SpaceX offers new rideshare approach

Ride sharing into orbit is one the best ways to come along to "spread the wealth" of the lower costs to orbit that are available to colleges, small businesses, and those who used to have a hard time getting an idea into space to test. SpaceX already had two ride sharing mission profiles, Transporter and Bandwagon, that vary in the specifics of the orbits they're intended for. To date, the company has launched 15 ride sharing flights in its Transporter series and four via Bandwagon.

Today marked the first launch of a third profile, called "Twilight," because it delivers the satellites to a dusk-dawn sun-synchronous orbit, a path that straddles the line between night and day on our planet. The mission launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California at 5:44 AM local time. The primary payload of the mission is a NASA satellite called Pandora, intended for a yearlong mission to study planets outside of our solar system, referred to as exoplanets. 

During its yearlong orbital mission, the 716-pound (325 kilograms) Pandora will study at least 20 known exoplanets using a 17-inch-wide (45 centimeters) telescope, which it will train on the worlds as they "transit," or cross the face of, their host stars from the satellite's perspective.

(Unless there's something really unusual about this telescope, astronomers refer to a "17-inch-wide" telescope as 17-inch aperture.) Like virtually all observational studies of exoplanets, the Pandora telescope will image these stars to look for planets passing in front of their star from our viewpoint. Not only do these occultations provide an observable small dimming of the star's light proportional to the diameter of the planet compared to the star's, they also allow astronomers to analyze the exoplanets' atmospheres. Different elements and molecules absorb light at specific wavelengths, so studying the spectrum of the star's light before and during the time when the planet passes in front of the star can reveal a great deal about that atmosphere's composition.

Part of the complexity of the mission is that the star itself contributes data, so they need to analyze that to correct for the star's contribution. A common source of more information is sunspots. 

"Pandora aims to disentangle the star and planet spectra by monitoring the brightness of the exoplanet's host star in visible light while simultaneously collecting infrared data," NASA officials wrote in a mission description. "Together, these multiwavelength observations will provide constraints on the star's spot coverage to separate the star's spectrum from the planet's."

Pandora will focus on planets with atmospheres that are dominated by water or hydrogen, agency officials added.

There were 40 satellites onboard the ride sharing mission, a mixture of 10 of Kepler Communications' Aether spacecraft and two of Capella Space's advanced new Acadia Earth-imaging radar satellites. That still leaves 28 satellites we have no information on.

This booster flew on its fifth mission, and landed back at Vandenberg successfully a bit over eight minutes after launch. 

Artist's concept of the Pandora satellite. Image credit: NASA's Pandora Mission website

The Crew-11 evacuation schedule is out

Space.com has a post they've been updating as the day goes by with the latest news on the ISS astronaut medical evacuation. The preparations for the Crew Dragon have begun, and everything takes place between this Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning or Jan. 14 and 15.  For convenience (or laziness), I copied the schedule they've printed and just posted it as graphic.

"Mission managers continue monitoring conditions in the recovery area, as undocking of the SpaceX Dragon depends on spacecraft readiness, recovery team readiness, weather, sea states, and other factors," NASA wrote in an update. "NASA and SpaceX will select a specific splashdown time and location closer to the Crew-11 spacecraft undocking."

The return will be livestreamed - as it generally is - but not continually through the 5PM undocking and departure until 2:15 AM beginning of coverage. 

Crew-11: left to right: Russia's Oleg Platonov, NASA's Mike Fincke and Zena Cardman, and Japan's Kimiya Yui on the right. (Image: © SpaceX)

Mike Fincke and Zena Cardman are the two who were scheduled for the Jan. 8 Spacewalk that was cancelled and led to the station evacuation, so one of those two is the one with the condition that caused the mission evacuation.

As we approach the flight of Artemis II to the moon...

We've entered into the mental landmark that we're within four weeks of the start of the Artemis II mission to loop around the moon and, as every story says, the first time astronauts have gone beyond Earth Orbit since the end of the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. Launch is currently scheduled for NET Friday, February 6, at 9:45 PM EST. That is one day later than I've been listing for months. 

Something that was going on without mention in the emails I get or sites I check regularly is that NASA’s new administrator, Jared Isaacman, called together a review of the Orion heat shield issues that showed up after the first Artemis mission. Afterward, Isaacman said he has “full confidence” in the space agency’s plans to use the existing heat shield to protect the Orion spacecraft during its upcoming lunar mission.

“We have full confidence in the Orion spacecraft and its heat shield, grounded in rigorous analysis and the work of exceptional engineers who followed the data throughout the process,” Isaacman said Thursday.

The Artemis I mission was in November of 2022, so just over 3 years ago, and the agency was roundly criticized for how it handled the heat shield issues. The pictures of the heat shield with chunks of ablative material blasted out of it didn't surface until nearly a year and a half after the mission.

The inspector general’s report, released on May 1, 2024, included new images of Orion’s heat shield. Credit: NASA Inspector General

After taking the job in Washington, DC, Isaacman asked the engineers who investigated the heat shield issue for NASA, as well as the chair of the independent review team and senior human spaceflight officials, to meet with a handful of outside experts. These included former NASA astronauts Charles Camarda and Danny Olivas, both of whom have expertise in heat shields and had expressed concerns about the agency’s decision-making.

...

Convened in a ninth-floor conference room at NASA Headquarters known as the Program Review Center, the meeting lasted for more than three hours. Isaacman attended much of it, though he stepped out from time to time to handle an ongoing crisis involving an unwell astronaut on orbit. He was flanked by the agency’s associate administrator, Amit Kshatriya; the agency’s chief of staff, Jackie Jester; and Lori Glaze, the acting associate administrator for NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate. The heat shield experts joined virtually from Houston, along with Orion Program Manager Howard Hu.

Isaacman made it clear at the outset that, after reviewing the data and discussing the matter with NASA engineers, he accepted the agency’s decision to fly Artemis II as planned. The team had his full confidence, and he hoped that by making the same experts available to Camarda and Olivas, it would ease some of their concerns.

To help ensure transparency, Isaacman added two independent reporters to the mix, Eric Berger of Ars Technica and Micah Maidenberg of The Wall Street Journal. They were allowed to report on the discussions but required to not quote participants directly by name to encourage a full and open discussion.

Perhaps the most striking revelation was what the NASA engineers called “what if we’re wrong” testing.

At the base of Orion, there are 186 blocks of a material called Avcoat, individually attached to provide a protective layer that allows the spacecraft to survive the heating of atmospheric reentry. Returning from the Moon, Orion encounters temperatures of up to 5,000° Fahrenheit (2,760° Celsius). A char layer that builds up on the outer skin of the Avcoat material is supposed to ablate, or erode, in a predictable manner during reentry. Instead, during Artemis I, fragments fell off the heat shield and left cavities in the Avcoat material.

Work by Saucedo and others—including substantial testing in ground facilities, wind tunnels, and high-temperature arc jet chambers—allowed engineers to find the cause of gases becoming trapped in the heat shield, leading to cracking. This was due to the Avcoat material being “impermeable,” essentially meaning it could not breathe.

After considering several options, including swapping the heat shield out for a newer one with more permeable Avcoat, NASA decided instead to change Orion’s reentry profile. For Artemis II, it would return through Earth’s atmosphere at a steeper angle, spending fewer minutes in the environment where this outgassing occurred during Artemis I. Much of Thursday’s meeting involved details about how the agency reached this conclusion and why the engineers deemed the approach safe.

A test block of Avcoat undergoes heat pulse testing inside an arc jet test chamber at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California. The test article, configured with both permeable (upper) and non-permeable (lower) Avcoat sections for comparison, helped to confirm an understanding of the root cause of the loss of charred Avcoat material on Artemis I. Credit: NASA

The Avcoat blocks, which are about 1.5 inches thick, are laminated onto a thick composite base of the Orion spacecraft. Inside this is a titanium framework that carries the load of the vehicle. The NASA engineers wanted to understand what would happen if large chunks of the heat shield were stripped away entirely from the composite base of Orion. So they subjected this base material to high energies for periods of 10 seconds up to 10 minutes, which is longer than the period of heating Artemis II will experience during reentry.

What they found is that, in the event of such a failure, the structure of Orion would remain solid, the crew would be safe within, and the vehicle could still land in a water-tight manner in the Pacific Ocean.

“We have the data to say, on our worst day, we’re able to deal with that if we got to that point,” one of the NASA engineers said.

After more than two years of testing and analysis of the char loss issue, the NASA engineers are convinced that, by increasing the angle of Orion’s descent during Artemis II, they can minimize damage to the heat shield. During Artemis I, as the vehicle descended from about 400,000 to 100,000 feet, it was under a “heat load” of various levels for 14 minutes. With Artemis II, this time will be reduced to eight minutes.

This may seem contradictory, but despite all this testing, the heat shield being accepted, and everyone feeling it's not exceptionally risky to ride it for reentry, there also seems to be a widespread feeling that they would rather not fly on it. I read that as saying there's nothing that shows extreme danger, but they're just not comfortable that they've tested every condition they should test. What if there were conditions that were encountered in Artemis I that didn't show up in the tests they've done? Nature isn't that cooperative - maybe there's noise, some sort of random fluctuations, and testing with the systems they're using doesn't exactly match what the heat shield might encounter on its flight? 

The Orion heat shield as seen after the Artemis I flight. Credit: NASA

NASA Decides to evacuate entire Crew-11 from ISS

The story broke in the last 24 hours that first, a scheduled spacewalk for this morning (Jan. 8 at 8AM EST) with two astronauts from Crew-11 was being cancelled due to a medical issue with one of the two. Today, NASA decided to do an evacuation of the crew from the ISS while being careful to say it was not a medical emergency.  

For those who don't remember, Crew-11 was the replacement mission for Crew-9 which was the rescue mission for the Starliner astronauts,  Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams. This was done by taking two astronauts off the Crew-9, mission commander Zena Cardman and mission specialist Stephanie Wilson to allow two seats for the stranded astronauts.  Zena Cardman was soon assigned to Crew-11; Stephanie Wilson was not.

The crew of NASA’s SpaceX Crew-11 on the International Space Station. Clockwise from top left are: NASA's Mike Fincke, Zena Cardman, Russia's Oleg Platonov and Japan's Kimiya Yui. (Image credit: NASA)

Cardman and Mike Fincke were the two scheduled for the spacewalk that has been postponed, so the medically affected crew member is one of those two, but out of respect for privacy, NASA has not officially named the crew member. They officially emphasize that the patient is stable, but that's all we know.

'"It is not an emergency de-orbit, even though we always retain that capability, and NASA and our partners train for that routinely," recently confirmed NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman told reporters during a press conference on Thursday.

"The capability to diagnose and treat this properly does not live on the International Space Station," Isaacman added, explaining why he ultimately decided to speed up the departure timeline.

Crew-11 launched August 1st, and was scheduled to be replaced around February 20th, so cutting the mission short by around six weeks isn't a big impact and may have helped the decision. Crew-12 is reported to be launching NET February 12. 

There is no word yet on when Crew-11 will return or if 12 will be moved forward.  

Dr. James Polk, NASA's chief health and medical officer, said that the issue had nothing to do with the spacewalk or preparations for it, apparently alluding to the incident in 2021 when a crew member was unable to start a spacewalk due to a pinched nerve.

"This is not an operational issue. This was not an injury that occurred in the pursuit of operations," Polk said. "It's mostly having a medical issue in the difficult areas of microgravity, and with the suite of hardware that we have at our avail to complete a diagnosis."

In retrospect, the fact that there hasn't been a medical evacuation in the history of the ISS is really remarkable. The ISS has been continuously inhabited since November of 2000. Dr. Polk says that statistical analysis says they'd have one around every 3 years.  Or so. 

Small Space News Story Roundup 75

Just a couple of stories that standout above the noise to me 

Remember Rocketdyne?  

It's sort of a trick question, but with a point. Rocketdyne was one of the big names in the Space 1.0 days. They were founded in 1955 - over 70 years ago. They aren't quite gone now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them gone by 2030. 

A half-century ago, Rocketdyne manufactured almost all of the large liquid-fueled rocket engines in the United States. The Saturn V rocket that boosted astronauts toward the Moon relied on powerful engines developed by Rocketdyne, as did the Space Shuttle, the Atlas, Thor, and Delta rockets, and the US military’s earliest ballistic missiles.

Rocketdyne’s dominance began to erode after the end of the Cold War. The company started in 1955 as a division of North American Aviation, then became part of Rockwell International until Boeing acquired Rockwell’s aerospace division in 1996. Rocketdyne continually designed and tested large new rocket engines from the 1950s through the 1980s. Since then, Rocketdyne has developed and qualified just one large engine design from scratch—the RS-68—and it retired from service in 2024. 

The company was first sold by ULA in 2005 for $700 million (about $1.2 billion today). This was about six years before the end of the Space Shuttle program and around the startup of SpaceX - launching their first experimental launches. 

There are at least nine medium to large liquid-fueled rocket engines in production or in advanced development in the United States today, and just one of them is from the enterprise once known as Rocketdyne: the RS-25 engine used to power the core stage of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket.

The RS-25 is often referred to as the SSME - Space Shuttle Main Engine - and all of the engines set to fly on the Space Launch System are not just the same model, they are all "used" engines that have previously flown on Shuttle missions. 

It's interesting that United Launch Alliance, Rocketdyne's big customer after the end of the shuttle program, abandoned them in favor of Blue Origin's engines for their Vulcan rocket. 

The parent company of Aerojet purchased Rocketdyne in 2013 to form Aerojet Rocketdyne. L3Harris closed its acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne in 2023, creating a space propulsion and power systems business unit and retiring the historic Rocketdyne name. Now, just two-and-a-half years later, L3Harris announced Monday it is selling a 60 percent stake in its newly created propulsion and power business to AE Industrial Partners, a Florida-based private equity firm. L3Harris will retain 40 percent ownership. 

The RS-25 is not part of this sale. Apparently, Rocketdyne is holding onto a dream of an SLS add-on contract to build the RS-25s as "Cost Plus." 

There is another big portion of the Rocketdyne market that hasn't been mentioned, the RL10 upper stage engine used on ULA's Vulcan. AE Industrial Partners has talked up the idea of modernizing the engine in the West Palm Beach (Florida) plant that builds them. It sounds like they need to modernize the way the engines are built.

RL10s have flown on rockets since the 1960s and historically required significant touch labor and manual fabrication, driving up their cost. 

3I/ATLAS isn't an alien spacecraft, astronomers confirm

Space.com entitles their story, "Interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS isn't an alien spacecraft, astronomers confirm. 'In the end, there were no surprises.' "

The amount of silly stuff floating around about this comet surprised me - and not just the amount, but some of the sources surprised me, too. While it would have been far more interesting to me to be evidence of an advanced civilization sending out probes than to just be another rock passing in the night, there were just too many issues with the evidence for that. 

Astronomers used the Green Bank Telescope, employed in the Breakthrough Listen extraterrestrial signal-hunting astronomy project, to search 3I/ATLAS for measurable signs of technology from extraterrestrial civilizations, or "technosignatures." 

"We all would have been thrilled to find technosignatures coming from 3I/ATLAS, but they're just not there," lead researcher Benjamin Jacobson-Bell from the University of California, Berkeley, told Space.com. "Finding no signals was the result we expected, due to the significant evidence for 3I/ATLAS being a comet with only natural features.

"The evidence was against 3I/ATLAS being one such probe, but we would have been remiss not to check."

Here on the blog, we've had little discussion about this, but I'll borrow something I wrote in a comment back around the start of the controversy:

Why do I think it's basically just another rock? Because it's acting like a rock. It's on a purely ballistic trajectory. It's moving fast compared to things we're used to observing - which is, after all, the last few years of human history - but it's not moving fast compared to the speeds required for living beings to cover the distances it has come. Good old Wikipedia says it's moving at 58km/sec or 0.000193c. We don't know where it came from, but even if it came from the closest stars at 4 light years away, that means more than 20,000 years to get here. Who's going to launch a system that slow, and why? What kind of system could work over 20,000 years without failing? If they wanted to take over our solar system or take our planet, if they have lifespans similar to ours, 20,000 years makes coming here to take over pretty much impossible. 

Comet 3I/ATLAS streaks across a dense star field in this image captured by the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS) on Gemini South at Cerro Pachón in Chile. The multicolored streaks are stars in the background of the image.

(Image credit: International Gemini Observatory/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/Shadow the ScientistImage Processing: J. Miller & M. Rodriguez (International Gemini Observatory/NSF NOIRLab), T.A. Rector (University of Alaska Anchorage/NSF NOIRLab), M. Zamani (NSF NOIRLab))

3i/Atlas was fun, and moderately interesting. I never looked at it myself, but that's true of almost all of the barely visible comets that come through the solar system in any given year. 

The 10 Biggest Rocket Companies Lists

The annual lists are starting to show up; at least the one at Ars Technica. 

In other years, I've started off with "we know who #1 is; let's look at the rest." That still applies, but if you'll remember New Year's day's post about SpaceX setting yet another world record for successful launches in a year, you might appreciate a little extra. I get the independent daily newsletter Payload, and they included a year by year graphic showing orbital launches for the world since '22. It's on their website. I added a little detail for 2025 that I'm pretty sure is larger in numbers than in prior years, but similar in overall look. I added lines for SpaceX's portion of US launches and a total for China and the rest of the world. 

So let's look at the rest. Ars Technica / Eric Berger Rank them this way:

1. SpaceX
2. Blue Origin
3. Rocket Lab
4. ULA
5. Northrop Grumman
6. Firefly 
7. Stoke Space 
8. Relativity Space 
9. Astra
10. Phantom Space and Vaya Space 

The source piece also shows their status vs. last year. For example, Blue Origin is up two, switching places with ULA. Instead of just copying what Eric Berger thought, I'm going to inject my own opinions. After all, Top 10 ratings of anything are nothing but an opinion topic.

Rocket Lab (higher than Ars)

My first disagreement with Berger is I make Rocket Lab #2 instead of Blue,  Rocket lab seems to me to have had a better year, with the only drawback to them compared to Blue is that their Electron rocket is for smaller payloads than New Glenn.  Bigger is fine, but New Glenn had two flights and Rocket Lab had 18 missions that were completely successful. Not quite "every other week" (26) but better than New Glenn.  

Rocket Lab has now gone nearly three dozen launches without a failure. The company also continued to make progress on its medium-lift Neutron vehicle, although its debut was ultimately delayed to mid-2026, at least.

Additionally, Rocket Lab continued its ascendance as a spacecraft company. It played a key role in supporting Firefly’s Blue Ghost lander at the beginning of this year, and in November, its two ESCAPADE vehicles were safely switched on after launch, beginning their journey to Mars.

Blue Origin (same as Ars)

Blue Origin had a very good year. They finally got New Glenn off the ground with two successful test flights. Suddenly making the list of "contenders" that they've never been on. The bigger success is probably the second flight that not only successfully made orbit, like the first, but recovered the booster on their recovery drone ship. 

This section would not be complete without copying the joke that Eric Berger stuck in his first paragraph:

This is the biggest mover on the list, leaping from No. 4 on the list to No. 2, and this is, of course, because Jeff Bezos’ company sent Katy Perry into space. (They could have achieved No. 1 had they not brought her back). 

Northrop Grumman (higher than Ars)

This puts Northrop Grumman higher than ULA in my rankings because I think they had a better year. 

Only one other US company had a successful orbital launch in 2025, and it was Northrop Grumman. In April, the company’s Minotaur IV rocket carried a payload into orbit for the National Reconnaissance Office. 

The ding against them is that they're still depending on SpaceX for launches of their Cygnus cargo missions to the ISS because although they're committed to and working on their Antares 330 rocket, it's behind schedule.  Meanwhile, they increased the size of the Cygnus to what they're calling Cygnus XL. 

As an interesting side note, Northrop also provides solid rocket boosters for ULA’s Vulcan rocket and NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle.

United Launch Alliance (lower than Ars)

I think that ULA had a disappointing year. They were saying they'd get up to 10 Vulcan missions and had one. 

In late 2024, the company’s CEO, Tory Bruno, told reporters that ULA aimed to launch as many as 20 missions in 2025, with roughly an even split between the legacy Atlas V launcher and Vulcan. Now, it’s likely that ULA will close out 2025 with six flights—five with the Atlas V and just one with the Vulcan rocket that the company is so eager to accelerate into service.

On the one Vulcan flight there was a problem with a solid rocket booster. There's persistent speculation that investigation is what grounded the Vulcan.  

Firefly (same as Ars)

Firefly had a wonderful start to the year. 

The year 2025 started out with a bang—a good one—for Firefly. In January, the company’s Blue Ghost lander launched on a Falcon 9 rocket and subsequently landed on the Moon. This was an extremely impressive achievement, as Firefly became the first private company to complete a fully successful soft landing on the Moon. 

Unfortunately that was their end of success in 2025. They have been working on their Alpha rocket and had one launch that failed to put its payload in orbit. That was in April. In September they were working toward a second launch when the vehicle blew up on the launch pad. Perhaps the fact that Firefly is the contractor working on the Antares 330 launch vehicle for Northrop Grumman is why that vehicle is late.

In the next few places, we're dealing with companies that have no history that I'm familiar with so I'll just leave this section to Eric Berger at Ars. 

Stoke Space 

All I really know about Stoke is some things published about their concepts of a launch vehicle and some neat pictures. They seem well-funded and will probably have a real launch within a year or two.

Relativity Space 

All I really know about them has probably been superceded by now. They were bought by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and it seemed he was intent on building power stations in space to run AI systems in space.

Astra

They're said to be working on a rocket in the payload range of Rocket Lab's electron, 600kg to LEO.

Phantom Space and Vaya Space 

Unlike the previous two, I've never heard of either one of these. Eric said they're here for only two minor reasons: To do a "Top 10" list, he needed two more, and the two of them are sharing a launch complex, SLC-13, at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

Hey, if it's good enough for the big guys in the business, it's good enough for us.

Stoke Space's novel rocket engines for steering thrust without gimballing engines. More info here. Image credit: Stoke Space

It's looking to be a big year for lunar landers

Space.com reports today that there are five lunar landers attempting to land being sent from the US and one from China. Companies that have both tried landers with varying success and those that have never tried are looking to try this year.  

The Big Name Player Tries First 

I'll give the big name top billing because NextSpaceflight shows the launch as being this month: "NET January," but doesn't give a likely date. The launch will be on their New Glenn rocket, making it the third flight of this system. The company announced the mission soon after their November launch of ESCAPADE satellites bound for Mars but which are temporarily stationed at the L2 (Lagrange point 2) of the Earth/moon system. Sketch of the mission at L2 here. 

As expected for a first launch of a payload like the Blue Moon Mark 1 pathfinder, this flight is intended to be a technology demonstration of the Blue Moon Mark 1 cargo lander design, including its precision landing systems and propulsion tech. The lander will support later commercial and NASA payload deliveries to the lunar surface, with a capacity of up to 6,600 pounds

The lander will target the lunar south pole and will carry a NASA SCALPSS payload that will study how the lander's exhaust interacts with the moon's surface during the landing. There's a lot at stake: Blue Origin is a prime contractor for NASA's Human Landing System (HLS) with its Blue Moon lander, which is intended to land astronauts on the moon later this decade, making Mark 1 pathfinder a key rehearsal.

Firefly goes again with their Blue Ghost 2  

Last March, Firefly successfully landed their first Blue Ghost lander in Mare Crisium (the Sea of Crises) on the near side, and they're looking to try the second launch in the second quarter of this year.  

Blue Ghost M2 will launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket no earlier than the second quarter of 2026, aiming to land on the far side of the moon — a feat that only China has achieved to date, with Chang'e 4 in 2019 and Chang'e 6 in 2024. Among six government and commercial payloads will be the Rashid Rover 2 for the United Arab Emirates and a wireless power receiver for Volta Space. 

The mission also carries the European Space Agency's Lunar Pathfinder orbiter, which will be deployed into lunar orbit by Firefly's Elytra orbital transfer vehicle. Elytra will also act as a communications relay for Blue Ghost M2 during its 10 days of operations. A comms relay is a necessity, because the far side of the moon is not visible from Earth.

Intuitive Machines joins with their IM-3

Intuitive Machines looks to fly their IM-3 in the second half of the year. For a company that has gotten as close to successful missions as they could with both IM-1 and IM-2 without everyone acknowledging success, I see this as an important mission for them. 

Both the the IM-1 Odysseus spacecraft in February 2024 and last year's IM-2 Athena, toppled onto their side shortly after touching down on the lunar surface. Last year, they did a good public display of their failure analysis of Athena, but a little less for Odysseus the year before.  

IM-3, again using the NOVA-C lander, will launch on a Falcon 9 rocket from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida and target a landing in the Reiner Gamma region on the near side, which features a mysterious lunar swirl with an associated local magnetic field. The lander will be packed with science payloads, including magnetometers and plasma instruments, as part of the CLPS program.

Astrobotics next lander mission fills out the schedule

You might remember Astrobotics first attempt to land their Peregrine lunar lander in January of '24. Shortly after liftoff and deployment, it had a propulsion anomaly due to a faulty valve and eventually ended up in the Pacific. 

The last update I had for the replacement lander, named Griffin, was that it was looking to be this summer on a Falcon Heavy. 

Griffin-1 will target the south pole of the moon. It was initially planned to carry NASA's VIPER rover to seek out volatiles, but the rover has moved to a later mission, following its cancellation and subsequent revival. Instead, Astrolab's four-wheeled, 1,000-pound (450 kg) FLIP moon rover will join Griffin-1 for the ride, along with Astrobotic's own, much smaller CubeRover. The lander will also carry further small commercial and cultural payloads. 

The last of the lunar lander missions is quite a bit harder to get info about

The last of landers likely to fly this year is Chinese, the Chang'e 7 mission. 

The Chang'e 7 mission will consist of a lander, a rover and a mobile hopper, according to Chinese state media outlet Xinhua, and will launch sometime in 2026.

The hopper is a "first-of-its-kind lunar explorer," according to the report. It will jump from sunlit areas and into shadowed craters to look for water using a molecule analyzer.

"The lander will deploy China's inaugural deep-space 'landmark image navigation' system to ensure precision, while the hopper utilizes active shock-absorption technology to safely land on slopes," the report read.

The value of recovering water on the moon probably speaks for itself. It seems essential to any plans to station a human crew and have a chance to survive there. 

Rendering of the Mark 1 Blue Moon lander. Image credit: Blue Origin

A Big Anniversay Coming

This post is going to be ham radio heavy, especially old ham radio. If you don't care about that, go check out the blogs on the right side of the page, and check back tomorrow to see if I could find any space-related news. 

Back in December, I noted that it was my 10th year of retirement, December 18th to pin it down.  Ten years of retirement is a good milestone, but coming up in early February is bigger to me.

February will mark my 50th anniversary of getting my first ham radio license. 

Do I mark the day I got the license and made my first radio contact? Do I mark when the license was issued, or whom I had the first contact with?  I know none of those details, and I've torn apart the shack trying to find either my old license, or a logbook. I would have sworn I had both of those, but I sure can't find either. 

What I remember first about that beginning is that my first week on the air was during an annual, week-long contest that the American Radio Relay League used to put on specifically for Novice License holders, called the Novice Roundup. This guy says that was the week of February 7th to the 15th. While I'm not sure when my first contact was, I do remember that my first contact was a station not far from where I'm living now.  I also vividly remember working California for the first time during that Novice Roundup. When you have zero experience with radio, working the other side of the country is exciting! All new contacts with a new place are exciting. 

The only thing I could find that I think is useful was in a QSL card box that was full of cards from my early days in radio. I think that card was from my first QSO. It says the date and time was February 9th at 4:15 PM, on 3.720 MHz - allocated to Novice licensees in those days. February 9th was a Monday, and the typical way that contests are timed is to start at midnight (UTC), so 0000 UTC on February 7th would have been in the evening of Friday February 6th in EST (I lived in Ft. Lauderdale, FL at the time), and that means the license would have arrived in the mail, no later than that Monday, although it's best to think it might have come a day or more before that first contact. 

I don't remember enough about how well the station was checked out and "ready to go" for the contest to decide if waiting until Monday was necessary. I don't remember much about what I was doing all day in February 50 years ago, but I think I was in one of the junior colleges nearby. I would have gotten home, made sure the station was OK and tried to make some contacts. 

The station itself was kind of "high end entry level" station: a Heathkit HW-16 transceiver and HG-10B VFO - those weren't available to novices until about a year before then. Those two are considered such a classic pair that there are hams using them today. I went to this guy's site, K3MSB.com, to copy his station picture because it looked better than the others that came up.

Image credit to K3MSB, Mark Bell.

Yes, I built both of those kits, put up the antennas with some help to tune them for use, and did everything to get a signal on the air. 

I can imagine someone saying, "why today?" Why talk about an anniversary of something that happened in early February of 1976 short of 50 years ago? Mostly, to be honest, because I've been trying to narrow things down better, about a path and project that took up much more time than just a day in February. I took the exam in December of '75, and started working toward that in the summer of '75. The FCC probably took 6 weeks to process the papers and send me the license.  Somewhere in there, I became a ham in everyone's eyes. 

SpaceX begins “significant reconfiguration” of Starlink constellation

SpaceX's Starlink constellation of satellites is an amazing example of taking advantage of what lots of access to Earth orbit can do for humanity. With over 9,000 satellite nodes on orbit, it brings high speed web access to pretty much every place on Earth. The trades for buying the time on the network get better every couple of days when a new batch of satellites goes up. Stephen Clark, writing at Ars Technica starts his observation this way:

The year 2025 ended with more than 14,000 active satellites from all nations zooming around the Earth. One-third of them will soon move to lower altitudes.

What's going on?

About 4,400 of the company’s Starlink Internet satellites will move from an altitude of 341 miles (550 kilometers) to 298 miles (480 kilometers) over the course of 2026, according to Michael Nicolls, SpaceX’s vice president of Starlink engineering.

“Starlink is beginning a significant reconfiguration of its satellite constellation focused on increasing space safety,” Nicolls wrote Thursday in a post on X.

The maneuvers undertaken with the Starlink satellites’ plasma engines will be gradual, but they will eventually bring a large fraction of orbital traffic closer together. The effect, perhaps counterintuitively, will be a reduced risk of collisions between satellites whizzing through near-Earth space at nearly 5 miles per second. Nicolls said the decision will “increase space safety in several ways.”

In the years that the Starlink constellation has been getting put into place, the amount of orbital debris at the lower orbital layers Starlink uses has gone down. It's inevitable that if more satellites are put into lower orbits, the Starlink satellites will be packed more tightly. The counter to that is tighter control of the movements each of the satellites will be achieved. 

There’s another natural reason for reconfiguring the Starlink constellation. The Sun is starting to quiet down after reaching the peak of the 11-year solar cycle in 2024. The decline in solar activity has the knock-on effect of reducing air density in the uppermost layers of the Earth’s atmosphere, a meaningful factor in planning satellite operations in low-Earth orbit.

With the approaching solar minimum, Starlink satellites will encounter less aerodynamic drag at their current altitude. In the rare event of a spacecraft failure, SpaceX relies on atmospheric resistance to drag Starlink satellites out of orbit toward a fiery demise on reentry. Moving the Starlink satellites lower will allow them to naturally reenter the atmosphere and burn up within a few months. At solar minimum, it might take more than four years for drag to pull the satellites out of their current 550-kilometer orbit, according to Nicolls. At the lower altitude, it will take just a few months.

Lowering the orbits will enhance performance of the network, due to things most people won't think of. First, the diameter of the antenna's transmit main signal lobe will appear smaller to anything that it might currently interfere with - specifically the neighbors of the person the satellite is transmitting to. Second, one of the reasons the constellation is at the altitude it's currently spread around is that "higher takes longer" (or "farther away takes longer"). The effective delay from transmitting between surface and satellites is called signal latency and the system architects wanted to limit latency as much as they could, which meant to reduce orbital height as much as they could. 

A point worth bringing up is that the current number of satellites is not as big as the constellation can get. 

SpaceX launched 165 missions with its workhorse Falcon 9 rocket last year, and nearly three-quarters of them carried Starlink satellites into space. The company reported its assembly line in Redmond, Washington, churned out new Starlink satellites at a rate of more than 10 per day. 
...
Hundreds of Starlink satellites specially modified to beam connectivity directly to smartphones already fly in orbits as low as 223 miles (360 kilometers).
...
Aside from continuing Starlink network expansion with more Falcon 9 launches, SpaceX intends to debut the more powerful Starlink V3 satellite platform this year. Starlink V3 is too big to fit on a Falcon 9, so it must launch on SpaceX’s super-heavy Starship rocket, which has not yet begun operational flights.

Last month a Starlink satellite became disabled on orbit. A commercial imaging satellite owned by Vantor captured this view of the satellite. Credit: Vantor

Russia's ISS Module Zvezda suddenly stopped leaking

After half a decade of leaking, a small section attached to Russia's Zvezda service module on the International Space Station has apparently stopped leaking. 

The leaks were caused by microscopic structural cracks inside the small PrK module on the Russian segment of the space station, which lies between a Progress spacecraft airlock and the Zvezda module. The problem has been a long-running worry for Russian and US operators of the station, especially after the rate of leakage doubled in 2024. This prompted NASA officials to label the leak as a “high likelihood” and “high consequence” risk. 

Recently, two sources indicated that the leaks have stopped. And NASA has now confirmed this.

“Following additional inspections and sealing activities, the pressure in the transfer tunnel attached to the Zvezda Service Module of the International Space Station, known as the PrK, is holding steady in a stable configuration,” a space agency spokesman, Josh Finch, told Ars. “NASA and Roscosmos continue to monitor and investigate the previously observed cracks for any future changes that may occur.”

For five years, Russian cosmonauts have been searching for the leak like a proverbial needle in a haystack. They would periodically close the hatch leading to the PrK module and then, upon re-opening it, they'd float around the station, looking for tiny accumulations of dust to indicate the leak sites. When they found such a leak, they'd apply a sealant known as Germetall-1 (used in a leak story in 2018) to the areas, close the hatch again, monitor the pressure inside the PrK module, and begin the search anew for additional leaks. This process went on for years.

In reality, this probably doesn't mean much, with the leak having been continually monitored practically since Zvezda was first added to the station 25 years - a quarter of a century - ago, and the station being expected to be deorbited in four years. But one less thing to worry about is always better than one more thing.

The Zvezda service module, seen here near the top of this image, is one the oldest parts of the International Space Station. Image Credit: NASA

The topmost portion of the relatively long, straight line of hardware in the middle of the image is a Soyuz spacecraft, the orbital "ferry" the Russians have been flying for many years. Zvezda is the more or less cylindrical section just below Zvezda. The mention of the "small PrK module" as the precise location of the leak(s) doesn't tell me any more information on where to find it in this photograph. 

SpaceX's latest record likely to stand a while

It's almost a cliche that every launch sets some sort of record. The one SpaceX announced earlier in the week will probably stand for another 10 or 11 months until they break it. 

SpaceX shattered their launch record in '25 with 165 launches which works out to one every 3.1 days. These were orbital launches using only the Falcon 9. They also have five sub-orbital test flights of Starship. In case you don't watch them closely, they've set a new record every year for six years. 

The record has risen from 25 orbital liftoffs in 2020 to 31 (2021) to 61 (2022) to 96 (2023) to 134 (2024) and, now, to a whopping 165.

Here near the Cape Canaveral/Kennedy Space Center complex, for most of the year they launched close to every other day, while Vandenberg was more like once/week. As work proceeds on the launch pad they're renovating at Vandenberg, there will be the potential for two to three launches/week on both coasts. They already launch more orbital launches than every other launch provider including other nations.

Indeed, SpaceX launched nearly twice as many orbital missions as China did this year, and the company's 2025 output represented about 85% of the United States' total tally. 

Strangely, of the 165 launches, they didn't successfully recover three boosters. The first two were expected because the customer's requirements determined they couldn't recover them. Only the last one wasn't recovered because of an issue in the Falcon 9.

Two of the exceptions were launches in January and October that sent massive Spainsat NG communications satellites to geostationary transfer orbit. These were heavy lifts for the Falcon 9 first stage, which didn't have enough fuel left over for a return to Earth.

The other non-landing was a failed attempt, suffered during the launch of a batch of Starlink internet satellites on March 3. The booster actually touched down successfully on a drone ship in the Atlantic Ocean as planned that day, but it tipped over after a fire broke out near its base and damaged a landing leg.

All told it was good year for SpaceX. In terms of other milestones, they pulled off their 500th rocket landing and 500th launch of a used rocket in 2025. They repeatedly extended the record for most launches by a single Falcon 9 booster, which currently stands at 32. Starlink's global network has been assembled largely by reusing Falcon 9 boosters. This year, Starlink launches made up 123 of the 165 Falcon 9 launches. Those 123 missions lifted more than 3,000 satellites for the Starlink megaconstellation, which currently consists of more than 9,300 active spacecraft.

The second stage of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launching 29 Starlink satellites into orbit from Florida on Dec. 17, 2025. (Image credit: SpaceX)

Happy New Year 2026!

New Year's Eve is upon us, and I just want to wish all of you a happy New Year.  By this time of the year, pretty much every year, I'm sick of the "year in review" shows on TV, so I'll just post a little about my year in review.  It's customary to start the New Year with a reference to the Roman god Janus - his name is where January gets its name - who could look both backward and forward at the same time, so we can do the same thing.

It seems to be a pattern of the last several years that a major part of the year revolves around some medical crap. Without a doubt the worst of 2025 was March 1st, when I woke to my little buddy Mojo, our old man cat, passed away in my arms. To be honest, I’m not completely over that. I don’t see him in his favorite places around the house like I did at first, but certain pictures or tunes still choke me up. We brought another cat into our lives in July, Independence Day weekend, but she’s not a replacement, she’s a completely different “personality.”

My semi-annual visit to my GP in February was boringly normal, but April’s annual visit to the cardiologist was the start of an “adventure” (only slightly sarcastic) that still hasn’t played out fully. I’ve mentioned this many times, but a short summary is that on my birthday in 2013 I started having weird heartbeat sensations that ended in being told I had various arrhythmias including afib, PVCs, PACs and more. At this April's visit, the technician doing an echocardiogram asked it I ever had trouble with my afib and I told her I don’t know that I ever had it besides that one time 12 years ago. She replied, “you’re having it now.”

After several visits with my “regular” cardiologist, that vocal exchange happened with other people. My cardiologist referred me to a cardiac electrophysiologist and the short summary is that I’m currently heading toward a procedure with him to burn out areas of my heart that are causing the improper heartbeat. I don’t have a date assigned, yet. The ablation uses a radio frequency source called a Farapulse to do the burning, which seems appropriate for a guy who designed radio receivers and transmitters.

The big thing of the year was I finally got my umbilical (belly button area) hernia repaired on June 12th. It was all pretty much by the book until about one week post surgery. Still living with the “don’t lift anything heavier than a coffee mug” I stretched out in bed to take a nap and I woke up, noticed my abdomen was covered in an itchy rash. I treated it with benadryl or calamine/benadryl mix and it would knock out the itch for a few hours. I was able to bump up my appointment with the Physician’s Assistant for the post-surgery checkup, and he just confirmed what I was doing. He said that I had never said I have allergic reactions to things they used, and I pointed out that never having had one doesn’t mean I ever had whatever it was they used that gave me the rash. Surprising to me is that one of the old suture incisions still gets itchy once or twice a week. Cortisone or those other things still work.

After a few months post-surgery, I started pushing toward doing core strengthening mostly with sit-ups. I’ve gotten back to doing a hundred situps on weightlifting days so like a couple of times/week. For a variety of reasons mostly related to the need for the ablation, I’ve gone from riding the bike three days/week to walking, which is unrealistically easy.

As for looking toward the future, my crystal ball is cloudy. I'm a "real money" guy and the gyrations of the central bankers have had me expecting economic collapse Real Soon Now for about 20 years - certainly before the '08 collapse. I had seen talk of the subprime crisis developing in '06, before it started and led to the '08 collapse. I've written so many times about economic collapse that haven't come true that I've stopped believing in myself - or my ability to predict it. I've also written about the collapse of technological civilization, the "new dark ages" so many times that the same conclusion happened. I'm just not going to put out wrong predictions again. I'll do a post on the collapse when it happens.

A couple of years ago, I thought (and still think) I could see the Crusades 2 point 0 approaching with Islamists openly attacking other countries. When we see the DEI mind virus pushing into STEM colleges and programs, when competence, hard work, and attention to detail are derided as "white supremacy" or whatever, will you ever feel safe crossing a bridge or riding a commercial jet? So few people actually know how to design the critical parts in the essential electronics we take for granted, if the semiconductor fab plants were suddenly gone - intentionally or by some natural disaster - could they be recreated?

I think it's going to happen, I just don't know when.

On the stuff we watch the closest here: space exploration, I expected that Starship would have reached orbit two years ago or maybe more. I remember asking if something as ambitious as Starship could reach orbit in fewer flights than the vastly simpler Falcon 1. On the other hand, they know vastly more than they did about making orbital spacecraft back then, but something as ambitious as Starship has never flown. That said, I think they make orbit this year. As for other predictions, Rocket Lab's Neutron will fly, and there's a rumor going around that Rocket Lab is going to buy the leftover-hulk of ULA.

Let me leave it there, along with a wish for a very Happy New Year to everyone who stops to read here. May it be healthy and fun for all.

Solar Cycle 25/26 Update 2

It hadn't occurred to me until lately that I hadn't updated the solar cycle and solar-terrestrial indices since last April. Guess I'm just getting out of touch with things. 

The last update I posted was on April 28. A highlight I've posted on solar cycle updates has been the "Last solar cycles comparison" from Space Weather News, and produced by a group called solen.info. NOTE: the plot is at the first link, not the second (solen.info). Here is the current plot  - with the exception of a short vertical line I added to point out the solar flux in that April 28th post. 

It's pretty obvious that cycle 25 peaked around that green line. You'll notice that the highest Smoothed Sunspot Numbers (SSNs) are well above cycle 24, the previous cycle, but what you can't see on this graph is that cycle 24 had the lowest SSNs in the last hundred years, so cycle 25 has been quite a bit more active than 24 but that's just not saying much. "Hey, we're not the worst cycle in a hundred years!" A new feature in the April post was a prediction plot from NOAA. I include the current prediction and if you compare the plot from April to this one, you'll see that reality matches the prediction pretty well. The previous two curves on this plot, cycle 23 and 22, have two peaks. Cycle 23 is more noticeable with a deeper dip between the peaks than 22 has, 23 is almost one, relatively constant, high plateau of activity. Cycle 21 has an earlier peak than 23 and 25, and is a wider peak than the others, in addition to being the highest peak on the chart.

Looking at this plot, it's not surprising that there has been no repeat of some things I heard in 2024. You'll notice that the absolute peak of cycle 25 occurred during 2024. There were some days with very high solar flux in '24: the highest peak was in August as shown here: each black dot is one month, and the last dot in this plot is October's number (the plot shows "updated 2025-12-02" bottom right). I was regularly in the shack monitoring 6m activity much of the end of '24 and saw something I've never seen in my life, reports of ham stations in Alaska being heard within a few hundred miles of me. I've never heard an Alaskan signal make the last hop to Florida (on 6m), although a friend in Tennessee heard one, one time. Fifteen seconds out of a lifetime on the radio. 

Is there a chance of hearing Alaska down here again - in this cycle? My guess is that if the current trend of having one cycle peak holds, no. The only thing that I think would help that is for a second peak of SSN, equal to or stronger than the previous peak forms. One thing that's in our favor is that cycle 25 is looking rather asymmetric. We thought it was peaking 20 months ago around 40 months into the cycle, but after remaining at relatively low SSN around month 50 after the cycle start it began moving toward a peak farther out (in time). What we don't know is how much longer the SSN will stay around where it is now. The second plot, on the cycle's progress pretty much predicts the SSN will be lower by 2026 after perhaps another quarter to half year around where it currently is. But those predicted movements are based on prior movements and I've never heard anyone address what causes the dual peaks in any detail of how to predict from them. Maybe they just don't know to predict dual cycle peaks.

A few of the times I've done this sort of post it was after a talk by Dr. Scott McIntosh, formerly a high-placed scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).  Last year, Scott had moved to Lynker Space in the private sector. He's doing one of his update presentations on the Front Range 6 Meter Group on Wednesday, January 14. Those are carried live on their channel on YouTube but I have to say I've never watched one live and don't know if it's possible for non-members to watch it live. It usually shows up for general viewing on YouTube within a couple of days. 

To borrow that wonderful quote from physicist Niels Bohr, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”

Scrubbed again - tonight's launch is cancelled

As a repeat of the events of last night, tonight's attempted launch of the COSMO-SkyMed Second Generation mission has been scrubbed due to problems with the launchpad/ground infrastructure. 

“To allow more time to perform ground system checkouts, standing down from today’s launch of the COSMO-SkyMed Second Generation mission,” SpaceX said in a social media post. “A new target launch date will be shared once confirmed.”

FAA flight restrictions indicate the launch had slipped to at least Tuesday evening. The originally planned Saturday night liftoff from Space Launch Complex 4E was scrubbed due to a hydraulic problem with the launch pad’s hold-down clamps.

I see in looking at the previous stories that I haven't mentioned that this is Falcon 9 booster tail number 1081 flying on her 21st flight. Previous missions included Crew-7, PACE and TRACERS, all for NASA. B1081 will Return To Launch Site, to land at LZ-4 (Landing Zone 4). If successful, this will be the 31st landing at Vandenberg's landing zone, and the 554th Falcon booster landing so far.

---

Another thing going on in life that has been a bit of a distraction or complication (or some combination of those words) is in our church life. I've told that story a couple of times in my Easter post but in the months since last April, our story has gotten more complicated. We left our old church because of the way they treated our pastor.  To borrow a paragraph from my Easter post:

I went forward for Baptism in an evangelical church and an important part of that change was because the pastor had a similar background to mine, at least in the biochemistry/microbiology portion. He was a pharmacist and the director of the pharmacy department in one of the local hospitals. He quickly became one of our closest friends in the worst time of our lives - Mrs. Graybeard's cancer in 1997. It's a long story, but in the last couple of years the church's elders dumped him. As the story about how they treated him in private came out, we found a new church - a nearby Southern Baptist church. Our pastor who had been kicked out of his position (and practically founded our church) also started going to another Baptist church, but closer to his home. He passed away a little before Easter last year.

The complication is that a few months ago, our new pastor announced his retirement. The process this church used was much, much better than the evangelical church (a Calvary Chapel) and a new pastor has been elected. Our senior pastor will be leaving the church early in January and the elders used a much better approach to choosing and finding people to run for the position, then an election where people who are members of the church voted to choose the new pastor.

This has led to some feelings of instability. The new guy, who has been an associate pastor as long as we've been going to this church, hasn't really come across well in his teachings, but the fact that the church handled the succession so well makes me feel like we should give him a chance to get used to the changes he's going through while we see how his style grows. Today ranks as the best lesson I can recall him teaching.

There's no rush in needing to get into another church fast enough, so we'll go until the current senior (lead?) pastor retires and watch how the new guy progresses.  Give him a chance to grow.

EDIT Dec 29, '25 to add: As of Monday afternoon, the next scheduled launch time for this mission is Wednesday, Dec 31, at 9:09 ET, as it has been for all days with launch attempts. Since that's 0209 UTC, that makes it January 1, 2026 and not the last launch of 2025. 

Wait! It's looking like the last US launch of '25 is Sunday night

Sunday night, not tonight. The scheduled time of 9:08 was still ahead as I sat to type this, as the launch was scrubbed with just over 37 minutes on the clock. This was before the SpaceFlight Now video feed for the mission started, and I only learned later, closer to 9:30 local that it was due to "a ground systems issue at its launch pad" and not the Falcon 9 or the payload.  

Current schedule is Sunday 12/28 at the same time: 9:08 ET or 6:08 PT at Vandenberg.  

We had something pop up today that was unexpected and brought a larger impact than I might have thought it would bring. No, it wasn't a major appliance failure, it wasn't even something bigger and worse than the sink faucet I had to replace. Our internet connection went down for around 4-1/2 to 5 hours.

What was bigger than expected was now much was affected by that. Since we "cut the cord" seven years ago and don't have cable TV, we've been getting our TV from streaming services (currently mostly Hulu). We're in a part of Florida that doesn't have much TV that can be gotten with the outdoor antenna. Of course, the streaming TV comes over the same cable as the internet. That meant the only diversionary entertainment we had was over the air radio. "Great wasteland" is a good descriptor for local AM or FM radio. Well, the ham radio station is still usable and I spent some time playing with that to ensure that it still worked and was still usable, as it was. It seems like it will take more effort to keep that going more than a day or two without the internet, though.

The computers were still fully usable, and I worked on research for some tech writing I've been making slow progress on. I can still use CAD, still use all the design software and other special software I have, but I still had issues with the mental side, of not feeling like working on that stuff. I wanted to do what I do most mornings and just cruise the net for a while. 

For someone who thinks that they'd be ready for the SHTF event, it was a bit eye opening. I simply wasn't ready to change my life with no or even little warning.

The mission patch for the last launch of the year out of the US. Image credit: SpaceX

Looking like the last US launch of '25 is Saturday night

After a couple of weeks of nearly daily launches, the quiet for the last week has felt rather unusual, but the lack of launches on the Cape is going to continue with the COSMO-SkyMed Second Generation Mission, CSG-3, from Vandenberg Space Force Base, Saturday the 27th at 6:08 PM Pacific Time, 9:08 EST - which means 0208 UTC on Sunday morning December 28th. 

COSMO-SkyMed second generation (Constellation of Small Satellites for Mediterranean basin observation) or CSG is an Earth observation program of the Italian Space Agency (ASI) to replace the first generation COSMO-SkyMed system.

For the second generation, the COSMO-SkyMed constellation has been reduced from four to two spacecraft. The satellites are improved versions of the original design. They utilize an improved version of the Prima Bus. The CSG-SAR (COSMO-SkyMed Second Generation Synthetic Aperture Radar) is also an improved version of the first-generation X-band SAR system. The contract was signed in September 2015.  

On the main launch page for everything publicly known, everything else from the Saturday, 12/27's launch until 2026 begins will launch outside the US - primarily from China with one from Russia until Saturday, January 3rd and the New Year brings a Falcon 9 from SLC 40 on Cape Canaveral SFS (Space Force Station) doing Starlink group 6-88. They say this be will the first flight of this booster, B1101. 

Speaking of China reminds me that they tried two more launches of their Falcon 9 clones in the last three weeks. Neither one successfully landed the booster.  

The first Long March 12A rocket, roughly the same height and diameter of SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9, lifted off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center at 9:00 pm EST Monday (02:00 UTC Tuesday).

Less than 10 minutes later, rocket’s methane-fueled first stage booster hurtled through the atmosphere at supersonic speed, impacting in a remote region about 200 miles downrange from the Jiuquan spaceport in northwestern China. The booster failed to complete a braking burn to slow down for landing at a prepared location near the edge of the Gobi Desert.

Fleet leader B1067-32 stands on the drone ship "Just Read the Instructions" after performing its record 32nd propulsive landing on Monday, Dec. 8, 2025. (Image credit: SpaceX - with minor edits to exposure - SiG)