A telescope that tracked Sputnik. A Unesco site. A living scientific marvel… Why is Jodrell Bank at risk?

SpaceX’s plans to retire its most popular rocket could jeopardize the United States’ ability to launch military satellites — a plight compounded by the Pentagon’s dependence on Elon Musk’s company.

SpaceX is by far the dominant player in the rocket business and indispensable to the military, dwarfing competitors and accounting for 85% of U.S. launches in 2025. The company is phasing out its Falcon 9 rocket to make way for Starship, a massive new vehicle that SpaceX says will be more efficient and profitable, but which many military satellites aren’t designed to fit.

…

The Space Force has said it’s open to eventually using SpaceX’s Starship. But there are engineering challenges to overcome because Starship is designed for “flat stack” satellites such as Starlink, while most military satellites are designed for a larger cargo bay. And it’s unclear when SpaceX will have the capacity to meet the Pentagon’s needs, given its plans to use Starship to build out orbital data-centers and other company priorities.

The Roman Space Telescope realizes an idea conceived at UC Berkeley and Berkeley Lab. A Berkeley astronomer now leads a large group of scientists who hope to reap the benefits.

On Thursday, the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly meeting, during which panel member Charlie Precourt (a former NASA astronaut) spoke about risks associated with the Artemis Program and landing humans on the Moon.

“With respect to Artemis IV, however, we’ve got a large number of firsts that reduce the likelihood of mission success,” Precourt said. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander. I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”

Precourt did not name Starship, but he could only be referring to the SpaceX vehicle. NASA’s other lunar lander for human missions, Blue Origin’s Blue Moon, will not be using orbital refueling as part of its initial mission design. The safety panel almost certainly would have obtained this estimated number of refuelings, 22, from discussions with NASA officials as part of its deliberations during quarterly meetings.

After I posted Precourt’s estimate on the social media site X, SpaceX founder Elon Musk replied that NASA’s safety panel estimate was not accurate. “That’s way too high,” Musk said. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”

Seeking to bring down barriers:

To be fair to NASA and SpaceX, there remains a lot of uncertainty in how much cryogenic methane and liquid oxygen will boil off in orbit and how efficient the process of transferring propellants from one ship to another will be. But NASA can take the current performance of the lift capacity of Starship and determine the mass of propellant needed to support a lunar landing. For now, the space agency’s answer to the Starship question appears to be something on the order of two dozen Starship launches.

SpaceX, of course, is working hard to increase the flight rate of Starship. But even if SpaceX achieves “twice weekly” launches by the end of 2027, the company would still need about three months to fuel a depot for a Starship landing.

Precourt said the problem is a challenging one for NASA, and he praised the space agency chief, Jared Isaacman, and his team for trying to find ways to help SpaceX and Blue Origin be successful in their development of landers. NASA is still working toward a human lunar landing in 2028.

“With respect to schedule, I personally really appreciate the focus the administrator and the leadership team is putting on how to press schedule by bringing in resources to enable it to look for places where there are barriers,” he said.

Sat out last night and happened to see a large chunk of what I assumed is space debris burn up over the skies near Capitan, NM. Burned very bright, lasted about 5 seconds, was generally heading north. Does anyone have anymore information?

At the request of NASA, a new Consensus Study Report from the National Academies, “Human Exploration Across the Moon,” identifies high-value science destinations for short-duration human missions beyond the lunar poles.  

Dan Dumbacher, professor in Purdue University’s School of Aeronautics and Astronautics and co-chair of the committee tasked with compiling the report, presented the culmination of 18 months of research during a briefing on Oct. 21.   

“Humans for generations have aspired to explore, with the moon being the next logical step,” said Dumbacher, former chief executive officer of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. “This research outlines where humans could explore and why each location is important.”  

Each location offers opportunities to study questions regarding moon geology, space weather and radiation hazards, according to the report. Also recommended was the development of an observational tool that could be placed in orbit around the moon to assist in planning lunar missions and to provide continuous communications with future human habitats. The committee further addressed why human exploration would be more effective than robotic rovers and prioritized potential landing sites based on how humans would benefit and what important science questions would be answered.  

Read the National Academies’ report here. Purdue University’s coverage of the briefing can be found here.   

Any one else very excited about the new accelerated timeline to return to the moon?