1

Chinese Launchers / Re: Xingwang Digui 19A-I - CZ-12 - Hainan - January 19, 2026 (07:48 UTC)

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 05:15 am »

Long March-12 launches SatNet LEO Group 19

2

Chinese Launchers / Re: Xingwang Digui 18A-I - CZ-8A - Hainan - January 13, 2026 (15:25 UTC)

« Last post by jcm on Today at 04:50 am »

Any news on the manufacturer for the sats on this launch?

3

Other Launchers (Korean, Brazilian etc.) / Re: FAILURE: Gilmour Space Eris flight 1 : Bowen Spaceport : 29 July 2025

« Last post by Metalskin on Today at 04:44 am »

Syndicated article today in Australia about Gilmour (most likely behind a paywall sorry, tip: disable javascript): https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/adam-s-last-rocket-blew-up-taxpayers-are-betting-75m-the-next-one-will-go-better-20260119-p5nv0k.html

For locals, it should be in The Age, and The Australian.

Relevant points:

The company says it identified the cause of the failure within hours – one of the four hybrid engines lost thrust almost immediately after lift-off, followed by a second engine failure nine seconds later – and has since conducted engine tests that successfully addressed the issues. A hypersonic sub-orbital test flight is planned for the second quarter of 2026, with a second orbital attempt targeted for the third quarter.

There's a bit about recent funding from Aussie gov, etc. But I wasn't sure where best to post that info.

4

Other Launchers (Korean, Brazilian etc.) / Re: Isar Spectrum flight 2 - Andøya - 21 January 2026 (20:00 UTC)

« Last post by Yggdrasill on Today at 04:41 am »

There's a G4 geomagnetic storm ongoing. Hopefully it doesn't delay the launch: https://www.space.com/astronomy/sun/sun-erupts-with-powerful-x-class-flare-as-huge-cme-races-toward-earth-impact-possible-within-24-hours

5

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: Artemis II : Updates and Discussion Thread : NET February 6th NLT April 26th

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 04:25 am »

No updates here, but looking at the chat on SCL, for the record here it sounds like the crawler left the pad on Saturday night.

Any signs of CAA swing tests?

Appears that it was completed.  No timestamp, other than the date, Jan 18, my guess is late afternoon.

January 19, 2026
Witness the critical preparations for future lunar missions as NASA conducts swing tests of the Orion Crew Access Arm at Kennedy Space Center. This vital procedure ensures the safety and efficiency of astronaut access to the Orion spacecraft, paving the way for humanity's return to the Moon.

CREDITS: Original post by @SpaceflightNow
FOLLOW US: Stay updated with all things space by following @ReviewSpaceship on X!

6

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on Today at 04:23 am »

You think Issacman isn't going work towards cancelling SLS because it's not worth the political fight, even if he wins. I think Issacman isn't going to work towards cancelling SLS because he'll lose. Either way Issacman decided not to move in that direction, so I suppose it doesn't matter which one is true in the end.

Those aren't the only two choices.  He could also go limp on SLS, but work to put a commercial cislunar program in place.  It doesn't have to cost very much.

7

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: Artemis II : Updates and Discussion Thread : NET February 6th NLT April 26th

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 04:22 am »

No updates here, but looking at the chat on SCL, for the record here it sounds like the crawler left the pad on Saturday night.

Any signs of CAA swing tests?

Other than it will be done after GSE is hooked up to the MPL, in a couple of days, and it is important.


Mission Spotlight: Artemis Launch Complex 39B - Crew Access Arm Swing Tests by NASA

8

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: Artemis II : Updates and Discussion Thread : NET February 6th NLT April 26th

« Last post by ChrisC on Today at 04:10 am »

No updates here, but looking at the chat on SCL, for the record here it sounds like the crawler left the pad on Saturday night.

Any signs of CAA swing tests?

9

Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Investment in space companies

« Last post by TrevorMonty on Today at 04:03 am »

Good time to raise money as US govt prints money.
If previous IPOs are anything to go by, price will go up quickly after raise before crashing.

10

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

« Last post by Coastal Ron on Today at 03:50 am »

I've mentioned this before, but you continue to think that all it takes is a change of wording in a contract to go from our Moon to the surface of Mars. That all things considered, going to either location is about as easy. That is like a hiker thinking that all they have to do is master summiting the local hill, and they will be ready for summiting Mount Everest.

In other words, you are vastly underestimating how much work NASA needs to do to even start estimating what it will take to land humans on Mars, and because of that you seem to be believing the PR emanating from NASA regarding such "progress". It is still way too early to understand what Isaacman will be able to accomplish, especially if there is a change in leadership in Congress next year.

You don't understand what I am saying. The reason to do it within the HLS program (as part of the services phase) or by expanding CLPS to Mars (CMPS) is to avoid having to create a new program which is more difficult from an appropriations perspective.

Right, why involve Congress when you don't have to... 

Two obvious problems with that:

1. Congress is not stupid, and since they control the legislation that says what taxpayer money can be spent on, they are going to notice if/when someone in OMB sticks a line item in their budget request that says "Mars". Questions will be asked, such as "Do you have a plan for Mars?"

2. NASA can't go to Mars, without wasting a LOT of taxpayer money, without FIRST developing a fairly detailed plan. In fact NO ONE can go to Mars without first developing a fairly detailed plan. And I say this as someone that has developed plans before for a living.

I'll give you an example. You say you want a Mars version of the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS). What are the payloads? How quickly do they need to get to the surface of Mars? Where on Mars are they going? What are the temperature requirements for the payloads? What are the G-forces for the payloads? What is the largest size payload both in mass and in volume?

To determine any of that, you need a plan.

Part of the reason for expanding these programs would be to allow NASA to buy cargo and crew transportation services from SpaceX when SpaceX goes to Mars.

It is highly unlikely that SpaceX is sending humans to Mars before 2030, so there is no rush on asking Congress for an appropriation regarding buying a ticket from SpaceX for cargo and crew going to Mars. NASA talks to SpaceX all the time, and when the time comes for SpaceX to offer up the opportunity, NASA will be able to find out what SpaceX plans to charge.

But the bottom line here is that you don't seem to want Congress involved. You want this to be some sort of secret effort, with NASA having some sort of slush fund. Why don't you think Congress wouldn't want to buy room on the first Starships taking cargo and crew to Mars? Weird.

I also expect SpaceX to offer crew transportation services to the Moon once that it offers crew transportation services to Mars. So expanding HLS and CLPS would allow NASA to buy these services. Right now, NASA couldn't purchase these services from SpaceX (or Blue), even if it wanted to do so.

Don't worry, NASA Administrator Isaacman is working night and day to solve all these issues, so when the times comes to ask Congress for funding, Isaacman will have everything worked out - without the need to keep Congress in the dark.

As a reminder, SpaceX is going to Mars FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. If NASA wants to buy a ticket, great, but it isn't NASA that is driving the requirements, it is SpaceX. And if NASA wants changes to what SpaceX is doing, then they will need to pony up a lot of money for that, because a Moon version of the Starship is costing $2.9B.

It seems likely that NASA would impose certain requirements on SpaceX if it were to purchase from them crew transportation services from the Earth to the Moon or Mars. Are you suggesting that there should be no NASA requirements?

First of all, remember that NASA doesn't have statutory authority over SpaceX going to Mars, that would be other U.S. Government agencies (FAA, etc.).

Second, as a potential customer for SpaceX, NASA can ask for anything they want. But SpaceX doesn't have to agree to it. And anything that is non-standard that SpaceX does agree to will need to be paid for by NASA. Which again is something that will need to go through Congress, since it is likely to be a significant amount.

I say "significant amount" because Elon Musk is a hustler, and there are many countries around the world that would LOVE to be part of the first landing of humanity on Mars. So there could actually be a bidding war, though I think Musk will make sure that NASA will have a spot - but it will likely be the "going rate", based on demand. And that is OK with government procurement rules.

All I am saying is that NASA needs to make it possible for NASA to buy cargo transportation to Mars and crew transportation to the Moon and Mars because it isn't possible for them to do so now.

NASA buys transportation all the time - the U.S. Government buys special transportation all the time. So when the time comes that SpaceX is ready to start taking orders, NASA will know what to do. You don't have to invent new ways that may be legally dubious...