviet aircraft industry was busy in 1981, a banner year for new discoveries by American intelligence satellites. Whenever a new aircraft was spotted, the CIA gave it an alphabetical designation. In 1981, the intelligence analysts spotted RAM-J, later known as the Su-25 Frogfoot ground attack aircraft, the RAM-L, soon known as the famous MiG-29 Fulcrum, and the real prize, the RAM-P, later known as the Tu-160 swing-wing strategic bomber. Documents were hard to obtain, spies were difficult to recruit, communications could be encrypted—but it was impossible to conceal the construction of new facilities, and new rockets and large spacecraft had to be transported, putting them at risk of detection from overhead. But in addition to all the new aircraft, what intelligence analysts also spotted at Ramenskoye in 1981 was a large structure consisting of two horizontal beams with a central connector. It was a lifting device, a crane capable of picking up a large object, and with a wide enough stance so that an aircraft could be moved underneath and the object attached on its top. This discovery would have reminded intelligence analysts of a similar device constructed by NASA to enable a space shuttle orbiter to be lifted onto the back of its 747 carrier aircraft. A nearly identical structure was also photographed under construction at Baikonur on the edge of the large runway that had been started in 1979. It is unknown who in the intelligence community first made the connection, but the conclusion was obvious: something being built at Ramenskoye was going to be transported to Baikonur. Because Ramenskoye built prototype test aircraft, the Soviets must have been planning to transport one to the space center atop an aircraft. Recently declassified photos taken by American HEXAGON reconnaissance satellites of the two locations tell a bit of the story. A July 1980 image of Ramenskoye shows no structure at the location, but by June 1982 it is clearly visible. A June 1980 image of the airfield at Baikonur does not show any structure, but one is present by June 1982. These are the only currently available satellite images of these sites during this time, but the United States certainly took many more satellite photos during these intervals, including very-high-resolution images that would have provided excellent indications of the mechanical construction of the crane. The first test flight of any major item at LII associated with the new rocket program took place in January 1982, at a time when Moscow was almost certainly cloud covered. The first transport of any major item from Ramenskoye to Baikonur took place in December 1982. That involved the forward and aft covers of the rocket’s giant liquid hydrogen tank joined together, placed atop an M-4 bomber converted to a transport aircraft. The combination of the two looked odd, like a gangly bird carrying a large egg on its back. It is unknown if American satellites spotted this event, but the Soviet landmass was much more cloud-covered in winter, and opportunities for satellite photography are rare. An M-4 transport aircraft was initially used to ferry both rocket components and eventually the space shuttle orbiter. Later it would be replaced by a much more impressive aircraft, the mighty An-225 Mrya (“Dream,”) which was destroyed in 2022 during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Buran The large crane was used for lifting Energia rocket components, or the Buran space shuttle orbiter, atop a Myasishchev M-4 transport aircraft. Later, the much larger, custom-built An-225 aircraft was used. Photos like this were not publicly available until decades after the end of the Cold War. The US intelligence community had to look down from orbit to see activity like this, provided the skies were clear. (credit: "Myasishchev M-4 and 3M: The First Soviet Strategic Jet Bomber," Peter Gorin and Dmitriy Komissarov) The June 1982 satellite photo of Ramenskoye also shows that a large object or objects were underneath the big lifting device, although the resolution of the available images is insufficient to identify them. By this time the United States had probably already observed preparations for transport of some hardware to Baikonur. The first launch of the heavy-lift rocket, named Energia, took place from Baikonur in May 1987. The first and only launch of the Soviet Buran space shuttle, which was carried on the side of an Energia, occurred in November 1988. That flight did not include a crew, and soon the program was grounded and eventually canceled due to its expense. With Energia and Buran both grounded, movement at the launch site and between Baikonur and Ramenskoye ceased, and for a second time the Soviet Union abandoned a heavy-lift launch vehicle program. Today, the remains of Energia and Buran are mostly slowly decaying in Kazakhstan, visited only by birds, mice, and the occasional urban explorer, willing to risk arrest for an opportunity to glimpse relics from a bygone space era. Note: Special thanks to Harry Stranger for acquiring the Cold War satellite images. His website is https://spacefromspace.com/ Dwayne Day can be reached at zirconic1@cox.net.

Czars Versus Councils: Organizing Space In The New Administration

space council A public meeting of the National Space Council in December 2023. The new Trump Administration may not continue the council despite reviving it in its first term. (credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky) Czars versus councils: Organizing space in the new administration by Jeff Foust Monday, February 17, 2025 Early in its first term, the Trump Administration revived the long-dormant National Space Council, chaired by the vice president and with many federal agencies participating. The council was remarkably active during the administration, leading the development of a series of space policy directives on topics from exploration and regulation to space traffic management to space cybersecurity. “We need to take a whole-of-government approach because there are so many things that we can do from space, with space, that we’re not harnessing properly and would create a lot of efficiencies,” said Hanlon. But, like in many other topics, the second Trump Administration is shaping up to be different than the first. The new administration has not announced any plans to continue the council (which was retained during the Biden Administration, although with less public activity.) Vice President JD Vance, who would lead the council, also has not said anything about continuing the council or anything else about space policy. Many in industry think that the new administration will not continue the council but instead focus on implementation of the space policy directives from the first term. The National Space Council, though, is more than an organization for promulgating policies. Its advocates argue that it also serves as a critical coordination body, particularly in an era where civil, commercial, and national security space are intertwined. Both the Defense and NASA rely increasingly on commercial space capabilities, for example, while companies see both opportunities working for government agencies but also regulatory and contractual challenges. The need for some kind of “whole-of-government” approach to space came up during a panel discussion at the recent SpaceCom conference in Orlando. While the panel was focused on cislunar space—“Rules of the Road that Will Enable a Robust Cislunar Economy”—the discussion more broadly tackled the issue of how to coordinate space policy topics. “We need to take a whole-of-government approach because there are so many things that we can do from space, with space, that we’re not harnessing properly and would create a lot of efficiencies,” said Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi. That approach, she said, would take on issues such as regulatory reform and developing a “mission authorization” system to oversee novel commercial space activities. It could also address topics like space infrastructure and orbital debris mitigation and remediation. “Finally,” she said, “we can never pay too much attention to cybersecurity.” Others endorsed the need for some kind of government coordination. “It’s really important that we have some whole-of-government thought and approach to how we are supporting activities that may, in one moment, be considered commercial or civil but have dual-use and significant value on the national security side,” said Caryn Schenewerk, president of CS Consulting. “The interagency process becomes very complex, particularly with novel activities,” said Adam Routh, defense and space research lead at Deloitte. His research found that up to 46 separate federal-level organizations are involved in space in some way. “There are more questions than answers.” How, then, should that whole-of-government coordination take place, particularly in the absence of a National Space Council? Hanlon advocated for a “space czar” within the federal government, possibly as a Cabinet-level position. “It’s clearly obvious,” Autry said of the FAA’s commercial space office, “that this business is important enough to our nation that it deserves a high level of attention.” “Somebody who is able to see that holistic approach, that whole-of-government approach, and see what the different silos are doing and making sure that they are able to work in concert with each other, at the very least,” she said of the space czar concept. That could also involve the creation of a Department of Space, she added, a proposal floated from time to time to elevate space into the Cabinet. “If we are going to consider that, this is the administration, this is the time, to consider that.” Greg Autry, associate provost of space commercialization and strategy at the University of Central Florida, offered a warning about creating a Department of Space, stating that such an entity should not include both NASA and regulators. “That is not an appropriate cultural fit because exploration and regulation are two very different activities,” he said. “We’ve been talking for many years about what it would look like to have a one-stop shop” for commercial space issues, said Schenewerk. That would not require a space czar or a Department of Space but instead a portal for companies to make it easier to get through the regulatory process. “Should we be trying to do something that seems hard but could be really impactful, like having a portal, one portal, that entities go through to have their consolidated review of their activities,” she said, like launch and reentry licenses, commercial remote sensing licenses, and mission authorization. “We could use technology to streamline consideration and diminish duplication and seriously create a system that fosters startup companies.” The panel endorsed other organizations changes, like moving the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, or AST, out of the FAA and back into a standalone office under the Secretary of Transportation. That’s where the office was located when it as created 40 years ago until it was moved in the mid-90s into the FAA. “It’s clearly obvious,” Autry said, “that this business is important enough to our nation that it deserves a high level of attention.” He also backed moving the Office of Space Commerce, currently part of NOAA, to under the Secretary of Commerce. There is support for at least those organizational changes in Congress. Speaking at the 27th Annual Commercial Space Conference last week in Washington, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, backed moving AST out of FAA. “We’ve all seen AST struggle with licensing new vehicles and grapple with the iterative vehicle development process,” he said, which he blamed on a broader FAA culture that put safety front and center. “That risk intolerance does not easily lend itself to a timely, streamlined approval of space launches.” “It is time to seriously consider whether we should begin moving the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation out of the FAA, perhaps into a new model administration,” he concluded. “We’ve been talking for many years about what it would look like to have a one-stop shop” for commercial space issues, said Schenewerk. Meanwhile, a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate earlier this month would formally authorize the Office of Space Commerce’s efforts to develop a space traffic coordination system, one currently in beta testing. The bill included a provision that would elevate the office into a Bureau of Space Commerce, led by a Senate-confirmed assistant secretary rather than by a presidentially appointed director as the office is managed today. Cruz and others at the conference, though, did not bring up the broader coordination issues among government agencies. That would not be solved by moving AST and the Office of Space Commerce, and might create challenges of their own: launch companies will still need to work with the FAA on access to airspace, for example. And a one-stop shop for commercial space regulation is unlikely to be a company's single stop, since the FCC will continue, as an independent agency, its existing practices for spectrum licenses. Hanlon said at SpaceCom that the solution might be to simply continue the National Space Council. “What I envision that we need is just some sort of an umbrella. making sure that we’re not stuck in these silos and reinventing the wheel over and over again.” Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

A Bold Frontier: Advancing America's Space Leadership And Economic Power

Starship A static-fire test of a SpaceX Starship vehicle ahead of its next launch. (credit: SpaceX) A bold frontier: Advancing America’s space leadership and economic power by Karlton D. Johnson Monday, February 17, 2025 As a new administration takes the helm, the United States faces a critical opportunity to reassert its leadership in space exploration. The National Space Society (NSS) calls on President Trump and his team to craft a bold strategy that prioritizes American strength and innovation, counters rising global competition, and ensures that space becomes a driver of economic prosperity. A balanced, forward-looking strategy is critical to securing our interests, maintaining global influence, and creating the foundation for the next wave of American economic growth. Space is more than a realm for exploration; it is a theater of geopolitical competition and economic expansion. Nations like China are advancing aggressively, not just to explore but to dominate. America cannot afford to yield its hard-earned leadership in space. A balanced, forward-looking strategy is critical to securing our interests, maintaining global influence, and creating the foundation for the next wave of American economic growth. Uniting innovation and security For decades, NASA has been a global beacon of inspiration and scientific achievement, but space leadership requires a broader vision. In addition to supporting NASA’s evolution, a robust space strategy must include contributions from the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and private enterprise. Public-private partnerships can accelerate the development of cutting-edge technologies, safeguard critical assets, and ensure that America remains ahead of competitors. A balanced, forward-looking strategy is critical to securing our interests, maintaining global influence, and creating the foundation for the next wave of American economic growth. China’s rapid militarization of space, including its ambitions to control cislunar space and dominate key resources on the Moon, poses a direct challenge to US security and economic interests. Countering this threat requires decisive action that includes modernizing satellite networks, expanding space-based defense capabilities, and ensuring a continuous American presence in low Earth orbit (LEO). The Artemis program must also evolve to integrate the Moon into a sustainable cislunar economy. By advancing in-situ resource utilization technologies and creating opportunities for private-sector investment, Artemis can secure America’s foothold in this critical region. Leveraging proven commercial platforms like SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s New Glenn will reduce costs and accelerate progress. Space as an economic engine Space is not just a frontier; it is a marketplace. By reducing regulatory barriers and incentivizing investment, space exploration can catalyze the next generation of American industry, inspiring youth, creating thousands of high-paying jobs, and spurring technological innovation. From satellite communications to lunar mining and beyond, space will define the global economy of the 21st century, just as the Space Race did in the 20th, when the Apollo program returned at least 16 dollars for every dollar invested. Additionally, we must embrace an evolutionary approach to space health and safety. As more Americans—and one day, people from all walks of life—venture into space, advancing medical research and health protocols is critical. Space health not only ensures the safety of explorers but also drives breakthroughs in medicine that can benefit people on Earth. This investment in human resilience reinforces American leadership and sets global standards for safety and well-being in space. A call for visionary leadership The National Space Society has a long and proud history of working with both political parties to expand America’s reach into the final frontier. As a trusted advocate for advancing space exploration, the NSS bridges government, industry, and academia to build consensus and deliver results. With decades of expertise and a network of thought leaders, the NSS stands ready to help the new administration craft a space policy that strengthens America’s global leadership while ensuring economic prosperity and security. By reducing regulatory barriers and incentivizing investment, space exploration can catalyze the next generation of American industry. President Trump has the opportunity to transform space policy into a cornerstone of American greatness. By fostering innovation, strengthening security, and prioritizing economic growth, the administration can deliver results that resonate far beyond our borders. With the right leadership, space will serve as a platform for American ingenuity, a shield against global threats, and a driver of prosperity. The NSS stands ready to support this mission. Together, we can secure a future where space exploration enhances American strength, inspires the world, and enriches lives everywhere. It’s time for America to boldly lead in this new frontier. Karlton D. Johnson is chief executive officer and chairman of the board of governors of the National Space Society.

Book Review: "On The Pillars Of Creation"

book cover Review: Pillars of Creation by Jeff Foust Monday, February 17, 2025 Pillars of Creation: How the James Webb Telescope Unlocked the Secrets of the Cosmos by Richard Panek Little, Brown and Company, 2004 hardcover, 256 pp., illus. ISBN 978-0-316-57069-5 US$29 In just a few short years, the James Webb Space Telescope has become an essential tool for astronomers studying objects from within our solar system to the dawn of the universe. In one talk at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held over the weekend, Adam Reiss, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe, discussed how JWST was helping refine measurements of the Hubble constant. “It’s the biggest improvement I have seen in my research career just by changing instruments,” he said. In a presentation that followed at the AAAS conference, two other astronomers discussed how they’ve used JWST to peer into the early universe, looking for the earliest galaxies and black holes. “What James Webb has done is completely transform our understanding of how the first black holes likely formed,” said Priyamvada Natarajan. It is easy to get caught up in the intricacies of the science or the technical capabilities of the telescope, but the book reminds the reader that science is very much a human pursuit. The scientific successes of JWST in the last few years have now overshadowed the struggles of the spacecraft’s development that, at times, threatened the mission with cancellation. Finding the balance between the two has been difficult: one recent book, Infinite Cosmos, is filled with images from JWST but says almost nothing about the challenges in its development (see “Review: Infinite Cosmos”, The Space Review, October 28, 2024). Pillars of Creation, though, manages to strike that balance. Richard Panek, who has previously written about cosmology (see “Review: The Four Percent Universe”, The Space Review, January 24, 2011), spends the first part of his new book examining the long and often difficult history of JWST’s development, starting from initial planning in the late 1980s for a successor for the Hubble Space Telescope through its construction, launch, and commissioning. That’s told from the perspective of many of the scientists and engineers who worked on its development, overcoming various challenges to get the telescope in space and working better than expected. The second part of the book examines the scientific impact of JWST through four “horizons” of research: the solar system, exoplanets, galaxies, and the early universe. With such a wide range of options, Panek wisely focuses on individual scientists as they used the telescope to carry out research not possible before JWST launched. It is easy to get caught up in the intricacies of the science or the technical capabilities of the telescope, but the book reminds the reader that science is very much a human pursuit, from analyzing data late in the night in a hotel room during a major conference to debating the findings in meetings. One astronomer, working at home, received a JWST image so stunning that, in a desire to immediately share it with someone, showed it to her cat. (The cat’s reaction is not recorded.) JWST is just now hitting its stride and could operate for 20 years or more, although it does face some near-term budget challenges (see “The lifecycle of space telescopes”, The Space Review, February 3, 2025). But work is already beginning on the Habitable Worlds Observatory, a telescope slated to launch in the 2040s, a point Panek makes in the epilogue of Pillars of Creation. It will likely face its own challenges in development, although hopefully less severe in terms of cost and schedule than JWST, and will, in time, potentially have the same impact on astronomy that JWST is making on the field today. Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

On the Threshold of Space 1956 Film in English, Guy Madison, Virginia Le...

SpaceX Crew Dragon to the Moon instead of NASA's $2B rocket...

Is this real?? Angry analyzes the best UFO footage ever!

They bring a dangerous mysterious alien to Earth / Must-see Sci-Fi Actio...

SpaceX Just Smashed Multiple Records! Wow!

Stranded On Mars (Forsaken) | Full Movie | Sci-Fi Adventure

If you live on this threat path, kiss your asteroid goodbye! 2024 YR4 N...

NASA detects the fastest UFO ever?

Blue Origin Just Cut 1,000 Employees Because of... "Bureaucracy" ?

NASA's New Nuclear Rocket Engine to Mars in a Day! Even Faster than Spac...

Flight 8: Why SpaceX Just Performed the LONGEST Static Fire of a Starship?!

Astronaut (The Last Push) | Full Free Sci-Fi Movie | Lance Henriksen

Breaking News! NASA says SLS will NOT be canceled! At least not for now...

XF-108 Rapier: The North American Ultimate Weapon That Never Was And Oth...

Why The Lunar Gateway Program Should Be Canceled

lunar Gateway An illustration of the completed lunar Gateway. (credit: Thales Alenia Space/Briot) Redirecting NASA’s focus: why the Gateway program should be cancelled by Gerald Black Monday, February 10, 2025 The Gateway, a small space station intended to orbit the Moon, has been an integral part of NASA’s Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface and establish a permanent presence on the Moon. However, it has become increasingly clear that the Gateway is a poor use of our limited resources for space exploration. This article delves into the reasons why the Gateway program should be cancelled, with the Gateway funding redirected to the Artemis program and to landing the first humans on Mars. We need to pursue human deep space programs that will inspire the public and the next generation of scientists and engineers, and which also provide the best science return. The Gateway is an unneeded and costly diversion that should promptly be relegated to the dustbin of history. NASA’s Artemis program is years behind schedule, its costs have ballooned out of control, and the architecture is too complex. The remedy is to eliminate costly parts of the Artemis architecture that are unnecessary, namely the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion spacecraft, and the Gateway. My recent article described how the SLS and Orion programs could be phased out and replaced with an architecture based solely on the Starship. This article calls for an immediate end to the Gateway program. We need to pursue human deep space programs that will inspire the public and the next generation of scientists and engineers, and which also provide the best science return. The Artemis program, with its goal of returning astronauts to the lunar surface and establishing a permanent presence on the Moon, fits this bill well. So does the new initiative to land the first humans on Mars, which was announced by President Trump in his second inaugural address. But the Gateway does not. The Gateway is an unneeded and costly diversion that should promptly be relegated to the dustbin of history. Given the current fiscal climate, it’s unrealistic to expect a substantial increase in NASA’s budget. In fact, with the ongoing push to slash spending, it’s more likely to decrease. Therefore, to achieve our ambitious goals, we must prioritize the Artemis program and the program to land the first humans on Mars. These initiatives will require significant funding, and balancing this with the rest of NASA’s responsibilities, such as science missions and aeronautics, will be challenging. However, by eliminating the SLS, Orion, and Gateway programs and reallocating their funds, we can ensure that our focus and resources are directed where they are most needed. The first two modules of the Gateway are scheduled to launch together to low Earth orbit on a Falcon Heavy rocket in 2027. Then, these two modules would utilize the Gateway’s solar electric propulsion on a lengthy trip to lunar orbit. Other Gateway modules and elements would launch in later years. Gateway costs have been escalating. According to a July 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office, NASA currently projects that the first two Gateway modules alone will cost $5.3 billion. However, this report reveals that the combined mass of the two modules has exceeded the mass target, which may affect their ability to reach the proper lunar orbit. This report also reveals that the Gateway cannot maintain attitude control when large vehicles such as the Starship lunar lander are attached. Fixing these problems will undoubtedly further drive up the costs. And logistics missions to resupply the Gateway will be an ongoing drain on NASA’s budget. Some of our international partners have agreed to contribute modules and other elements for the Gateway. But other countries would much rather have their astronauts walking on the Moon, not just orbiting above it. NASA would do better to have our international partners develop lunar habitats, power systems, pressurized rovers, lunar landers for logistics purposes, and other needed lunar surface infrastructure. The original rationale for the Gateway was that it is needed as a staging point for lunar surface missions and for missions to Mars. But it is more efficient to simply transport astronauts and cargo directly to and from the lunar surface, rather than detouring to the Gateway for no discernable reason. Detouring to the Gateway is detrimental, since it requires extra propellant. To make up for this, the Starship lunar lander would require more refueling flights, adding to the cost of the crewed lunar landing missions. Robert Zubrin refers to the Gateway as the “Lunar Orbit Tollbooth” in this op-ed critical of the Gateway. Nor is the Gateway useful for human missions to Mars. It is simply more efficient to refuel in Earth orbit and transport crews directly to Mars, bypassing lunar orbit. This is the route that SpaceX has proposed for Mars missions using the Starship. Establishing a permanent presence on the Moon and landing humans on Mars are lofty goals that will ultimately yield untold benefits for people on Earth. But these projects will need adequate funding to be successful. Instead of a low lunar orbit, the Gateway uses a near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO). This orbit was chosen mostly because the underpowered Orion service module propulsion system is not capable of transporting Orion to a low lunar orbit and back. But the NRHO has drawbacks, including the fact that an abort from the lunar surface can take as long as 3.6 days to reach the safety of the Gateway. For a discussion of the drawbacks of the NRHO see this talk by former NASA administrator Michael Griffin. The Gateway is designed to support a crew for months at a time or longer, but for what purpose? Microgravity experiments can be more easily accomplished in low Earth orbit, and lunar science can be accomplished much less expensively by robotic lunar orbiters. Certainly, the crew could perform more useful work if they were on the lunar surface. In lunar orbit, the crew would be subjected to the deleterious effects of radiation (double that of low Earth orbit) and microgravity. Under these conditions, frequent crew rotation is prudent. But a lengthy stay is less of a problem for a crew on the lunar surface. They would be protected from radiation by a habitat covered with lunar regolith, and lunar gravity (16% of Earth’s gravity) may be less harmful than microgravity. In the future it may well be beneficial to have a propellant depot in lunar orbit, or at the Earth-Moon L1 Lagrange point. The propellant depot could be used to store propellants produced on the Moon. But the propellant depot does not need to be a crewed facility such as the Gateway. Establishing a permanent presence on the Moon and landing humans on Mars are lofty goals that will ultimately yield untold benefits for people on Earth. But these projects will need adequate funding to be successful. We must focus our efforts on these goals, not wasteful side projects that have no benefit other than creating jobs and lining the pockets of the contractors. Gerald Black is a retired aerospace engineer who worked in the aerospace industry for over 40 years. In his first job at Bell Aerosystems he tested various rocket engines, including the engine for the ascent stage of the Apollo lunar module. Later he worked for 39 years at GE Aviation.

The Spaceport Conundrum

launches One Falcon 9 launches from Cape Canaveral while another stands on the pad at the Kennedy Space Center in August 2024. (credit: SpaceX) The spaceport conundrum by Jeff Foust Monday, February 10, 2025 Near the end of the annual Spaceport Summit by the Global Spaceport Alliance (GSA) in Orlando two weeks ago, attendees engaged in a sort of brainstorming exercise. While a panel discussed how spaceports could become an “economic powerhouse” in their regions, the audience was encouraged to submit their ideas for what businesses spaceports could support, submitted though a webpage that allowed people to upvote ideas submitted by others. In 2017, the Eastern Range announced an initiative called “Drive to 48” with the goal of being able to host 48 launches a year. At the time that seemed like a stretch goal, but in 2024 the range nearly doubled it, with 93 launches. Some of the ideas submitted were obvious: vertical and horizontal launch as well as adjacent areas like testing of UAVs or hypersonic systems, or serving as reentry sites for capsules returning from orbit. Some other likely ancillary markets like manufacturing and payload processing also popped up. Both “space tourism” and “entertainment” were popular, although it wasn’t clear if people thought that meant spaceports supporting space tourism missions or themselves being tourism destinations, like the Kennedy Space Center, let alone other “entertainment” uses. Many of the ideas went further and further afield from what one might traditionally associate with a spaceport, like hosting data centers or solar or wind power farms. One entry suggested “SCIF rental space,” a reference to secure facilities for classified activities; another was titled “incarceration facilities”—in other words, jails, another kind of secure facility. That exceedingly broad range of potential markets highlights the curious situation that spaceports find themselves in. There are more spaceports, or at least prospective spaceports, than ever. This year’s summit had 400 people registered, organizers said, double the attendance of a year ago, with participants coming from as far away as Japan, Nigeria, and Uruguay. The number of launches is also growing. There were more than 250 orbital launches worldwide as well as some suborbital launches in 2024; it was not long ago that 100 orbital launches constituted a busy year. That growth in launches would seem an opportunity for those new spaceports. That is not, though, what is happening. In the United States, the surge in launches is driven by SpaceX, flying from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and Kennedy Space Center in Florida and Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, as well as its own Starbase site in Texas for Starship. SpaceX has not shown interest in other launch sites in the US. That’s created a situation where a few spaceports are struggling to keep up with launches while others struggle to host any launches. In 2017, the Eastern Range, which includes the Cape and KSC, announced an initiative called “Drive to 48” with the goal of being able to host 48 launches a year: one a week with two two-week downtimes. At the time that seemed like a stretch goal, but in 2024 the range nearly doubled it, with 93 launches. That growth is not slowing down. “The launch cadence is going to be higher in 2025 than it was in 2024,” said Space Force Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, whose multiple roles include commander of Space Launch Delta 45, which oversees the Eastern Range, as well as director of launch and range operations for Space Systems Command. Speaking at the Space Mobility conference the day after the GSA summit, Panzenhagen said the increasing launch activity at both the Eastern Range and the Western Range, which includes Vandenberg, will continue beyond 2025. “We’ve been going up pretty steadily at a 25–30% increase per year, and I think we’ll continue to increase at that rate for at least the next couple years.” That increase is putting a strain on the ranges, she said, as staffing is based on 2017 launch rates, which greater automation of processes and procedures has only partially addressed. There are bottlenecks in payload processing facilities at both the Cape and Vandenberg as well as limited space at Port Canaveral, the port adjacent to Cape Canaveral Space Force Station heavily used by launch companies and cruise lines alike. There is also investment in spaceport infrastructure. The Space Force has projected spending $1.3 billion from fiscal years 2024 through 2028 on its “Spaceport of the Future” initiative to improve infrastructure at the Eastern and Western Ranges. The effort is intended to increase the capacity of the spaceports and their resilience. “A lot of these projects are relatively pedantic,” said Mark Bontrager, technical director for launch and range operations at Space Systems Command, during a talk at the GSA summit. “They’re not sexy projects here. We’re talking about roads, we’re talking about reliable water systems, we’re talking about electrical and HVAC projects.” He said the initiative was tracking 192 projects at both ranges over the five-year effort. “We’re one year in, and we’re still on track.” “They’re not sexy projects here,” said Bontrager. “We’re talking about roads, we’re talking about reliable water systems, we’re talking about electrical and HVAC projects.” Earlier at the summit, Dale Ketcham, vice president at Space Florida, offered a similar message. “Our priority is on basic meat-and-potatoes, blocking-and-tackling infrastructure,” he said. “What we need in order to meet the cadence of launch that the country expects out of Florida going forward is infrastructure.” Space Florida has estimated about $3 billion in infrastructure needs, much of that for a proposed long-term effort to add wharf space at Port Canaveral for space companies. Other needs range from wastewater and roads to liquefied national gas required for launch vehicles like New Glenn, Starship, and Vulcan. He said that while state and federal funding would cover at least some of those investments, Space Florida is looking for private investments into spaceport infrastructure: “That’s where the money is.” Space Florida supported a bill introduced in Congress last year that would allow spaceports to issue tax-exempt bonds like airports and seaports; the bill did not pass but Ketcham said they would seek to get similar legislation through the new Congress. Even with the state and federal efforts, there are gaps. On a panel at the Space Mobility conference, Bontrager described one challenge with the somewhat confusingly named Roy D. Bridges Bridge, a bridge named after a former astronaut and KSC director that spans the Banana River and links the center with Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. The aging bridge can’t accommodate heavy loads, requiring trucks to take alternative, longer routes. That includes Blue Origin shipping launch vehicles and other equipment from its factory just outside the KSC gates to Launch Complex 36 on the Cape. “It’s a NASA bridge, but NASA has no requirement to fix that bridge,” he said. “The Space Force would love to see that bridge fixed, but the Space Force doesn’t own the bridge.” “It’s one of those things that we’ve been admiring for too long and we don’t know how to fix it because our rules tie our hands on both sides of the river,” he said. launches Houston Spaceport at Ellington Airport hasn’t hosted a single launch but has generated an estimated 2,000 jobs from businesses there. (credit: Houston Airport System) From haves to have-nots For other spaceports, though, there are few options for infrastructure funding. The Spaceport of the Future program, Bontrager said, is focused on the Cape and Vandenberg, because that’s where the vast majority of launches are taking place from, particularly national security missions. “Everything we do in space starts at a spaceport and yet our existing launch sites are struggling to keep up with demand and are not robust or resilient,” Nield said. He said there may be an opening in the future, though, as new entrants offer launches through what is known as “Lane 1” of the National Security Space Launch Phase 3 contract, which is tailored to support new launch providers not necessarily launching from the Cape or Vandenberg. An example is Rocket Lab, which plans to offer its Neutron medium-lift rocket, launching from Wallops Island, Virginia, through that program. “How is it going to play out specifically? There’s a lot of effort there,” he said, but didn’t elaborate on how that might open up funding George Nield, a former associate administrator for commercial space transportation who is now chairman of the Global Spaceport Alliance, called the situation the “spaceport paradox” at the summit. “Everything we do in space starts at a spaceport and yet our existing launch sites are struggling to keep up with demand and are not robust or resilient,” he said. “There is no current federal program to provide funding to develop, maintain, or upgrade spaceport infrastructure.” His organization has promoted legislation that would, among other features, fund a spaceport infrastructure matching grant program already authorized at the FAA but not currently funded. Others agree. “The funding issue is key,” said former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine during a panel at the Space Mobility conference. He recalled when, as a congressman, he proposed using Airport Improvement Program funds for spaceports. “Let’s just say that wasn’t popular with the FAA.” “All that being said, there’s got to be funding that comes from somewhere,” he said. “The time is now. We’re at a point now where everybody understands we need launch resiliency, we need alternative access to space.” Another, more fundamental question is what spaceports are available for funding to meet the needs of the launch industry today. Many facilities have secured FAA spaceport licenses but have yet to host a launch. They include airports that sought to attract horizontal launch vehicles that have failed to materialize and are ill-suited to support vertical launch systems in demand today. Some of those facilities are looking elsewhere for revenue. “If you base the success of a horizontal spaceport on launch, you’re going to fail,” said Matt Bocchino, director of Cecil Spaceport, a former naval air station outside Jacksonville, Florida, at the GSA summit. He noted the spaceport has found a niche supporting engine testing, such as for hypersonics vehicle company Hermeus. Bridenstine recalled when, as a congressman, he proposed using Airport Improvement Program funds for spaceports. “Let’s just say that wasn’t popular with the FAA.” Last week, officials in Adams County, Colorado, announced plans to work with AltitudeX Aviation Group, a private equity firm, to “transform” the Colorado Air and Space Port, the former Front Range Airport outside Denver, into “a premier nexus for aviation and aerospace growth and innovation.” The announcement said little about launch other than stating the airport would be a “Space Center of Excellence” without explaining what that meant. The best example of this is Houston Spaceport, located at Ellington Airport. The facility has not hosted a launch or landing but instead has focused on becoming a space industry hub, attracting companies such as Axiom Space, Collins Aerospace, and Intuitive Machines. The spaceport is responsible for more than 2,000 direct jobs, said Arturo Machuca, director of spaceport, at the GSA summit. The spaceport, run by the Houston Airport System, is working on the next phase of expansion that will go beyond facilities for aerospace companies but supporting businesses, including hotels and restaurants. “Today, with 2,000 people there, I hear it all the time, ‘Hey, when are we going to have a restaurant here?’” he said of people who work at the spaceport. Those comments came during that final panel that served as brainstorming for what else spaceports can do to generate revenue. “If you have a spaceport like Arturo’s in Houston, you’re not going to attract the same set of customers or ‘off-centerline’ business opportunities as Scott McLaughlin,” executive director of Spaceport America in New Mexico, said Andrew Nelson, vice president at RS&H, an architecture and engineering firm that has specialized in spaceports. Facilities like Spaceport America and Mojave Air and Space Port in California have long runways, he said, that have been used for high-speed tests of cars. Such remote desert sites can also host solar power plants, he suggested, which could power data centers to serve the growing demand in the ongoing AI boom. “You’ve got to triage. You can’t be everything to everybody,” he said. “You’ve got to understand what your strengths are.” At the session wound down, organizers tabulated the final results of the poll on new revenue opportunities for spaceports. “Tenant leasing” was at the top, and some other obvious options also ranked highly, like vertical launch, rocket testing, and manufacturing. But ranking second was the infamous “incarceration facilities.” It wasn’t clear how serious that proposal was; perhaps it was just a joke at the end of a long day. But Nelson didn’t immediately dismiss it. “Why not?” he said, noting the remote locations of some spaceports. No one is planning to build jails at spaceports—at least, not yet. Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.