D (9:26)

Happy New Year, Maria. It's already setting itself up as a great one. Our good friend Melissa Quinn has been appointed as vice president of spaceport operations at Maritime Launch in Canada. Many will remember Mel as the head of Spaceport Cornwall, so she certainly brings a lot of experience to the role. And I also wanted to mention the retirement of NASA astronaut Nick Hague. As you know, I was at the launch of Crew 9, which included Nick Hague along with Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander Gorbunov. That was the controversial flight when only two crew members were sent to the ISS after Sonny and Butch extended their stay. Nick is also the first active guardian to have gone to space. So we wish him the best of luck with his continued service in the Space Force.

A (10:06)

Absolutely. And T minus crew, if you're going to be at Commercial Space Week in Florida starting on January 27th with the global Spaceport alliance annual Summit followed by Space Mobility and spacecom, we will be there as well. So if you'd like to speak with us during the event, we have microphones and we do travel. So drop us a line@space2k.com and we can set something up. And thanks. Let's check in with Bailey Reichelt and Matthew Linton now for space law FAQs.

E (11:02)

Hi guys, this is Bailey Reichelt from Aegis Space Law. I'm here with Matt Linton.

C (11:07)

Hello, Bailey. Nice to see you as always.

E (11:10)

Yeah, great to see you. Welcome. Well, here we are, 2026. We thought we would pick two very exciting topics that we're both passionate about that we think is going to be big in space law for 2026. So space nuclear and then we're going to talk a little bit about what's coming down the road in telecoms.

C (11:31)

I'm excited to hear you talk about the space nuclear developments, Bailey, and this is a big deal. So tell us what's going on. We heard some, some very interesting comments from Jared Isaacman on space nuclear specifically. He really laid the line down that we're going to do this as a nation. If he's the NASA administrator, we're going to, we're going to focus on nuclear propulsion and nuclear power in space. What, what does that mean for us?

E (12:00)

Well, I don't know how much you guys, all you listeners out there are following nuclear. So a lot's happened on the terrestrial nuclear side. First of all, I'm not going to get into it. I don't, I don't want to get in too deep here. And all the terrestrial reactor nuclear engineers come after me. But we're seeing a lot of executive orders because nuclear is a big priority for this administration and it's part of our critical infrastructure. You're hearing it talked about in connection with data centers. It's like it's the new darling child of tech. We're Seeing executive orders a lot came out in 2025, trying to resolve some issues like fuel for like supply chain issues for fuel manufacturing, getting the NRC to like approve licensing, getting their licensing process streamlined and running a little faster so that new reactor designs could be approved more quickly. While some of those EOs weren't directly focused on space, we're seeing that, you know, all of this stuff, the streamlining of regulations benefits space as well. And then we're seeing that continued momentum through like Isaacman. If you read the Athena project, which I think was leaked a little while back, you might know more about it by the time you hear this recording. But Isaacman's a big proponent of nuclear as well. He thinks it's really important for one US keeping up in the race with China. But also if we want to survive the lunar night. And we know NASA has an emphasis on nuclear and putting some sort of fission reactor on the moon. And then we've got Draco and Jetson. You may not know a lot about Draco and Jetson. It's nuclear thermal propulsion is Draco and nuclear electric propulsion was Jetson. I say was. Draco is a. Was Jetson is a. Currently still going. It's the nuclear electric propulsion. But Isaacman talks about both as being really critical to the future of space, especially if we want to go to Mars without, you know, dying of radiation. DOE actually ran a study a little while ago. They crunched some numbers and they said it would reduce the trip to Mars by about 25% if we can use some sort of nuclear based energy to do that. Anyway, there's a lot going on with nuclear and I expect we're going to continue to see an uptick in changes in regulations, regulatory streamlining to allow for more nuclear infrastructure to get approved. And maybe we'll even see the launch of the first commercial nuclear reactor. Maybe 2026 might be ambitious for that, but we're going to see serious conversations start happening about it.

C (14:37)

And so what is the government role and private industry here? I think for a lot of people that are not close to this issue, they think nuclear. We need regulation, we need safety. Obviously the government's going to play a role. But can you just provide a little more insight here on what you see as in this year ahead, how some, you know, an agency like NASA might really be able to, to lead and bring industry along.

E (15:05)

NASA's been pretty strategic in trying to organize programs like the CLPS program. We saw that we're seeing, you know, survive the lunar night. There's a Big focus on putting a fission reactor for energy on the lunar surface. And there's a big focus on how commercial companies are going to do that and not just have everything sponsored by the government. So traditionally, NASA and DOD have been the only ones allowed to touch anything nuclear. And traditionally we've only ever worked with RHUs. So like Heater units, which is not a fission reactor. For the purposes of this podcast, we haven't done a fission reactor commercially. In fact, our government's only ever tried it once back in the 1960s and declared it not a success. And we haven't, I guess, to public knowledge, done it again. But yeah, NASA's really pushing for us to have a commercial pathway for nuclear fission reactors in space.

C (16:03)

Very interesting.

E (16:04)

Yeah. Well, okay, so I could talk about this forever and I think you should go read about it. There's a lot going on. But let's flip and talk about telecoms for just a little bit because I know there's some stuff coming out in the regulations and you were really excited about it. So what's going on there?

C (16:20)

I may be one of the limited number of people that get very excited about FCC proposed rulemaking for the space industry. But there is a major development came about, I think late October that there's a notice of proposed rulemaking, also known as an nprm. And this is by the FCC with respect to space space authorizations and licensing for spacecraft that the FCC really takes the lead on as the spectrum entity in the US and also with respect to orbital debris. And here's what's happening. Bottom line is for, I don't know, as long as I can remember, as long as I've been involved in the space industry, people have been asking for, proposing, suggesting any way they could. How can we improve the way in which we license spacecraft in the United States through the FCC spectrum is very hard. It's very important. Right. Interference issues key. This is the FCC's primary job is to make sure that, you know, there's an allocation and adjudication of spectrum. The problem is for the rapidly expanding private space industry. They've been dealing with rules that have their roots in large semi government type systems that go for years and years in development. And the process, simply as it currently stands, is not designed to enable broad spectrum, no pun intended, broad spectrum innovation that private companies, you know, really when you're just getting started, the idea that you'd have to spend a million bucks on regulatory council to deal with trying to get a spacecraft license is somewhat of a non starter and so great News here that the FCC under the new Space Bureau leadership of Jay Schwartz has proposed this significant reform. Traditionally, this section would be called part 25 of the regulations. Now we're going to call it part 100. If this moves through. You know, at the end of the day, the fcc, one of the really, I think key points here is they want to create their words and a symbol line of review and approval. And they, there's a built in presumption of approval in these regs and these proposed regs that focus on rather than specific requirements that either the US Government identifies or frankly the way it's been, which is a very case by case basis of review, companies really didn't even know necessarily what the requirements were for them to get a license. Now this approach would look at what are called performance based standards and essentially saying, okay, if you've got a satellite platform that meet certain characteristics from a performance perspective and you can show your orbital debris characteristics, your ability to burn up in the atmosphere safely over a period of time that is set currently at 5 years post mission completion, that there would be essentially a presumption of approval, which is amazing, right? Like that's never happened before. So you know, if you can establish a satellite, or maybe you're going to use an existing micro satellite bus or another company's bus that's been space qualified, you're using the same thing, the same spectrum, the same type of operational characteristics. Maybe if this works, if this goes through, you'll be able to get a presumption of approval even within a particular time frame. We're talking ideally, you know, weeks, not months. And this would be a great thing for the space industry. And I think there's a lot of complexity that has to happen here still. But this is a good thing. Keep an eye on it, pay attention to it, engage with the agency. Even after comments have come through. I think we have currently within this Space Bureau, frankly we've had it for a while, people within the Space Bureau that really wanted to do something, but we have a moment that we might actually get some change through here that would be really great for the industry.

E (20:54)

Yeah, that sounds amazing. I mean frankly, it sounds like timelines could go way down. And I think I'm also hearing that costs could go way down. Like especially your spend on lawyers to help you do this. Is that right?

C (21:10)

That would probably be the case. Which is great news for, for anyone that is just looking to do experiments in space, looking to build their company. Right? Maybe not as good a news for, for lawyers, but there will be plenty of things for, for those of us in this, you know, profession to help with. I think it'd be hard to find a lawyer that does space regulatory work that won't tell you this is very needed and a great thing for our clients if this moves through. You know, when the government does something that makes life easier like this and still keeps public safety in mind and critical public goals in mind to ensure, you know, that we don't have spectrum interference or debris incidents, you know, everybody wins.

E (21:57)

That's awesome. Thanks for giving that overview, Matt. Yeah. So it sounds like there's a lot going on for 2026. We think space, nuclear and the, the new rules and the fcc, we think those are things that you should pay attention to if you're in the space industry.

C (22:12)

That's right.

E (22:13)

Well, thanks for joining me.

C (22:15)

Thank you as always.

A (22:29)

We will be right back. Welcome back. Our last story today comes from our it's definitely just science and nothing More desk. And it's about SpaceX's Starlink satellites. According to Michael Nichols, who is the vice president of starLink Engineering at SpaceX, about half of the Starlinks currently on orbit are going down, not all the way, just a bit, but over the course of this year, 4400 Starlink satellites will be dropping their altitude from the current 550km to 480km. And now I cannot help but wonder if there's more to this story. Somehow and time will indeed tell whether or not my tin foil hat is on a bit too tight. Nichols said that the explanation for this drop is perfectly simple. It's the sun, because we just, just finished experiencing a solar maximum. And that is the time when solar activity hits a peak on an approximately 11 year cycle. And that solar maximum was why we had so many aurora viewing opportunities over the past year or so. By the way, flip side of the maximum is the solar minimum, which we are now slowly heading towards over the next four years thereabouts. So when solar activity is high, our atmosphere toughens up. And when solar activity drops, our atmosphere becomes to a satellite essentially thinner and easier to move through, less drag for the satellites to fight against. So lowering a whole lot of the Starlink constellation kind of clears the air, makes those satellites stay up longer on orbit. And really I'm sure the move is for their own safety and for the safety of all the other satellites and definitely not for any other, hmm, golden domey kind of reason, I'm sure. Tinfoil hat on. And that is T minus brought to you by N2K CyberWire we'd love to know what you think of this podcast. Your feedback ensures we deliver the insights that keep you a senior step ahead in the rapidly changing space industry. If you like the show, please share a rating and review in your podcast app. Please also fill out the survey in the show notes or send an email to space2k.com we are proud that N2K Cyberwire is part of the daily routine of the most influential leaders and operators in the public and private sector. From the Fortune 500 to many of the world's preeminent intelligence and law enforcement agencies, N2K help help space and cybersecurity professionals grow, learn and stay informed. As the nexus for discovery and connection, we bring you the people, the technology and the ideas shaping the future of secure innovation. Learn how@n2k.com N2K Senior Producer is Alice Carruth. Our producer is Liz Stokes. We are mixed by Elliot Peltzman and Trey Hester with original music by Elliot Peltzman. Our Executive producer is Jennifer Ivan. Peter Kilby is our publisher and I am your host, Maria Varmazes. Thank you for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.

C (25:47)

T minus.