“Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth,” – Henry David Thoreau
The moon is in trouble. And so are we.
Bruce Gagnon:
NASA is not really looking for the ‘origins of life,’ as it tells school children today. Instead, it is laying the groundwork for a new gold rush that will drain our national treasury and enrich the big corporations that now control our government. It is beyond time for the American people to wake up to the shell game underway.[1]
Americans haven’t awoken, despite the environmental damage these projects already inflict and the peril to Earth’s future and that of other planets. That damage will dramatically escalate with the U.S. Space Force and Artemis Accords.
The moon is key to the U.S. and other countries for commercial mining, military bases to control access to Earth and space, and for launching military and commercial conquest of space. On April 6, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of State to “take all appropriate actions to encourage international support for the public and private recovery and use of resources in outer space”.
“Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law. Outer space is a legally and physically unique domain of human activity, and the United States does not view it as a global commons.” [2]
The Artemis Accords are being drafted to establish legal justification for commercial space resource extraction, exploitation, and ownership [3] (reminiscent of the Bush administration memos by Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury on torture). They would be an international pact for “like-minded nations”, foregoing the United Nations treaty process.
Vice President Mike Pence:
“The United States has always been a nation of restless pioneers, from those Americans who crossed the western frontier to settle in California to those who first stepped onto the Moon. We are ever striving to explore uncharted lands, reach new horizons, and venture into the unknown.
Today, we are renewing the legacy of those courageous space pioneers and all they represent. As part of our re-engagement in human space exploration, the Trump administration’s policy is to return to the moon by 2024, ensuring that the next man and the first woman on the moon will both be American astronauts. From there, we plan to put men and women on Mars.
To accomplish this next big leap, we will develop the technologies to live on the moon for months and even years. We will learn how to make use of resources that the moon has to offer. That includes mining oxygen from the lunar surface and rocks to fuel reusable landers, extracting water from the permanently shadowed craters of the south pole, and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered spacecraft that will help us fly further and faster than ever before. [4]
Former Nazi Major General Walter Dornberger, head of Hitler’s V1 and V2 program, told Congress in 1958 that America’s top space priority ought to be to “conquer, occupy, keep, and utilize space between the Earth and the Moon.”[5] The Apollo missions were the first phase — on-site assessments to gather samples, run experiments, and test human interaction with the lunar environment.
Since 1959, lunar missions and crashes by the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, India, Israel, and European Union have left over 413,000 pounds of debris and toxic substances on the formerly pristine lunar surface,[6] including 96 bags of bacteria-laden human excrement dumped by the Apollo missions.[7] Apollo also left a nuclear generator on the moon.[8]
Governments have intentionally hit the moon 22 times as part of experiments and conducted 17 other post-mission crashes. The U.S. did the majority — 16 post-mission crashes and 14 intentional strikes, including the 2009 LCROSS hit, equivalent to 1.5 tons of TNT, to blast 350 tons of rock and dust and create a six-mile-high cloud for data gathering and public relations. That mission cost $49 million, and NASA’s Ames Research celebrated with an all-night party.[9] In the 1950s, the U.S. even planned to drop an atomic bomb on the moon — Project A119 – but cancelled it as too risky.[10]
Why should the moon be protected? There are many reasons.
The moon
stabilizes Earth’s rotation
has a major role in maintaining the Earth’s magnetic field
regulates the climate
creates the tides
affects plant cycles and likely affects all biology and human cycles in profound ways
regulates the procreation of some creatures, including coral [11]
The light of the moon is essential for life, and the moon may well be a stabilizing force for every living being on the planet,
The moon is also a sovereign body with its own rights, and it belongs to no one. It is revered by Earth–based indigenous peoples and has been considered a living, sentient being by people worldwide throughout human history. The moon and earth’s self-protective systems demonstrate far more intelligence, wisdom, and life than “civilized” society understands.[12]
None of this matters to NASA, the U.S. government, other countries, and related businesses. Laser-focused on their mission objectives, with virtually no checks or public oversight, they wield the ultimate in “big toys.” The United States alone budgets millions of tax dollars every year to develop space technology for future outposts and has spent billions on the Artemis Program. For their space program, the overarching priorities are American supremacy, empire, and profit — the unflinching mandate of manifest destiny projected into space.
The United States is by far the biggest threat to space and the moon.
When you don’t initiate the boys, they burn down the village. — African saying
The 1979 United Nations Moon Treaty prohibits military bases and national appropriation of territory but only minimally protects the moon environmentally. It enshrines depredation “on the basis of equality” — “The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind.” [13] Former astronaut Harrison Schmidt, who formed his own company to mine the moon, complained the treaty would “complicate private commercial efforts.”[14] He was not alone. The U.S. did not sign, and only 18 nations have ratified it.
“…the United States does not consider the Moon Agreement to be an effective or necessary instrument to guide nation states regarding the promotion of commercial participation in the long-term exploration, scientific discovery, and use of the Moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall object to any attempt by any other state or international organization to treat the Moon Agreement as reflecting or otherwise expressing customary international law.” [15]
Companies such as Bechtel and Bigelow Aerospace [16] are securing contracts from the FAA and other agencies to own land on the moon and mine the moon. Helium-3, used for nuclear fusion, may be worth $3 billion per metric ton, and there are millions of tons of helium-3 in the moon’s upper layer. This is one cause of the new gold rush to the moon.[17] Lunar water deposits are being assessed to see if they can provide drinking water for military and commercial bases there. Moon tourism is being pursued internationally.[18] A Japanese startup even wants to put billboards on the moon.[19]
There are direct and immediate impacts to Earth from these space programs. They accelerate climate change and will eventually torch the climate if allowed to continue. Each fossil-fuel-burning rocket launch not only uses toxic chemicals and causes toxic fallout. They also put particulate matter and exhaust into the atmosphere, and destroy part of the ozone layer.[20]
For example, before leaving Earth’s atmosphere, each shuttle spewed thousands of pounds of metals and other chemicals into the air, including lithium, nickel, mercury [21], bismuth, manganese, aluminum, iron, and zinc. “People think of a shuttle launch as a short-term, finite event, but each launch expels a huge amount of debris into the atmosphere with the potential for long-term effects on the surrounding ecosystem. The plume contains hydrogen chloride, a strong acid. After launches, the pH of the [nearby] lagoons may plummet for a short time, rendering the water nearly as caustic as battery acid.” — John Bowden, environmental chemist at Hollings Marine Laboratory in Charleston, S.C., 2014 [22]
The Earth and its atmosphere have never experienced the sheer volume of launches planned. Dramatically worsening this are the thousands of rockets to put Wi-Fi and 5G satellites into earth orbit that began last year by Elon Musk/SpaceX and others.[23]
This is sheer insanity.
Congress continues to divert more taxpayer dollars into these extremely costly space projects — the next moon visit could cost trillions. This resource extraction from taxpayers robs cities, counties, and states of critical financial resources to solve real problems right here, especially now, while ignoring the planetary environmental cost.
Where are the environmentalists, the biologists, the ocean scientists, and consumer advocates?
We must break out of the NASA trance. Everything that is done to the moon has repercussions to Earth. “National security” is protecting Earth and the moon.
Human history with empires and invaders that subjugate and plunder is being repeated again, with an addiction to “command and control” permeating these space programs. These values and policies are opposed to life, peace, and a future. The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space just sponsored a webinar on these plans “War in Space — Weaponising the final frontier”.[24]
The film “Independence Day” got it wrong, and Pogo got it right – the enemy is human. Tell children the truth: astronauts are not heroes.
Humans must repair Earth and themselves first with all available creativity and resources, and the COVID19 shutdown has worsened everything. If humans are incapable of fixing the dire messes they’ve created on Earth, incapable of stopping wars, incapable of living cooperatively with their neighbors, then they cannot go off planet or contaminate anything else.
The future is at stake. The moon must be defended. Shut NASA and these space ventures down.
Nina Beety is an investigative writer and public speaker on governmental policy, the environment, and wireless radiation hazards. She has written two reports for officials on Smart Meter problems which are on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in California.
Notes
[1] 2006. Bruce Gagnon is co-founder of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.
In the years of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union tussled to prove their superiority by rushing to become the first nation to put a man on the moon.
While America might have claimed that particular prize in 1969, a new and even more dramatic space race is only just beginning.
But with Russia and China targeting 2036 as their completion date, the three superpowers are now locked in a head-to-head race to get there first.
This comes as the US makes a rapid and unexpected shift towards prioritising human exploration in space.
Despite slashing scientific missions and giving NASA the smallest budget since 1961, the agency has allocated more than $7 billion for lunar exploration.
Mr Duffy will give NASA 30 days to appoint an official to oversee the operation and 60 days to issue a request seeking proposals from commercial companies for the project.
Nuclear power is seen as key for establishing a lunar presence because it is plunged into complete, freezing darkness for two weeks every month.
At the South Pole, where NASA is planning to establish its operations, the sun never rises high above the horizon and some craters are shrouded in permanent darkness.
That makes it practically impossible for spacecraft or bases to survive on the moon using solar power and batteries alone.
However, this sudden swing back to lunar exploration may be a product of increasing competition from other superpowers.
Tellingly, Mr Duffy warned that ‘the first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first.’
This is almost certainly a reference to Russia and China’s recent plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, announced in May.
That reactor would be used to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), which should be completed by 2036 according to the latest plans.
Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, wrote in a statement at the time: ‘The station will conduct fundamental space research and test technology for long-term uncrewed operations of the ILRS, with the prospect of a human being’s presence on the Moon.’
The groundwork will be laid by China’s upcoming Chang’e-8 mission, which will be the nation’s first attempted human moon landing.
This means that the moon, and especially the south pole, is now becoming the target of a new international space race.
Dr Mark Hilborne, a security studies expert from King’s College London, told Daily Mail: ‘The Moon is a place where nations will have competing interests. There will be parts of the moon that are more valuable than others and, therefore, could be particular points of competition.
‘The Moon is valuable as a low-gravity staging base where future space developments can be built. Lunar materials, mined in situ, would be valuable in building elements that would further lunar exploration.
‘If these could be built on the Moon, rather than sent from Earth, the cost would be far cheaper.’
The big concern for the US, and presumably Russia and China, is that whatever country starts building on the moon first could effectively claim it as its own territory
Countries’ dealings in space are governed by a set of rules called the Outer Space Treaty, which was first signed in 1967.
Signatories to the treaty agree that space is ‘not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.’
This explicitly means that nations are not legally able to make territorial claims on celestial bodies like the moon.
However, in practice, America has recently doubled down on a far more assertive version of the law by signing a series of rules called the Artemis Accords in 2020.
Critically, the Artemis Accords also gives states the power to implement ‘safety zones’ – exclusive areas which members of other states will not be able to enter or use without permission from the owner.
While the US insists that these boundaries will end ‘when the relevant operation ceases’, for a permanent colony, this would function almost exactly like the borders of a sovereign territory.
These rules essentially create a principle that whoever gets to a part of the moon first gets to keep it for their own use.
Dr Jill Stuart, an expert on space law from the London School of Economics, told Daily Mail: ‘Countries could use a part of the lunar surface for a scientific base – without claiming long-term ownership of it – but must communicate to other users where that base is and be transparent about its purpose.
‘Although this seems like a potentially “fair” way to allow for future activity on the moon, it also creates a “first mover advantage” in that those who can set up bases first have the right to claim a safety zone around it.’
While these safety zones might be essential for a nuclear reactor, experts say this may lead to an increasingly risky space race.
Dr Fabio Tronchetti, a space law expert from Northumbria University, told Daily Mail: ‘It is evident that we are heading towards a space rush.
‘The United States is attempting to act quickly and get to the Moon first, at least before China and Russia, so as to be able to unilaterally claim the right to set out the rules of the game.’
This has the serious potential to spark conflict between the nations since China and Russia, having not signed the Artemis Accords, have no legal requirement to respect the US ‘keep-out zones’.
Dr Tronchetti says that international law ‘does not recognise the possibility’ of the US’s claims, adding that the US is attempting to ‘force its [China’s] hand to set out rules favourable to its own interests’.
How this conflict might play out on the lunar surface remains to be seen, but in the future, we might see the conflicts here on Earth extend out into space.
There are already many complications in this proposal, which has not been officially released yet. The Trump administration proposed a budget that would devastate NASA’s multiple science programs, and while it asked for more funding for human spaceflight in the short term, it would cancel the Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft, making NASA exclusively reliant on private companies to get to the Moon. As yet, we don’t have one of those that won’t stop exploding.
US space agency Nasa will fast-track plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030, according to US media. It is part of US ambitions to build a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface. According to Politico, the acting head of Nasa referred to similar plans by China and Russia and said those two countries “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” on the Moon. But questions remain about how realistic the goal and timeframe are, given recent and steep Nasa budget cuts, and some scientists are concerned that the plans are driven by geopolitical goals.
Boeing lands $2.8 billion deal to build next-gen nuclear communications satellites
The ESS satellites are central to U.S. nuclear command, control and communications.
Space News, 3 Aug 25,
WASHINGTON — Boeing won a $2.8 billion contract to develop a new generation of secure military satellites (Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications spacecraft) that will serve as the backbone of the United States’ nuclear command, control and communications network, the U.S. Space Force announced July 3.
The award marks a major milestone in the Pentagon’s effort to modernize its most hardened space-based communication infrastructure. The contract is part of the Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications program, or ESS, which will ultimately replace the current constellation built by Lockheed Martin under the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) program.
Boeing edged out Northrop Grumman after a nearly five-year competition that began in 2020, when both aerospace giants were selected to develop prototype systems. The Space Force selected Boeing as the prime contractor for the next phase of the ESS program, which includes development and production of two satellites, with options for two more. If all options are exercised, the contract could reach $3.75 billion.
The first satellite delivery is slated for 2031.
Critical infrastructure for nuclear command
The ESS satellites are designed to provide jam-resistant, always-on communications for the U.S. military’s nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) architecture. These satellites must function under the most extreme conditions — including in the wake of a nuclear strike — ensuring the President and senior military leaders can communicate securely with deployed forces anywhere in the world.
“The strategic communication mission requires protection, power and always-available capability, even through adversary attempts to interrupt our connectivity,” said Cordell DeLaPeña, the Space Force’s program executive officer overseeing the ESS effort.
Broader $12 billion program
While Boeing’s $2.8 billion development contract is the most visible component, it is only part of a broader $12 billion ESS program that also includes ground systems, cryptographic infrastructure, and user terminals. The terminals, which allow individual military branches to access the ESS network, are acquired separately.
Boeing said its satellite design draws on technology developed for its Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellites and commercial spacecraft it built for SES’s O3b mPOWER broadband constellation.
“This win validates all the investments and innovations we’ve made in our satellite technology,” said Michelle Parker, vice president of Boeing Space Mission Systems.
The ESS satellites will operate in geostationary orbit — 22,000 miles above Earth — where they can provide persistent coverage to specific regions. The full constellation is expected to support global coverage, including the Arctic, an area of growing strategic interest.
The ESS constellation is being built to replace the AEHF network, which was designed and launched over the last two decades to provide similar survivable communications capabilities. Military leaders say growing threats from advanced anti-satellite weapons and electronic warfare systems demand more modern, flexible platforms.
The Space Force is using a cost-reimbursement contracting model for the initial satellite development, a structure more suited to high-risk, high-complexity projects. Under this arrangement, the government pays for allowable costs plus a negotiated profit margin — an approach often used when requirements are not yet fully known and involve extensive non-recurring engineering.
However, future satellites under the ESS program may be procured using fixed-price contracts, which shift more cost risk to the contractor and are generally used once designs mature and production stabilizes.
In January 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the US armed forces to construct a missile defense system – the ‘Golden Dome’ – a proposed multi-layer defense system, comparable to the Iron Dome system in Israel. It aims to place and maintain space weapons orbit, for the first time in history.
The proposed system will be exorbitant. According to US Congress sources it could cost several trillion dollars. This would require the US to cut every one of its remaining social programs. Such a military system would inflict ever more damage to the environment both on and around our planet.
Trump wants such a system, so that the US can launch a nuclear attack on another nuclear armed country and the US be confident that it has sufficient defenses to reduce the impact of any retaliatory missiles launched against US to levels deemed acceptable to US military planners. As the US advances its war drive, it is developing its military alliances with other countries and locking them into its war preparations.
Military coordination is being stepped up with increased ‘interoperability’ of hardware. In these alliances, such as NATO, it is always the US that is ‘in charge of the tip of the spear’.
Bruce Gagnon, in discussion with Dae-Han Song, explains why the proposed Golden Dome should be opposed. Bruce Gagnon has been organizing to stop the new arms race in space (Star Wars) since 1982. He began by coordinating the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice from 1983-1998. During those years, in 1992, he co-founded the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in space that he now coordinates. Bruce began his organizing career working for the United Farm Workers Union. He is a Vietnam war era veteran. He lives in Brunswick, Maine.
Website of The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space: https://space4peace.org/ The petition against the Golden Dome is here: https://space4peace.org/global-networ… Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the international No Cold War collective.
What goes up must come down, and earlier this week yet another of SpaceX’s Starships, the biggest and most powerful type of rocket ever built, came back down to Earth in spectacular fashion. In the sky above the Indian Ocean, it exploded.
This was the ninth test flight for the rocket, and the third catastrophic failure in a row, just this year.
Is this what we should expect from the very ship some are counting on to take humans further than we’ve ever been in the solar system? Or does this failure point to deeper concerns within the broader program?
A decade of development
The Starship program from Elon Musk’s space technology company, SpaceX, has been in development for more than a decade now and has undergone many iterations in its overall design and goals.
The Starship concept is based upon the SpaceX Raptor engines to be used in a multistage system. In a multistage rocket system, there are often two or three separate blocks with their own engine and fuel reserves. These are particularly important for leaving Earth’s orbit and travelling to the Moon, Mars and beyond.
With Starship, the key factor is the ability to land and reuse vast amounts of the rocket stages again and again. The company’s Falcon 9 vehicles, which used this model, were fantastically successful.
Initial tests of Starship began in 2018 with two low-altitude flights showing early success. Subsequent flights have faced numerous challenges with now four complete failures, two partial failures and three successes overall.
Just two days ago, during the latest failed attempt, I watched alongside more than 200 other space industry experts at the Australian Space Summit in Sydney. Broadcast live on a giant screen, the launch generated an excited buzz – which soon turned to reserved murmurs.
Of course, designing and launching rockets is hard, and failures are to be expected. However, a third catastrophic failure within six months demands a pause for reflection.
On this particular test flight, as Starship positioned itself for atmospheric re-entry, one of its 13 engines failed to ignite. Shortly after, a booster appeared to explode, leading to a complete loss of control. The rocket ultimately broke apart over the Indian Ocean, which tonnes of debris will now call home.
Polluting Earth in pursuit of space
We don’t know the exact financial cost of each test flight. But Musk has previously said it is about US$50–100 million.
The exact environmental cost of the Starship program – and its repeated failures – is even harder to quantify.
For example, a failed test flight in 2023 left the town of Port Isabel, Texas, which is located beside the launch site, shaking and covered in a thick cloud of dirt. Debris from the exploded rocket smashed cars. Residents told the New York Times they were terrified. They also had to clean up the mess from the flight.
Then, in September 2024, SpaceX was fined by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for 14 separate incidents since 2022 where the launch facilities discharged polluted water into Texas waterways. Musk denied these claims.
That same month, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed a fine of US$633,009 in civil penalties should be issued to SpaceX. This was on the grounds of using an unapproved launch control room and other violations during 2023. Musk denied these claims too and threatened to countersue the FAA for “regulatory overreach”.
It’s unclear if this suit was ever filed.
Two other failed launches in January and March this year also rained rocket debris over the Caribbean, and disrupted hundreds of commercial flights, including 80 which needed to be diverted and more than 400 requiring delayed takeoff to ensure they were entering safe air space.
Success of different space programs
Until last year, the FAA allowed SpaceX to try up to five Starship launches a year. This month, the figure was increased to 25.
A lot can go wrong during a launch of a vehicle to space. And there is a long way to go until we can properly judge whether Starship successfully meets its mission goals.
We can, however, look at past programs to understand typical success rates seen across different rocketry programs.
The Saturn V rocket, the workhorse of the Apollo era, had a total of 13 launches, with only one partial failure. It underwent three full ground tests before flight.
SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 rocket, has had more than 478 successful launches, only two in flight failures, one partial failure and one pre-flight destruction.
The Antares rocket, by Orbital Sciences Corporation (later Orbital ATK and Northrop Grumman) launched a total of 18 times, with one failure.
The Soyuz rocket, originally a Soviet expendable carrier rocket designed in the 1960s, launched a total of 32 times, with two failures.
No sign of caution
Of course, we can’t fairly compare all other rockets with the Starship. Its goals are certainly novel as a reusable heavy-class rocket.
But this latest failure does raise some questions. Will the Starship program ever see success – and if so when? And what are the limits of our tolerance as a society to the pollution of Earth in the pursuit of the goal to space?
For a rocketry program that’s moving so fast, developing novel and complex technology, and experiencing several repeated failures, many people might expect caution from now on. Musk, however, has other plans.
Shortly after the most recent Starship failure, he announced on X (formerly Twitter), that the next test flights would occur at a faster pace: one every three to four weeks.
After spectacular back-to-back upper stage failures in January and March, SpaceX launched another Super Heavy-Starship rocket Tuesday on the program’s ninth test flight, but ran into fresh problems that resulted in the loss of both stages before they could carry out controlled descents to splashdown.
The Super Heavy first stage, following a deliberately steeper, more stressful descent trajectory toward splashdown near the Texas Gulf Coast, suffered a catastrophic failure at the moment its engines reignited for what would have been a relatively gentle splashdown.
But a few minutes later, a door on the side of the rocket failed to open, preventing the planned release of simulated Starlink satellites in a test of the rocket’s Pez-like deployment system.
SpaceX confirmed the stage had been lost, but given the extreme nature of the testing, the loss was not an out-of-the-blue surprise. The Starship upper stage, meanwhile, managed to make it into its planned suborbital trajectory after an apparently flawless performance from its six engines.
With that test deferred to a future flight, SpaceX engineers hoped to reignite a single Raptor engine to test its start-up capability in space. But an apparent propellant leak put the spacecraft into a slow spin that ruled out the restart and a controlled reentry and splashdown.
The Starship has to enter at the right angle and in a precise orientation to survive reentry heating and aerodynamic “loads.” Entering in a spin doomed the Starship to a catastrophic breakup…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..As a result of the high-stress tests, SpaceX targeted a splashdown in the Gulf instead of attempting a launch pad capture where critical infrastructure could be damaged in a landing mishap.
As it turned out, that was a good decision.
Launch attempt follows two Starship breakups
Tuesday’s launch came on the heels of back-to-back Starship upper stage breakups during the two previous test flights that generated spectacular showers of flaming debris along the flight paths……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
SpaceX made changes after two catastrophic explosions
The last two Starships, launched Jan. 16 and March 6, both ended with unrelated catastrophic explosions as they neared their planned sub-orbital trajectories.
During the January flight, a propellant leak in an unpressurized “attic” above the Raptor engines led to sustained fires that eventually triggered shutdown of all but one of the spacecraft’s engines. Telemetry was lost eight minutes and 20 seconds after launch and moments later, the vehicle broke apart………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-super-heavy-starship-launch-ninth-test-flight/
Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He offers his own reflections on organizing and the state of America’s declining empire….
Today the Military Industrial Complex is marching towards world dominance through space technology on behalf of global corporate interests. To understand how and why the space program will be used to fight all future wars on Earth from space, it’s important to understand how the public has been misled about the origins and true purpose of the space program.
Trump calls for a renewal of Ronald Reagan’s 1980’s vision of SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), popularly called Star Wars. The program is a massive boondoggle in the works. Early estimates are that Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ would cost from $500 billion to trillions of dollars. The recipients of this largess would be weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Space X.
Major cutbacks in social and environmental programs will be required to help fund this insanity.
Golden Dome would spur a new space weapons arms race that will destabilize our planet and beyond.
This documentary Arsenal of Hypocrisy features Global Network Coordinator Bruce Gagnon, Noam Chomsky and Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell talking about the dangers of moving the arms race into space.
The one-hour production includes archival footage of Nazi rocket tech brought to U.S. after WW2, Pentagon documents, and clearly outlines the U.S. plan to “control and dominate” space and the Earth below.
The video spells out the dangers of the Bush-era “Nuclear Systems Initiative” that will expand the use of nuclear power in space by building Project Prometheus — the nuclear rocket.
Mitchell, the 6th man to walk on the Moon, warns that a war in space would create massive bits of space junk that would create a mine field surrounding the Earth making it virtually impossible to launch anything into the heavens. Mitchell calls space a fragile environment that must be protected.
Noam Chomsky talks about how the U.S. intends to use space technology to control the Earth and reminds the viewer that the U.S. has refused for many years to negotiate a global ban on weapons in space at the United Nations. He also speaks about the role of the media in suppressing this important issue.
The video also contains archival sound of President Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 warning the American people about the power of the military industrial complex.
Arsenal of Hypocrisy was produced in 2003 by filmmaker Randy Atkins from Gainesville, Florida. It is still highly relevant today.
The video was featured at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival 2004.
China and Russia plan to build a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2035 to power a permanent lunar base. The International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) will rely on the power plant for its scientific research. The IRLS involves over a dozen international partners and is seen as a rival program to NASA’s Artemis Program.
Some decision-making authorities, previously closely held by the president or secretary of defense, have been delegated to US SPACECOM, according to sources, but military space leaders want more freedom to act.
WASHINGTON — When the Space Force recently put out a forward-leaning “warfighting” framework, it included an unusually blunt warning for military commanders: ensure the rules of engagement for space operations aren’t too restrictive, or the US will be at a severe disadvantage in the heavens.
That warning was public, but Breaking Defense has learned it comes amid a parallel push by the Space Force and US Space Command (SPACECOM) over the last several years to gain more military decision-making control over the use of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons — decision-making authority that has historically been closely held by the president and/or the secretary of defense.
While delegation of presidential authority with regard to space weapons is obscured by deep secrecy and classification, discussions by Breaking Defense with more than a dozen sources — including former Pentagon and US government civilian officials, retired and current military officials and outside space experts — have revealed that gradual but ground-breaking shifts in military freedom to prosecute war in the heavens have begun to take place in response to growing threats from Russia and, in particular China.
“We have made some changes that delegated some authorities down to Space Command commander under certain circumstances,” a former senior Space Force official said. “But in my view, not enough.”
For example, over the last decade there has been a gradual loosening of the reins on case-by-case determinations about the use of some types of temporary or reversible counterspace actions, such as jamming or lazing, according to a handful of sources. However, these sources did not indicate that there has been any relaxation of the requirement for approval by the president and/or the secretary of defense for a kinetic attack to destroy an enemy satellite……………………….
Changes in delegation of authority sped up following the standup of SPACECOM in 2019, the former senior Space Force official said. And according to three sources close to the debate, there were intense discussions as late as last summer within the Biden administration about delegating authority for the use of offensive satellite attack weapons to SPACECOM.
“OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] Space Policy was engaged in the strongest push I’m aware of to get authorization to use offensive counterspace capabilities delegated down from the [White House] to the [Secretary of Defense] and eventually to” the head of SPACECOM, said another former Pentagon official.
John Plumb, the head of OSD Space Policy under President Joe Biden, did reveal to Breaking Defense one significant move by that administration: allowing joint force planners to include space warfighting in their routine contingency plans and wargames for future conflict. (He would not, however, address the key question of whether destructive, kinetic strikes can be included in those plans.)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://breakingdefense.com/2025/05/exclusive-us-loosens-some-rules-for-offensive-counterspace-ops-wargaming/
China and Russia plan nuclear reactor for lunar base by 2035
China and Russia-led ILRS aims to rival NASA’s Artemis program
China-Russia cooperation strengthened by tensions with West
SHANGHAI, April 23 (Reuters) – China is considering building a nuclear plant on the moon to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) it is planning with Russia, a presentation by a senior official showed on Wednesday.
China aims to become a major space power and land astronauts on the moon by 2030, and its planned Chang’e-8 mission for 2028 would lay the groundwork for constructing a permanent, manned lunar base.
In a presentation in Shanghai, the 2028 mission’s Chief Engineer Pei Zhaoyu showed that the lunar base’s energy supply could also depend on large-scale solar arrays, and pipelines and cables for heating and electricity built on the moon’s surface.
Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said last year it planned to build a nuclear reactor on the moon’s surface with the China National Space Administration (CNSA) by 2035 to power the ILRS.
The inclusion of the nuclear power unit in a Chinese space official’s presentation at a conference for officials from the 17 countries and international organisations that make up the ILRS suggests Beijing supports the idea, although it has never formally announced it.
“An important question for the ILRS is power supply, and in this Russia has a natural advantage, when it comes to nuclear power plants, especially sending them into space, it leads the world, it is ahead of the United States,” Wu Weiren, chief designer of China’s lunar exploration program, told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.
After little progress on talks over a space-based reactor in the past, “I hope this time both countries can send a nuclear reactor to the moon,” Wu said.
China’s timeline to build an outpost on the moon’s south pole coincides with NASA’s more ambitious and advanced Artemis programme, which aims to put U.S. astronauts back on the lunar surface in December 2025.
Wu said last year that a “basic model” of the ILRS, with the Moon’s south pole as its core, would be built by 2035.
In the future, China will create the “555 Project,” inviting 50 countries, 500 international scientific research institutions, and 5,000 overseas researchers to join the ILRS.
Researchers from Roscosmos also presented at the conference in Shanghai, sharing details about plans to look for mineral and water resources, including possibly using lunar material as fuel.
China is considering building a nuclear plant on the moon to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) it is planning with Russia, a presentation by a senior official showed on Wednesday. China aims to become a major space power and land astronauts on the moon by 2030, and its planned Chang’e-8 mission for 2028 would lay the groundwork for constructing a permanent, manned lunar base.
Outer space is no longer just for global superpowers and large multinational corporations. Developing countries, start-ups, universities, and even high schools can now gain access to space. The democratization of space has led to significant technological advancements, economic growth, and international collaboration.
In 2024, a record 2,849 objects were launched into space. The commercial satellite industry saw global revenue rise to $285 billion in 2023, driven largely by the growth of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation. Private space companies such as SpaceX have played crucial roles in making space more accessible globally.
Developing countries have also made strides. Since 2018, nations like Bangladesh,Ghana,Nepal,Rwanda, and Sri Lanka have launched their first satellites. The African space scene has grown, with 43 satellites launched since 2016, totaling 63 in 2025. Ethiopia, despite being one of the world’s poorest countries, has made significant progress in space activities. Similarly, Rwanda, with a substantial portion of its population living in poverty, has embarked on its space journey. These advances show that barriers to space entry are declining.
While the democratization of space is a positive development, it has introduced complex challenges, particularly an ethical quandary that I call the “double dual-use dilemma.” The double dual-use dilemma refers to how private space companies themselves—not just their technologies—can become militarized and integrated into national security while operating commercially
Unlike the traditional military-industrial complex, space companies fluidly shift between civilian and military roles. Their expertise in launch systems, satellites, and surveillance infrastructure allows them to serve both markets, often without clear regulatory oversight. Companies like Walchandnagar Industries in India, SpaceX in the United States, and the private Chinese firms that operate under a national strategy of the Chinese Communist Party called Military-Civil Fusion exemplify this trend, maintaining commercial identities while actively supporting defense programs. This blurring of roles, including the possibility that private space companies may develop their own weapons, raises concerns over unchecked militarization and calls for stronger oversight to preserve space as a neutral domain.
Dual use of space companies. Countries like the United States and China have already shown a willingness to use commercial space entities for military purposes. China encourages private entities to participate in space activities as part of its Military-Civilian Integration Strategy. Similarly, the 2021 United States Space Priorities Framework outlines how new commercial space capabilities and services can be leveraged to meet national security needs. In a 2021 interview, the then-head of the US Space Force discussed the importance of using the space industry for national security.
Researchers and security analysts are increasingly concerned that the dual use of private space companies is not limited to their space technologies, such as the satellites they launch. In some cases, a company may appear to be a civilian space entity while actually maintaining close links with defense sectors.
For instance, take the example of India, which has seen phenomenal growth in its space sector in recent years. The leading companies of the Indian Space Association have worked closely with the Indian Ministry of Defence on various contracts.
Furthermore, the association’s leadership maintains a close connection with the Indian army and defense organizations. For example, the first chairman, Jayant Patil, was also the senior vice president for defense business at Larsen and Toubro, an Indian company involved in the space industry. The company has collaborated with India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation since the mid-1980s.
The usefulness of space companies goes beyond their existing technologies. Military organizations can use expertise gained through civilian cooperation programs to develop other critical technologies. India’s intercontinental ballistic missile program, based on the SLV-3 vehicle, was initially developed under civilian space cooperation with NASA. India’s Agni-V ICBM, which is capable of carrying multiple warheads and has a range exceeding 5,000 kilometers, has also benefited from technological cooperation with NASA.
Indian private space companies such as Walchandnagar Industries are also defense contractors producing aerospace, defense, missile, and nuclear power technologies. These companies collaborate with India’s Defence Ministry and the Defence Research and Development Organisation to produce strategic articles, tactical missiles, and critical platform-based equipment. The expertise gained from private space launches and technological developments can be leveraged to improve missile technology.
There is a serious risk that civilian companies in India and elsewhere, having gained expertise through cooperation with the military, might start developing their own weapons. The table below shows how specific types of space expertise can be used to develop missiles, drones, precision missiles, hypersonic missiles, and other loitering munitions.
Dual use of space technology. India’s rapidly growing space sector and expanding military-commercial partnerships make it a key case study of the double dual-use dilemma. Unlike the United States and China, which have structured policies—the US Space Force and National Space Policy formally integrate private firms into defense, while China’s Military-Civil Fusion strategy mandates commercial space support for China’s army—India’s private space sector is expanding, but its dual-use regulatory framework is still developing. India’s Space Policy 2023, while not explicitly mentioning the military, hints at defense applications by emphasizing space capabilities for “national security.”
This lack of clear regulatory boundaries allows technologies initially developed for civilian use to be repurposed for defense applications, as seen in the case of Synthetic Aperture Radar. Originally acquired through civilian cooperation with NASA, this radar imaging technique is now being adapted for military reconnaissance and targeting. Although not a weapon, the technique’s dual-use nature enables high-resolution surveillance, missile guidance, and intelligence operations.
The commercialization of space by private companies poses significant security challenges. For instance, ostensibly civilian satellites can be repurposed for military uses such as surveillance and espionage. Commercial satellites with high-resolution imaging capabilities, like those from companies such as Planet Labs, can be used for intelligence gathering, providing detailed information on adversaries’ activities and installations. The dual-use dilemma affects governments as well as private companies, but poses greater risks with private entities due to weaker oversight and profit-driven priorities. Governments operate under strict security frameworks and treaties like the Outer Space Treaty, ensuring accountability in the use of dual-use technologies. In contrast, private companies may prioritize commercial interests, potentially selling technologies to less accountable actors, increasing proliferation risks. While satellite launches are regulated, post-launch activities—like selling high-resolution imagery or repurposing technology—are harder to monitor.
Furthermore, companies like the American company Capella Space have developed synthetic aperture radar satellites for civilian purposes such as disaster management and environmental monitoring. However, the high-resolution images provided by these satellites can also be used for military applications, including counterforce strikes and espionage. These satellites can monitor adversaries and plan strategic military operations.
Moreover, American companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, which focus on developing rockets and spacecraft for civilian space missions, also have the potential to contribute to military logistics and defense operations. For instance, SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, designed for global internet coverage, could be used in military scenarios to support drone operations by enabling real-time communication and coordination, as seen during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Repurposing commercial technologies for military use introduces potential risks. Civilian systems could become high-value targets, vulnerable to cyberattacks and physical strikes, potentially disrupting operations and escalating conflicts into space. The reliance on privately owned infrastructure also poses challenges, as it reduces government oversight and increases the risk of misuse or proliferation. For example, reusable rockets developed for commercial launches could be adapted for missile programs, enabling military advancements to be concealed within civilian initiatives. These dual-use capabilities have the potential to blur the boundaries between civilian and military applications, increasing the risks of conflict escalation and complicating efforts to maintain global stability in a democratized space domain.
Need for robust regulatory framework. The challenges posed by the double dual-use dilemma necessitate robust regulatory frameworks and international cooperation to ensure that the commercialization of space does not compromise global security. For example, commercial satellite launch services could be used to deploy space-based weapons or reconnaissance systems under the guise of civilian activities, making it harder to enforce arms control agreements. Effective space governance must address the potential for commercial space entities to be co-opted for military purposes. One practical step is the establishment of international agreements that mandate transparency in satellite launches and operations.
The Outer Space Treaty, which forms the basis of international space law, should be expanded to include specific provisions for the dual use of space technologies. For example, countries could be required to declare the intended uses of their satellites, with periodic inspections to ensure compliance. International space governance must ensure that expertise gained through civil cooperation does not translate into new weapons programs.
Furthermore, partnerships between governments and private corporations should be regulated to prevent the misuse of commercial space capabilities. The European Union’s Space Surveillance and Tracking network is an example of regional cooperation to monitor space activities and ensure that space assets are used for their declared purposes. This type of cooperation should be extended globally to include major space-faring nations and emerging space players.
In the United States, the Space Force has already begun leveraging commercial space capabilities for national security purposes. For instance, the National Reconnaissance Office has contracted with commercial satellite companies to provide imagery for intelligence purposes. Such partnerships highlight the need for clear guidelines to differentiate civilian and military applications and to ensure that commercial space activities do not escalate geopolitical tensions.
The international community must develop comprehensive strategies to manage the complexities introduced by the double dual-use dilemma. It is no longer a distant challenge—it is actively reshaping the balance of power in space. As private space firms blur the lines between commercial innovation and military assets, the risk of an unregulated arms race beyond Earth’s atmosphere grows.
Without clear governance, space could follow the path of cyberspace—a once-neutral domain now deeply entrenched in geopolitical rivalry. The question is no longer if commercial space activities will fuel strategic competition, but how soon nations will act to prevent the militarization of the final frontier.
“……………………………………………………………….. We didn’t want to look but we found we couldn’t look away when, on Wednesday, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin – a space technology company – launched an all-female, B- and C-list celebrity crew of six into space, wearing skintight designer spacesuits and heavy make-up. It was the first fully-lady-mission since Russian astronaut Valentina Tereshkova’s solo space flight in 1963.
The team consisted of the billionaire Bezos’ fiancée, the television journalist and children’s book author Lauren Sanchez; pop star Katy Perry; television host and Oprah-bestie Gayle King; former NASA rocket scientist Aisha Bowe; activist, sexual assault survivor and scientist Amanda Nguyen; and film producer Kerianne Flynn.
“I was like, ‘What am I going to wear?’” Perry told Elle of her initial reaction to the invitation. “But seriously, I have wanted to go to space for almost 20 years.”
In terms of publicity for space tourism for the rich and (dubiously) famous, it was a bonanza. But the heavily girlified nature of the rhetoric around the mission (if we can call it that – the trip lasted for 11 minutes), and its explicit branding as an exercise in empowering girls to aspire to careers in space exploration, well, that made it a very dark day for feminism.
The whole exercise was emblazoned with such drippy femininity and lame girlboss-ery that all womankind was implicated. It was a test of the implicit feminist pact to Support Women. I suspect I failed it.
It’s not something that Virginia Woolf or Betty Friedan ever prepared us for – an all-woman space crew which served quotes like: “I think it’s so important for people to see … this dichotomy of engineer and scientist, and then beauty and fashion. We contain multitudes. Women are multitudes. I’m going to be wearing lipstick.”
Despite not having any direct link to the Trump administration, it all felt so very Trumpy – a symbol of the dark end-days of American democracy; the great American project of aspiration and exploration reduced to a commercialised stunt, obscenely wasteful and vulgar beyond words. …………..
Separately, NASA’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion chief Neela Rajendra was sacked, in compliance with Trump’s executive order to “terminate” all people employed under “DEI” programs.
Business Standard reported Rajendra “played a key role in national initiatives like the Space Workforce 2030 pledge, aimed at increasing representation of women and minorities in STEM fields”.
Sure, but did she put the glam into space? The girlstronauts represent a pantomime of feminism found everywhere across Trump-land.
It’s in the robotically doll-like women who sit behind the men of the administration, nodding and smiling as they announce powerful new assaults on the rule of law.
It’s in the milquetoast “Be Best” initiatives of first lady Melania Trump.
It’s in the administration’s persecution of trans people in the name of “women’s rights”, and in its rollback of abortion rights…………
But at least the women are on stage, right? Women can be treated as a special category as long as they uplift and adorn – that seems to be the message the girl crew have absorbed and then promoted. But there is little point in them being on view if they are not looking “glam”.
Such women equate a certain kind of physical presentation with self-respect, and they defend it as their “right”. They fail to realise, or are too rich to care, that the companies which sell them their version of beauty are exploiting them. They do not operate the spaceship. They dress sexy for the spaceship flight.
It is a nihilistic form of pseudo-feminism that insists on women’s right to “take up space” (as the astronaut women chanted when they reached the zero-gravity part of their adventure), but which wrinkles its nose if you look grey, ugly or old while doing so.
nuclear-news 